Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa made a lasting impression on his first day in office by requiring the live broadcast of all court hearings relevant to petitions that contest the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure)
Act of 2023. This pivotal action in Pakistan's judicial history has the ability to fundamentally alter the organization.
The introduction of live streaming has clearly increased the general public's access to court hearings, but it also has the ability to influence public perceptions of the higher courts. Now that the case is being litigated live on television, it is possible to see the differences in the judges' perspectives on important constitutional issues. This has given the general people a unique and engrossing opportunity to observe these legal proceedings in real-time.
It is still unclear to what extent live broadcasts improve the accountability of the judicial system. However, the simple fact that there are cameras in the courtroom and judges are aware they are being watched by the public makes them more accountable and open to criticism.
It's important to note that Pakistan is not the first country to webcast supreme court hearings live; other others, notably India, regularly do so when discussing important constitutional issues. Videos of judicial hearings have even been posted online in some countries. This new approach has lifted the veil of secrecy that had hitherto surrounding apex court hearings in Pakistan.
Rebuilding public confidence in the judiciary's top echelons will be a big challenge for the newly appointed chief justice. Due to the alleged engagement in political bias and judicial populism, this confidence has been severely damaged. Judges and legal professionals are divided as a result of the top court's increasing involvement in the nation's turbulent power struggle.
The supreme court's unwarranted engagement in political issues, which should ideally be handled by the legislature, has substantially impacted its contentious reputation and strengthened the general opinion that it is politically biased. The court's internal conflict grew worse as judges openly engaged in heated arguments. The court faced a difficult situation because it was basically split in half.
The division inside the court grew worse when several justices questioned the former chief justice's authority and demanded an end to what they saw as a "one-man show." The rift within the institution widened as a result of the arguments' public escalation.
The essential task of restoring the supreme court's integrity and ending the divisiveness that has afflicted it falls to the incoming chief justice as he takes office. This procedure is crucial for restoring public confidence in the institution and guaranteeing its efficiency in preserving the rule of law and justice.
It therefore came as no surprise that Chief Justice Isa decided to handle the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act problem on his very first day in office, a substantial source of discontent that had led to divisions among the top judiciary. Even before it was put into effect, an eight-member bench had already halted this Act, which limits the chief justice's power.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan's aggressive endeavor to undermine the parliament's undeniable constitutional authority to legislate was described as this preventive step in a National Assembly resolution. Institutional conflicts were aggravated by this. The internal tensions within the court itself were also exacerbated by the bench makeup that was handling the petition. Concerns about the concentration of power in the office of the chief justice when it comes to taking suo motu notice and creating benches have been voiced for a long time by both legal professionals and judges themselves. While there may be disagreements about whether parliamentary legislation or the apex court should be used to amend these laws, the legislative power of parliament is still unquestioned.
Before proceeding with other constitutional cases, the senior-most puisne judge at the time—who is now the chief justice—had insisted on a full court hearing regarding the petition. He made it plain that until this issue was handled, he would not take part in any benches. It is believed that his decision to call a full court hearing on a crucial issue involving the chief justice's authority demonstrates his conviction that the nation's top court must become more democratic.
The court is clearly split between two factions as the hearings on these petitions continue: the constitutionalists, led by Justice Isa, and those who want to maintain the chief justice's authority. Despite the discrepancies in these viewpoints, the ultimate verdict made will open the door for altering the apex court's workings.
The new chief justice is under pressure to take action on the subject of political detainees being tried in military courts because he is a well-known champion of the supremacy of the Constitution and a fervent supporter of human rights. up 100 PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) supporters have reportedly been handed up to military authorities for prosecution under the Army Act, according to media sources. In addition, it has been reported that thousands of more political activists, including women, are being detained under anti-terrorism laws without being officially charged.
Civilians being tried in military courts is a practice that Chief Justice Isa has vehemently opposed in the past. The contentious changes introduced to the Army Act have given intelligence and law enforcement organizations broad authority, enabling them to hold people without official charges. This law is already being used against political inmates, despite the fact that the president's approval to its passage is still up for debate.
Likewise, legislators are now being charged under the revised Official Secrets Act, which has generated its fair share of controversy. It is quite upsetting to see the former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi being led into court while being handcuffed. Under this harsh law, even the former prime minister Imran Khan is being tried in secret for the so-called cipher issue. Applying the Official Secrets Act to a topic that has been widely discussed in public forums, particularly when it involves former public officials, is absurd.
Chief Justice Isa has a heavy burden to carry in protecting the nation against the spread of authoritarianism and the infringement of human rights as the custodian of the judicial system. There is a serious threat to the principles of democracy and the Constitution. It will be interesting to watch if this principled judge can live up to the high standards expected of him in these trying times.
Asadullah Sarmad
No comments:
Post a Comment