A glimpse of true face of Pakistani Judiciary, shame is the word: In democracy, opinions evolve, and people can change their views with time. This has happened with a lot of ideological and revolutionary personalities. However, problem of the judiciary in Pakistan is much deeper. A culture of justice was destroyed through systematic plans and actions, over the decades. The Supreme Court judges of today are shameless people. I was tempted to say that they have double standards, but, then I realized that for having double standards one has to know and understand things. It is a bunch of yesmen. who have an obsession of self-righteousness. I am saying it based on my personal experience. I had observed the judiciary for a long time for various reasons. On April 1, 2013, I saw a line repeated shown on a tv channel in Pakistan in which one of the judges, during an open hearing of a case involving the government said the role of the Supreme Court is to protect the interests of the State. In other words to favour the state. This judge is named Mr Justice Saqib Nisar (form Lahore) who, if I am not mistaken, is a PCO judge. I had a 35 years old case before Pakistani judiciary.The case involved fundamental rights and trade unions rights..not mine...but of others. I had supported the arrested PTV unions leaders and set up a special union fund to follow their cases before the High Court and support their families. I lost my job. Initial judgement of the Lahore High Court was in my favour. Then, there is a long shameful story. But, that is not my grievance at all. In the second round of the litigation, three judges of the Supreme Court recorded a short order disposing of the appeal (which was filed against a High Court order in my favour), on the ground that the parties have agreed to the disposal with consent as had been proposed by the Court yesterday (i.e only a day earlier). I, in Paris, had no clue of what was going one. I was never informed of any proposal made by the Court and I never gave my consent to any disposal with agreement . One day period is not sufficent to communiate the information from Pakistan to France and enable a party to make a fully thought-out decision.My view presented twice in writing (once in the form of a forced affidavit) was that the case should be decided on the basis of law. The statutory rule was clearly in my favour, and there was absolutely no room for doubt and no margin for interpretation. Still, I said, If the Court does not agree with my argument, no problem at all. The case can be decided against me, and I wont complain. But, these legal dwarfs were bent on showing that were in fact doing me a favour by granting some thing like (5 percent of what was provided by the Statute). The judge named above, had earlier been sitting on the bench that heard my case. He, alongwith some other judges, had earlier passed an order forcing me to disclose details of my private life. They did so despite the fact that that told them in writing and amply quoted the law, the Constitution, the case law and international law and treaties, about the principles of fair trial. But, they were clearly bent upon favouring the other side (a government corporation) and used their powers to obtain information at the second appeal stage to force me to become a witness against myself. In the forced affidavit I told them they had taken oath to decide cases in accordance with law and the Constitution. They were free to decide as they wanted. But they could no power to force me do some thing that the law does not require me to, and that they were doing it in order to destroy my defence in the appeal against me, and in order to favour the government-supported party. It is a basic rule that a judge is free to decide the case as he deems fit. But, no judge in the world has to make written lies and say that a party had agreed to the proposal formed by court, while that party, a poor person is five thousand kilometres away and has no idea what the proposal was. In fact, it is the policy of the Supreme Court under Mr Iftikhar Ahmed Chaudry to dispose of the cases, un large numbers, through short orders, instead of deciding them in accordance with law. While doing so, they pretend that they are protecting the rights of the citizens. While, in fact, they do the opposite. Mr Saqib Nisar openly stated the philosopy of the Court i.e. to protect the interests of the State in all circumstance. They do not even know that the fundamental principle on which the rule of law and modern state is based is that the State is subject to the law and not above it. This is what John Locke wrote in 1688. I apologise for the personal reference. But, I do believe that an effective and powerful judiciary is necessary for the State and the Society....it is a sine qua none of democracy. The present members, (though may have some personal virtues) are incompetent and dishonest thugs. They do not even know the wrongs they are doing in the name of the law, and they threatened to use the power and dangerous weapon of contempt of court, may be 100 times in a day! (Baber Zaman)
Posted on: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:10:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015