EDITORIAL: The judges speak through their judgements, but what led Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial to speak about the correctness or ‘moral authority’ of the apex court’s verdict that the elections to the Punjab Assembly be held on May 14 was an exception, but well merited and very much timely.
Speaking at a conference held in Lahore last week on the rights of minorities, he stoutly defended the court order (issued with a majority of 3 to 2) that fixed May 14 as the day for elections, he said there was no escape from this constitutional mandate that polls to a dissolved assembly be held within 90 days. “When it comes to constitutional enforcement, we must not blink our eyes.
If it says not later than 90 days for holding elections, it is our duty to say that and not our choice, instead of finding reasons why we should avoid saying that”. But to this compulsive constitutional mandate there is an exception — and that is if there is a plea for review of the judgement. The review can justify diversion — you may call it the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ — but there was no such call, leaving the May 14 date for election as the Supreme Court’s verdict.
In his words, “it may not be implemented today, but it will last to the test of time, and shall be implemented tomorrow”. Obliquely hinting at the Tehreek-e-Insaf’s plan to conduct pro-CJP Bandial campaign, the Chief Justice of Pakistan asked the party not to say that it supports him. “I am just one of the members of the Supreme Court. You must support the Supreme Court if you stand up for the law and the Constitution and not for any individual”. He also dissociated himself from the PDM-PTI parleys to fix a date for elections, and that is no more in the field.
Given the occasion to pay tribute to late Justice Alvin Robert Cornelius, CJP Bandial talked at length about the rights of minorities as guaranteed by the Constitution. And these rights, he said, are very much in line with what is ordained in the Holy Quran, and Islam doesn’t appreciate sectarianism. Citing a few verses of Holy Quran, he said leave these differences to God, and you don’t have to be violent or aggressive. When two provinces banned the Jamaat-i-Islami during President Gen Ayub’s reign, Justice Cornelius lifted the ban, saying it was a matter of basic human rights.
But are we sure we have the judges in various sections of judiciary in any way close to be what Justice Cornelius was? His life is an example for the judges — as he retired having been judge of the Supreme Court for 17 years he had no assets in the country. But that was in the past; today the judges of superior courts are being accused of amassing wealth and getting richer by the day while the number of cases pending in the courts mounts by the hour.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023