- And the need for balance
The frequency of the suo motu actions taken by CJ Saqib Nisar reminds one of the tenure of former CJ Iftikhar Chaudhary. Within less than a week of having been raised to the high office, the incumbent CJ issued two suo motu notices. He never looked back after that. At one point he issued three notices on a single day.
Judicial activism is a double-edged sword. It is understandable in a country ruled by unresponsive administrations which fail to provide some of the most basic needs to their community like safe drinking water, quality education and adequate health facilities. What is more these administrations tend to leave the people at the mercy of the high and mighty with political connections. This being the election year and parties in power at the center and provinces keen to publicise their achievements, some of the politicians have accused the SC of infringing upon their turf. It is argued that the political system needs time to grow much the same way as courts themselves needed time to develop and establish their independence. While this might be called a self-serving argument, it is by no means baseless.
It is also argued that over-indulgence in judicial activism takes away the attention of the court from its basic tasks, one of these being the much needed improvement of the judicial system. It is rightly maintained that corruption remains endemic at the lower levels of judiciary, justice is both costly and delayed and a section of lawyers’ community is becoming increasingly lawless. These issues could not be resolved during the sufficiently long tenure of CJ Iftikhar and would continue to persist under the present CJ if the SC remains engrossed in judicial activism. There is a lesson for the politicians also. In case they create a vacuum by their inaction, it is bound to be filled by non-elected bodies. There is a moral for the judges too. If they do not confine their pronouncements to their verdicts, they are likely to face embarrassments, the latest example being the reaction to the so called “sexist remarks” by the CJ.