Being a commoner, I wouldn’t know if a letter of concern to an editor can be misinterpreted to the extent of being dragged into the context of contempt of court, but it is strange how the judiciary likes to keep retired judges’ privileges secret. Now, that the matter about former CJ Chaudhry is sub judice is fair enough, but why the court registrar’s obsession with keeping judges’ privileges so secret? Surely if a retired high court judge is advanced privileges beyond his station, it becomes public knowledge. And why be cross about the government demanding details of judges’ allowances and privileges? Why must those mandated with safeguarding the law be above the law themselves?
News is a nifty thing and Pakistanis are very emotional people. When the former CJ made the headlines – for his defiance, of course – everybody was willing to hop onto the bandwagon, for obvious reasons. In the so called struggle to uphold rule of law, his story made many fellow judges famous, and rich, allegedly. Now if they have come under the microscope for other reasons, why do they fear letting people know what exactly their long careers of upholding the law end up taxing the common man? Surely what is mandated under the law can be shared with taxpayers.
And such logic should, of course, apply across the board. The usual refrain from lawyers obsessed with siding with community big-wigs, no matter how unreasonable they can become, is that ‘others’, especially khakis, indulge in similar secrecy, not to mention similar excesses. Now isn’t that a fine argument, considering it comes from the legal profession?
IMTIAZ KHAN
Dubai, UAE
Where are my previous comments.
Comments are closed.