- And golden rule of judges speaking only through their verdicts
The ongoing tension between the PML-N leadership and the Supreme Court has the potential of developing into a confrontation between the judiciary and the executive, which has to be prevented. The SC is currently hearing a set of petitions challenging the Elections Act 2017 which allows a disqualified Nawaz Sharif to head the PML-N and perform functions that include allotting party tickets for the Senate and National Assembly. The verdict on the petitions will determine the legality of the Act. Once it is delivered everyone is expected to accept it irrespective of their reservations.
No litigant is happy when an adverse judgment is passed against them. The party which suffers as a consequence of the judgment must not be provided the slightest excuse to question the partiality of the court This is difficult when the judges feel that the defence is advancing arguments which they consider frivolous but the higher the court, the greater the responsibility to be seen completely neutral and unprejudiced. What is more the court’s verdict should not only be just but also widely seen to be so. This is all the more necessary when hearing cases against politicians with large following. A recourse to strong words or a slight hint of anger during the court proceedings is likely to be used by some to propagate that they were innocent but had been sentenced on account of extra-legal considerations. The danger increases when the judges speak too much. What is more the explanation is likely to be accepted by their admirers. Despite the court’s judgment the offender’s hold on his followers remains unshaken.
The courts constitute a pillar of the state which must not be weakened by anyone, least of all by important politicians, through unguarded remarks. This is precisely not happening in the case of Nawaz Sharif. It is the height of duplicity to praise the judges for sentencing their political opponents but cast aspersions on them when they reject the argument given by one’s counsel.
Who and how will anyone ‘prevent’ the present biased confrontation between the Judiciary and the corrupt poli-tics ( blood sucking politicians). The Editorial objects to ‘too much talk’ by the Judges but sometimes they have to, outside the Courts to justify verdict/action and right. It depends who has how much morality (sharafat) to accept the verdict – even if against. PTI has graciously accepted the results of their defeat in recent elections but few or none accepts easily in this polluted political atmosphere. The behavior of Sharifs at the moment is like ” jahan satyanas wahan sawa-satyanas”.
Thank you Mr Sarfraz Ahmed. You have said it. One of the most despicable trend Sharifs have left for people is self-preservation and this you see everywhere. Your Editorial is no exception.
Comments are closed.