All institutions need to stay within their bounds
Unlike the National Assembly, the Senate is widely considered to be a much more sober house. It has a higher percentage of experts and better educated members. It is not known for fiery speeches and emotional outbursts. This makes people to pay more heed to the speeches made in the Senate. The issue under discussion on Wednesday in the house was that of institutional imbalance which the speakers maintained was a serious matter. That this should happen despite the constitution having defined the scope of every institution is worrisome. The neat division of power between the legislature, executive and judiciary is supposed to be enough for the smooth working of the system. Pakistan however still suffers from the aftereffects of the several military rules it has witnessed in its history. While the military rulers beat the constitution out of shape, they also damaged the national institutions. It goes to the credit of the previous government to bring the 1973 constitution back to its original shape while also introducing crucial amendments to make the electoral process fair and transparent and devising a method of the selection of the higher judiciary.
The issues raised in the Senate need serious attention. As Senator Farhatullah Babar put it respectfully though without mincing words, some of the judges were encroaching upon the domain of other state institutions. The senator gave three examples: the recent verdict on the schedule for presidential elections, direction to the government to get passed from the parliament a new law on Federal Service Tribunal in accordance with the SC’s directions and the earlier verdict expressing desire that the CJP be consulted in the appointment of chairman NAB. The SC’s verdict on the schedule for presidential elections was considered by the opposition as an undue interference in the mandate of the ECP. It was maintained that the verdict had weakened the recently empowered ECP. The CEC who had worked extremely hard despite his old age had to resign consequently. Many think that the court would help the NA stand on its feet by avoiding to act as its guardian. The appointment of the chairman NAB is a matter between the government and the opposition, though it doesn’t go to their credit that they have failed to initiate a meaningful talks on the issue. Why should there be a need to consult the CJP over the issue is beyond comprehension.
In order to promote efficiency and honesty, all institutions of the state need to be held accountable. The SC’s refusal to present its accounts before the public accounts committee of the National Assembly seems odd. So is its refusal to provide information about the number of suo motu cases or about the dual nationality-holder judges. Unless SC acts in a transparent manner, unnecessary and even baseless doubts and suspicions are likely to be created, sullying the apex court’s prestige. This must not be allowed to happen.
