The government is using delaying tactics in implementing dozens of verdicts of the Supreme Court in high-profile cases, mostly involving corruption, whereas the apex court is determined to get its decisions implemented in letter and spirit, even if it has to invoke Article 190 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has time and again hinted at the existence of Article 190, which states that “All executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court”.
According to noted lawyers, if government does not implement the verdicts and the court invokes Article 190, it would have a negative impact not only on the government but also on the whole country; therefore, the government should implement all the decisions in the best interest of the country, as non-implementation would lead to anarchy.
It is interesting to note that the government accepts the court orders in the courtroom, but shuns them outside the premises. It reserves the right to file review petitions against the court orders if it considers them wrong, otherwise, it should implement the verdicts in letter and spirit.
However, it has been seen in many cases, like the NRO, that the government does not oppose the plea during the proceedings, but after a verdict is issued, it files a review plea, which raises various questions. Legal experts believe that the Supreme Court is showing extreme restraint by allowing more and more time to the government; however, they are of the view that it should also give some more space to the government, as issuance of orders to the executive on daily basis may create disturbance.
They said if executive does not avoid confrontation with the judiciary, a third force could take benefit of the situation, which would cause an irreparable loss to the country. They believe that some hidden elements as well as legal advisers to the executive are trying to create misunderstandings between the institutions to take advantage of the situation for point scoring. Analysts say in view of the ongoing row between the executive and judiciary, the lawyers community should act responsibly and the bars should behave logically rather than acting emotionally. Besides, the legal fraternity should not become a party and play its role for the independence of the judiciary and rule of law. They believe that the judiciary is doing its job independently and without any bias and it cannot be brought under pressure by tactics that are presently being used, including delirious acts and statements by some ministers.
“If Supreme Court verdicts are not implemented, it would tantamount to disobedience, which means breakdown of law and order, leading to anarchy and the law of the jungle”, they noted.
In anarchy, they said, the law of the jungle comes into effect and whoever is powerful takes over. It is evident from the history that when the state organs fail and there is a failure at the political front, other forces take over.
Commenting on the role of the incumbent judiciary, noted jurist Fakhruddin G Ebrahim said the judiciary was performing very well. He said the judiciary would keep calm and balance and bear no pressure as the judges were independent minded.
According to Ebrahim, non-implementation of Supreme Court decisions by executive did not mean that the movement to restore judges will go wasted, as the courts would create and retain its moral authority, while the judges would keep on saying what is right or wrong.
To a question, he said per Article 190, judicial decisions had to be implemented by the government. “In a civilised world, court decisions are automatically carried out by the government but personal interests are taking precedent over all others in Pakistan.”
Replying to another query, senior advocate Tariq Mahmood said non-implementation of court verdicts could force the apex court to invoke Article 190. He said judicial restraint should be exercised, but it must be the order of the day and not order of the command, adding that the organs of the state were collapsing and someone had to intervene to stop the state from failing.
He said something had to be done by any wing of the state and the judiciary was a respected and recognised constitutional wing of the state.
Meanwhile, some legal circles suggest that the apex court should assert authority to get its decisions implemented because corruption by the rulers was at its peak and flouting the court decisions has become a matter of pride for them.
They opine that anarchy may overtake if public lose confidence in the apex court or the government continues corruption, while people live a miserable life. They suggest that the only remedy to save the country is that the judiciary must get firm on getting its decisions implemented. They believe that implementation on court decisions is vital to deal with the serious situation the country is experiencing.
They are of the view that extreme judicial restraints and leniency to the government for the sake of protecting nascent democracy will lead to chaos and anarchy and a day will come when a layman would also not follow SC decision and directives.
