ISLAMABAD
The remarks passed in the last two days suggest that the Supreme Court, led by the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), is trying to revive its position before the May 9 violence, triggered by the arrest of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman.
The May 9 mayhem had even pushed those judges, who had tried hard to hold the elections to the Punjab Assembly on May 14, on the defensive.
Later, they had no choice but to show restraint in matters wherein confrontation between the judiciary and other institutions especially the parliament, executive, security establishment, etc, could have worsened.
Now it is being witnessed that CJP Umar Ata Bandial has listed petitions against the federal government’s formation of an inquiry commission, led by SC’s Justice Qazi Faez Isa, to investigate the audio leaks in relation to judges. While the hearing of the audio leaks commission case was underway, CJP Bandial wondered who had planted the audio leaks on social media.
The bench allowed Shoaib Shaheen, the lawyer for one of the petitioners, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Abid Zuberi, to present his arguments that the leaks were released on social media after the SC’s February 16 order wherein the CJP was requested to invoke his suo motu jurisdiction over the delay in elections to Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) assemblies.
The lawyer even criticised the “role” of the state institutions for “releasing” the audio leaks on social media.
Surprisingly, the members of the bench remained silent over his arguments.
The bench has reserved its decision on the federal government’s plea for the recusal of three judges, including the CJP, from the audio leaks commission case on account of a “conflict of interest”.
However, the CJP believes that the matter was about the independence of the judiciary and that the principle of the trichotomy of power was violated by not approaching his office to nominate the judge for the inquiry commission.
During the ongoing week, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) filed a review petition against the SC’s April 4 order to hold elections in Punjab on May 14. In the ECP case too, the CJP made certain remarks, which might irk the federal government. The bench wants to decide the commission’s review petition expeditiously. Likewise, the same bench has also taken up petitions against a new law, which has widened the scope of review in matters decided under Article 184-3 of the Constitution. The bench is reluctant to endorse this law in a similar manner.
A lawyer believes that it is the traditional view of the superior judiciary that it should show its supremacy over parliament when it comes to the exercising of its jurisdiction. The superior judiciary does not even allow parliament to regulate its jurisdiction.
The CJP is also visibly disturbed about the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) parties’ protest outside the SC premises. A debate has kicked off as to whether or not the CJP would be successful in compelling the government to hold the elections to all assemblies before his retirement. Lawyers believe that the PTI chief’s arrogance has wasted one section of the judiciary’s efforts to hold the general elections before September.
The deposed premier missed the chance when he refused to sit with a PDM committee for finding a middle way about the dissolution of the assemblies. The same section of the judiciary is facing several challenges now.
First, the ‘powerful circles’ are annoyed with these judges on account of their proceedings in the matter of elections. Secondly, the apex court is divided into two camps. The division within the institution is pretty obvious for everyone to see. There is a severe trust deficit among SC judges. CJP Bandial is continuing to include “like-minded” judges in benches hearing politically sensitive cases.
The leadership of the Professional Lawyers Group is fully backing the CJP in the prevailing situation. There are reports that members of the same group are considering starting a movement to support CJP Bandial so that he could ensure the elections before his retirement.
On the other hand, the Independent Lawyers Group is standing with the government. It also endorses the formation of the audio leaks commission led by Justice Isa.
However, both groups of lawyers agree that civilians must not be tried in military courts under the Army Act.
It is still debatable as to whether or not CJP Bandial and his “like-minded” judges will be successful in holding the elections before September.
It is also unclear whether or not the CJP will be able to protect the PTI chairperson from disqualification or conviction in any matter. This can only happen if he receives the support of all the SC judges — a development that appears to be unlikely in the near future.
