Not merely an abstract idea
After forty years of serving as a judge, I still ponder and reflect as to whether our judiciary is truly independent or not.
Sixty five years back, the nation became independent and these past sixty five years it has spent in knowing as to whether the judiciary has become independent or not. Kindly tell me as to who had to remain in the doldrums throughout this age long period; the nation or the judiciary.
Two and a half year back, I was accorded a full court reference on the eve of my timely retirement from the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Allow me to repeat, at least, what the memory retains.
I had said that despite the fact that the term “independence of judiciary” is a jewel in the crown of the constitution, yet it is a misnomer. The independence, in fact and in practice, is referable not to the abstract idea but to the judges who constitute the judiciary. If judges are independent, honest, fair, God fearing and blessed with judicial approach toward the lis pending before them, the judiciary is bound to be independent. If the judges are dependent, dishonest, unfair, boss fearing and infected with a whimsical approach towards every lis that they come across, the judiciary is not independent, rather permit me to say that such like is not a judiciary at all.
Mostly, the independence of judiciary is referred to becoming independent of the dictates of the government. No doubt this is one of the requirements but not the absolute in itself. The past experience from various countries and even from Pakistan has shown that apart from the government, effective influence can be exercised by the politicians and the media. To achieve independence, judges have to defend themselves on all the fronts which, by now, has become much more difficult.
Lord Denning, a famous judge of England, when asked as to what might be the qualities of a good judge, replied tersely; “Above all, a good judge must be a thorough gentleman and if he know a bit of law, all the better.” This small sentence provides the complete context. Gentility cannot be acquired by becoming a judge. It is something inherent in your personality. It is the outcome of your background. Who you are? How your parents brought you up? What type of education you received? What type of atmosphere surrounded you when you were in the process of learning, perceiving and conceptualising? What teachings you received about religion, morality, fair play and fellow beings? Judges are necessarily influenced in the decisions they make, by their upbringing and experience. To make this assessment is the job of those who are shouldered with the responsibility of selecting the judges. You can look around everywhere and nationwide. Only a gentleman would prove to be an independent judge.
Judges shall always be expected to administer a patient hearing to the parties. It is in their interest. They shall grasp the law as well as facts. With the passage of time, they shall know who is a good and genuine lawyer and who merely wants to exploit his slogans of “Zinda Baad and Murda Baad”.
A good and patient hearing would inculcate a habit of nurturing a judicial approach. A judicial officer is not expected to approach the court with any preconceived notions. An open mind, which is very rare, a judicial unconcern, nonexistent in many people, constitute the virtues that make independent judges. Kindly look around and then judge as to who constitutes the independent judiciary and who does not. Judge not that ye be not judged. Don’t speak in the court and don’t make remarks that entail upon expression of opinion. If media reporting is correct, we know of numerous speaker judges who decide the case on the first day of hearing, without hearing. By doing so, they often make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are publically identified and overruled by courts of appeal, with all the powers to substitute mistakes of their own.
When a judge makes remarks in the court, relevant or irrelevant but mostly irrelevant, most of the people interested take a message and start exploiting either the judge or the situation. In high profile cases involving the government and the politicians, as the case may be, they endeavour to grind their axe to the maximum. The only person defamed, disrespected and distrusted in such scenario is judge and judge alone. After all judges of independent judiciary have no agenda of their own.
Judges are expected to do justice in accordance with law, and not by making law. For centuries, English judges deceived each other in to thinking that they really applied the law made by parliament, that their job was only to interpret law and not to make law or give law. Once Lord Denning gave a dissenting judgment on which judge Simon got really annoyed. Take a note of how he described the dissenting opinion. He said and I quote, “It was a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise of interpretation.” The naked usurpation does not indicate independence. I am referring to the British and American judiciary—but how and why do you think that I am not referring to them?
Judges are expected not to cultivate bias and prejudices in cases they hear. These are base characteristics of human nature. High judicial status immunises men and women from childlike displays of petulance and prejudice. An independent judiciary does not have judges with bias, petulance and prejudices.
Judges are expected to have a deep sense and feeling of self-respect. Judges who have no self-respect, create numerous gods for themselves, some visible and some invisible. They share their files with parties to the litigation. Worst part of the tragedy is that when such matters surface, they do not feel insulted. A gentleman is expected to react when it comes to self-respect. Judges of independent judiciary do not act in a manner that consequents upon their own insult, unless they are bent upon achieving some target of their own. So, they ought to be strong without being rude and be polite without being weak. Do not be weak like a judge who disappointed President Roosevelt of the United States and forced him to make remarks about judge Oliver Wendel Homes of the Supreme Court. He said and I quote, “I could carve out of a banana a judge with more backbone than that of Oliver Wendel Homes”. Independent judges have genuine backbones of their own.
Judges are not expected to speak unnecessarily in court. It is not the bounden duty of a judge to make comments on every topic even if alien to his comprehension. The more detached a judicial comment is from contemporary ideas and ideals, the more extensive the consequent publicity. Some judges have achieved a considerable degree of expertise in making such statements and in displaying immunity from contemporary knowledge and concerns.
Too often judges do not own up to their need for continuing education. They frequently compound their reluctance to recognise their non-expertise with a readiness to express themselves in court on all type of subjects about which they know little or nothing, in terms derived neither from the common law nor from common sense.
It is a sine qua non to have judicial approach in every lis that comes up for adjudication and to maintain a balance between crime and punishment. A judge at Ipswich Crown Court, England, who lacked judicial approach and a sense of balance between crime and punishment, imposed fine on a rapist rather than sentencing him to prison, after finding that his teenage victim, who had innocently accepted a lift in his car, was “guilty of a great deal of contributory negligence”.
As for the important aspect of corruption among judges, the lesser said the better it is, because a corrupt judge is not a judge at all, much less, independent. Better it is to be a broker.
In a humble expression, I conclude my submissions as to what type of a judge one ought to be. Such judges make an independent judiciary. You can conclude accordingly. In the last six years, what I have been able to conclude is that only bars have become independent.
I, for one, have serious reservations about the manner and mode of selection of judges in the superior judiciary. With the passage of time it will make judges subservient to not one but many governmental as well as political entities. The earlier mode of selection, very well known to all of you, was more honourable as well as independent. The misuse of the earlier mode by some of the people concerned has probably forced the legislature to adopt the new course. Someday, it is seriously going to hamper the independence of judiciary.
In the given context, amongst the civil judges, the district and session judges, the members of the bar who are aspiring to become judges and, above all, my brothers in the superior judiciary, if only one soul agrees to what I have submitted, I believe the purpose of making such submissions, has been well served.
The writer is a former justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
Very nice sir. Alas this foolish nation only loves drama judges( headline and speech makers) rather than justices of your caliber.
What a marvellous piece from the judge. Heart warming to read words of sanity coming from a judge these days. Made my morning. My response to your balanced yet coded message to judiciary of all sorts is that you absolutely got it right. Being in the supreme court for the last 6 years means you saw it all since 2006 to 2012. You know the ins and outs, the political alignments and personal agendas judges can have. I concede that I've known your name for the first time despite being a judge of SC, thanks to the selective information disseminated by our media.
most of the judgements now-a-days are politically effected and not independent. Judiciary now a days seldom take independent decisions.
At last Sir you have rightly pointed to the fact that Judgements fromr Supreme Court are hence biased and corrupt as are our politicians. It would have be far better if you would have used "Ch* Iftikhar" instead of "Judges".
Why can't Chaudhry Iftikhar understand that he has made too many enemies for himself and his family, and funny part is that he will not be a Chief Justice for whole of his life.
Let me first congratulate you on this excellent artricle. I was not aware of the fact that people of your calibre existed in Pakistan –the land of the pure. I agree with all your observations but how many of your colleagues are gentlemen–you forget the ladies!
You very correctly mention the continuation for search of knowledge. How many judges take a sabbatical year off to improve their interptretion of law? Could you kindly advise your colleagues to avoid media–sometimes they remind me of movie stars rather than judges. Some of the leading advocates fall into the same category. Thank you for making my day. There is hope in Pakistan after all.
Thank you Sir, for such an eye-opener…..thank you.You should be a VC of law university, if there is one in Pakistan, we could learn a lot from you.
Sir, what are the contributing factors which are responsible for the quality of people we have in judiciary ?
Justice Sardar Raza Khan has summed up the present situation by writing that,
"If the judges are dependent, dishonest, unfair, boss fearing and infected with a whimsical approach towards every lis that they come across, the judiciary is not independent, rather permit me to say that such like is not a judiciary at all".
Today there is only one judge, rest are followers and does not apply their judicial mind due to fear of the boss.
A remarkable column. Very well written and a true reflection of the state of judiciary in our country.
which idiot ordered mnp to be stopped?
excellent sir…You are a gentleman.
Excellent writing A copy should be officially posted to every judge to read 100 times before sitting over next session. But we humans are imperfect. In Pakistan we have made imperfection our national sport.
An excellent article on the functioning of judiciary. If only the judges could restrain themselves from expressing their opinions during the course of hearing of cases. They have plenty of time to avail of that opportunity in their judgments. They are supposed to be neutral and Neutrality demands that keep quiet
Sir your excellent article only lends credulence to the long held belief of "buying of judges" Though i don't live in Pakistan but i often hear it all over amongst pakistani diaspora.
Despite my admiration for your courageous article which must have sent some shivers down the spine of your colleagues why did it take so long to write this masterly opinion of your profession.? Please continue with indirect examples.
Do they have spines?
If judiciary is independent ,then why my case of dispensation of my services in P.I.A with Martial law Regulation No.52 in 1981 is not solved in apites of my various petitions.Will I get re-instatement after my death? why it is so late and ignored till now? Perhaps due to lack of political links.wealth or some other resources for which i am not aware.I can`t say that JUDICIARY IS INDEPENDENT.
I am sorry I don't agree on many things. All examples quoted belong to foreign lands. They are good to cite but not always applicable to our circumstances! They may be ideal but we are far from ideal! Is Mr Zardari or Raja Pervaiz Ashraf as capable and committed to their people and the rule of law as David Cameron is? Let us not talk of ideals as we are a long way from it! When space is created by inapt governments and leaders then that space is filled by others. Justice Iftekhar and his brother judges may not be ideal judges but they are the best at the moment. With all due respect justice Raza himself also does not measure to the standard he is judging other judges to!
Judges are not supposed to meausred as better than others. A judge must be an unbiased person who gives judgement above his liking & disliking and political affiliations. There is no doubt that some decions made by S.C against the govt. are very good and appreciable but tilt of C.J and his subordinate judges towards Shareef Brothers is not hidden. I shall believe that this judiciary is realy independent if they open the cases gainst PML-N. It can not be anticipated as C.J is very cleverly giving his full favor to Sharif brothers. He gives decions only to provide strength to PML-N.
He must also call Fasial Raza Abdi in the court to charge him for cotempt of court.
INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY !!!!! NEVER NEVER NOT EVEN USA UK ETC ETC — JUDGES PROMOTED –APPOINTED BY POLITICIANS — JUDGES SERVANTS OF RICH POWERFUL GROUPS IN EVERY COUNTRY — MORE SO IN PAKISTAN WHERE CJ CHAUDHARY WONNA BE NEXT PREZ MAY 2013 !!!!!! CJ CHAUDHARY IS A JUDICIAL TERROR TERRORIST GOONDAA –LOOK AT ALL HIS JUDGEMENTSS AND CORRUPTIONS –THATS WHY GEN MUSHARAF DISMISSED CHAUDHARY CORRUPT GOONDAA ….LONG LIVE GEN MUSHARAF !!!! GEN MUSHARAF WHO ALSO DISMISSED CORRUPT ISI CHIEF HAMID GUL AND PAKISTANI HIGH COMMISIONER UK AKBAR AHMED ANATHER CORRUPT GOONDAA –HAMDGUL AND AKBAR AHMED -BOTHCORRUPT NIGHTCLUBBERS WITH CORRUPT FIRANGIGULAM IMRANKHAN NIAZI WHO WAS REFUSED ANY GOVT BY GEN MUSHARAF !!!! Bravo gen musharaf !!!
@SACH HAQ. For the first time I agree with you that Musharraf was a better ruler than any of the present day politicians. Since this is the first sensible thing you have ever said, I will not abuse you for the next few hours 🙂
A robber can be a Robin Hood providing for the poor but will still be a robber. So was Musharraf , without being A Robin Hood.
If you are such a believer in the truth then write with your real name…loser! Have the decency to speak like a decent human being!
NARAZ WHATS UR Real name ?? my name is SACH** MHMD. HAQ .. NOW FOCUS ON THE ISSUE .. IF U R CAPABLE OF THAT .. U R THE LOSER ..PITY
This section was going great till these gents ruined it with their childish $%^$%^
As we all know that person is judge by his words he speaks and i come up to the conclusion after reading his article ..that he possessed a strong moral values .Sir we all really need a person and a judge like you…no doubt you are a gentlemen. Allah bless you.
An exellent article
Great Article sir..Much much appreciated..A voice that shud have been raised and heard earlier.
a great article……. should have come in days before retirement not after the retirement….. he has pointed out basic moral rules that a judge should follow… and i guess he must be told these moralities in the time his/her appointment…
Thank you Sir, for such an eye-opener.
This is a great article coming from a Pakistani judge finally to tell the current Judges that to be quite and dispense unbiased judegements.Their publicity requirement is ruining the whole system and public is sick of them
No doubt this is a remarkable analysis fo a judge who serve his nation as a judge for almost forty years with honesty and dignity, I am quite agree wit u sir but u should consult Quran and Khilafat examples as reference because if a man is not loyal to his creater and not follower to laws then how can he becomes a judle. U may define the gentlemen in the light of imortals laws of th Creater Al Mighty Allah and He is the best judge and will give decision of each person on the day of JUDGEMENT.
My Lord,
Your article desrves
Your article reminds me of the great authorities from the West as Ronald Dworkin Sweeney and Greene. A most apt honest and much needed appraisal. The Supreme Court will always resonate with your lordship’s judgment and your approach to the thorny issues, from which you kept aloof. Heartiest Congratulations on this article
Comments are closed.