EDITORIAL: The disqualification of former AJK prime minister Sardar Tanveer Ilyas has opened yet another can of worms with political as well as legal communities squarely divided on the issue.
Clearly, most observers, especially within the judiciary, expected him to walk away with nothing more than a rap on the knuckles.
But considering that most politicians of his ilk, and especially his party, have made a habit of badmouthing both courts and judges to gain cheap political capital and then duly tendering unconditional apologies whenever the courts call them out for it, perhaps the AJK high court decided to set a precedent, within the confines of the law of course, that would strongly discourage such antics in the future.
There’s also the fact that unlike previous high-profile contempt of court rulings against notable politicians, including a sitting PM of the country, Sardar Ilyas seemed to harbour the feeling even sub judice matters were also fair game as he accused the courts of overstepping their boundaries, blurring the lines separating institutional power and intervening in the affairs of the executive branch.
Or, maybe there is really some truth in suspicions doing the rounds in Islamabad that this decision is just the precursor to similar rulings expected from the top court in the capital.
It’s no longer a secret, after all, that some very senior parts of the judiciary might not have been entirely honourable in their handling of certain extremely sensitive matters relating to the functioning of the state. And now that such things are spilling out into the open, it helps nobody that the political noise surrounding these issues is so high, which is why it must be brought down.
Things will become clearer when his appeal in the AJK Supreme Court is decided upon. At the very least, it is the duty of the superior judiciary to clearly lay down and define lines that cannot be crossed, especially when seemingly similar cases can and do have extremely different outcomes and the legal fraternity is found deliberating upon the fine points of the constitution more often than senior politicians.
Traditionally, judgements were up for all sorts of comments and analyses but the people who wrote them were not. But the new normal is that even the senior most judges of superior courts are routinely dragged into public discourse, including the chief justice himself, and all sorts of accusations are heaped on them, their conduct, as well as their rulings.
There’s also been an instance of a former prime minister personally threatening a judge with dire consequences once he regained power. Surely, new lines need to be drawn urgently.
The most likely reason for the former AJK premier’s troubles is that, like most leaders in his party, he got too used to making controversial comments to stay relevant in PTI’s hierarchy.
This is another disturbing trend that has been firmly entrenched in the country’s body politic over the last few years.
The need to substantiate arguments, especially allegations, with proof is no longer a concern; just ruffling feathers and stoking controversy is. And in that sense, Sardar Ilyas only got what was coming for him, no matter how divided the legal community appears to be after the decision.
Since we are talking about the black and white of the law, let’s not forget that in the legal system as we have it, it is for the courts themselves to decide what constitutes contempt.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.