For a better understanding of the Supreme Court's verdict, following its suo motu hearing of Karachi's unremitting violence and lawlessness, one should not forget that the court's proceedings were essentially inquisitorial, in that it has analysed and shed light on the gravity of the situation and suggested the way forward. It embodies the apex court's observations as to wherefrom and how the twin-menace of violence and lawlessness rises, what steps are mandatory on the part of the provincial and federal government to combat and curb it, and how the court would like to monitor compliance with its directions as spelt out in the order.
The court hasn't charged the criminals nor delivered an adverse judgement. No doubt, it is a daunting task the apex court expects the government to undertake, as is the stupendous sea change it expects in the public perception of its constitutional responsibility to act as the ultimate guardian of peoples' rights. The political stakeholders in the affairs of the mega-city have reacted differently, as they seem to have read the 159-page verdict in the coloured light of their 'roles' and 'contributions' to the pain and agony of the ordinary citizenry.
Their response is largely laconic because of their unfounded expectations from the court's suo motu hearing and their lack of understanding of the rationale behind the apex court's intervention. The court did what it could, without in any way interfering with the work and jurisdictions of other organs of state. In that the hearing, held at the very heart of the battlefield, succeeded in lessening the pain of the people by reining in the monster of violence, it does prove the point that restoring peace and tranquillity in this city of 20 million people is possible and quite an achievable task should the concerned authorities act in line with their call of duty unaffected by the political patronage.
The Supreme Court's verdict is divided into three main parts, each of it embodying an independent, standalone perspective and some directions. The one, overarching in its call and directed at the public at large, is the court's harkening to the people of Pakistan that they are the real rulers and guardians of the state and its institutions. And that under the Constitution, as specifically spelt out in the chapter Fundamental Rights and Principles of Policy, they have to ensure that the various organs of state work, don't transgress and that they remain within the confines of law. So in a way, the court expects the people to see that its verdict in this case is implemented in letter and in spirit.
In the second part, the apex court has made certain observations about the functioning of the provincial and federal government, failed as they have in protecting the lives and properties of the people. That these governments acted, or did not act, in accordance with their duty, the court has provided ample evidence. Likewise, the court also noted how various political parties and groups are involved in criminal activities, ranging from targeted killings to extortionist pursuits to land-grabbing. But should these nefarious activities earn them disqualification that the court says is for the government to decide.
That the army should be called in to control the law and order situation the court says that is for the provincial government to decide. Surely, certain quarters are disappointed over the court's decision not to seek disqualification of some political parties, but then that doesn't fall in the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
But where the Supreme Court has firmly put its foot down is the duty of the government functionaries who, according to its perceptions, shaped as these are on the basis of information, presented in documentary form or orally presented during the suo motu hearing - as willing tools of their political masters largely failed. Since Karachi police happens to have earned top position in this category, the court has underscored the imperative of de-politicising the police force. How a reformed police force would act in co-operation with the Rangers to ensure law and order, particularly elimination of no-go areas and a thoroughly deweaponised Karachi, the Sindh High Court has been tasked to do the periodic monitoring.
At the same time, the country's political leaderships have been asked to shun militancy by "denouncing criminal elements from their ranks." Should they resist, they would be running afoul of the constitutional requirement to keep the democratic process free of street violence and forced shutter-downs. In sum, the Supreme Court has lobbed the ball into the Executive's court. How the federal and provincial governments play the ball would be closely monitored by the court and in case of lapses of inaction, intentional or inadvertent, the people would know, and are expected to react in line with their role as the ultimate custodians of Pakistan. The Supreme Court could do only as much. But it's a good beginning, indeed.