- Justice Isa says nothing his learned brothers would not
Normally, a judge is supposed to speak only though his judgements. However, it is supposed to be quite proper for a judge to speak at such occasions as the conference on ‘Law. Judicial Intervention and Social Change, with a special focus on Labour Law.’ Therefore, by delivering the keynote address to that conference on Saturday, Mr Justice Qazi Faez Isa of the Supreme Court was doing nothing unusual. However, because he is the subject of a reference filed to the Supreme Judicial Council, where the federal government is seeking his removal, the address received more attention than usual. Those who might have expected Mr Justice Isa to yield to the temptation of attempting a defence of himself, would be disappointed.
However, what he did say would occasion interest. His remarks on press freedom, which he said did not exist, for example, implied a criticism of the government. It was unexceptionable to call violations of press freedom, or attempts to censor the press by such means as withholding advertisements, getting journalists fired or stopping programmes being broadcast, unconstitutional. It was also unexceptionable to say that the judiciary was the organ responsible for stopping individuals or institutions from transgressing fundamental rights. He stopped short of criticising the judiciary itself for the legitimation it provided to the military for its direct takeovers starting from 1958 onwards that would be the most relevant reference that could be discerned.
Mr Justice Isa’s saying that democracy meant the prevention of injustice was also orthodox enough, though something of a challenge these days, when democracy itself is getting such a bad press. He did not spare the judiciary though either, quoting the example of the withholding taxes on mobile phone cards, on which the ban had cost the exchequer about Rs 100 billion, which had been imposed because of a suo motu notice. He noted that the notice was to be taken only on a matter involving a fundamental right, and that tax collection was found not to be a fundamental right. Of particular relevance at this juncture was his warming that suppression benefited the enemy. This should warn the government that only national unity could act as a deterrent against the enemy, and national unity could not be achieved without ensuring that everyone felt that his or her fundamental rights are protected.
