Whither jurisprudence?
The people of this country joined hands in defence of the judiciary hoping that independent judges would help enforce the rule of law and improve the judicial system mired by corruption and inordinate delays. What is more the judges were expected to ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to have been done. The hopes have not been fulfilled.
The judiciary has frequently lost balance. One extreme was reached under judicial tyrant CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry who made extensive use of the two once obscure legal tools: suo motu powers to investigate any issues of his choice, and contempt of court rules that bar the “scandalising” of the judiciary, which were used to silence critics. Going out of the way to take up populist causes added to Justice Chaudhry’s personal popularity, which proved to be no more than a bubble. However it distracted him from bringing about much needed judicial reforms. Soon after Justice Chaudhry, the incidence of exercising suo motu pwoers was at times in decline, at others quite frequent, depending on the inclinations of the particular CJ.
Iftikhar Chaudhry who treated lawyers as his constituency looked the other way as mischief mongers among the legal community attacked police, journalists, plaintiffs and then members of the lower judiciary. The malaise has become endemic, thanks to those who can stop it but are afraid to be unpopular.
It is not politicians alone who criticise the judiciary after losing cases as maintained by CJ Nisar while speaking at a seminar in Lahore yesterday. It is being claimed by eminent lawyers as well that jurisprudence has over the years become chaotic on account of double standards found in judgments. Extreme strictness in one case is followed by extreme laxity in another. Is it obligatory for a beneficiary owner to make a declaration of assets? One judgment says yes, the other says no. In one case a politician is disqualified on highly technical grounds. In another case recourse is taken to laxity.
When there is disparity in legal standards employed in highly politicised cases, the issue is bound to turn up one day in Parliament, leading to an unfortunate tussle between the two pillars of the state.