Aspects of justice system and intervention

The second hearing of the larger bench of interference in the judiciary has also been completed. Everyone can give their opinion regarding the hearing. But no final decision has come yet. It is therefore difficult to form any opinion. It remains to be seen what direction the hearing will take. However, the hearing so far is also quite interesting.

The opinion of some judges has also come out that strict action should be taken by turning a blind eye to the complaints of judges of Islamabad High Court. For them, it is not necessary to determine whether they are telling the truth or not. Their complaint is the proof of their truth. Therefore, we should close our eyes and start action against the sensitive institutions of the country.

However, after the Islamabad High Courts, other High Courts of the country have also given suggestions regarding stopping interference in the judiciary. These suggestions should also come before the nation. So that the nation can also know what kind of thinking the judges of our high courts have regarding stopping interference in the judiciary. If these proposals come forward, feedback can be given about them. According to the news that has come so far, the judges of the High Courts have endorsed the letter of the judges of the Islamabad High Court and have expressed solidarity with them in this matter. However, in place of support and solidarity, what suggestions have been made to resolve the issue? This is more important.

It is also true that the High Courts have the same powers as the Supreme Court to prevent interference in the Judiciary. A High Court judge also has the same powers to stay interference as a Supreme Court judge. High Courts can also do what the Supreme Court is trying to do. What the Supreme Court has taken on the letter, the Islamabad High Court could have taken the same suo motu. The suggestions given by the Lahore High Court.

The Lahore High Court itself could have executed them. Therefore, it is not the case that the Supreme Court has any special powers to prevent interference with the judiciary which the High Courts do not have and the Supreme Court can pass orders which the High Courts cannot. Therefore, the judges of the Islamabad High Courts writing a letter to the Supreme Court means that they did not want to do this themselves. They put the debris on the Supreme Court.

By the way, I also think that there is a confrontation going on between the judiciary and the establishment. But why is that? In my opinion, what is being talked about as interference in the Judiciary has no involvement of ordinary citizens of Pakistan. There is no intervention for the cases of common man of Pakistan.

If the judiciary of Pakistan cannot give justice to the common man, then there is no fault of the establishment and there is no issue of interference in this regard. can The judiciary will have to bear the responsibility of the state of affairs of the judiciary somewhere. As far as I understand, the dispute between the judiciary and the establishment is over a few cases of Tehreek-e-Insaaf.

To put it more simply, there is a dispute over the preferential treatment of the May 9 accused. The way the accused of May 9 got relief from the Islamabad High Court, perhaps the establishment does not consider it legitimate. As the GHQ attackers got relief, the establishment is angry about it and the establishment does not consider it legitimate. It is a simple matter, the way Shehryar Afridi was given bail, the discussion has started on it. The way the Judiciary and especially the Islamabad High Court has given relief to a few political people after May 9 was not right with the establishment.

According to the establishment, the suspects of May 9th do not deserve any discount. According to the judiciary, there is no such thing. Except for Tehreek-e-Insaf cases, there was no talk of “interference” in other cases. I also think that extraordinary “justice” has been given to Tehreek-e-Insaf by the judiciary.

Courts have been opened at night and justice has been given. Courts are not opened at night for me and you. According to the philosophy of law, justice does not meet the scales of uniform justice. It is extraordinary justice. If a political party thinks that the justice of the judiciary has been different in its cases and now the standard of justice for its rival political party is different. So it will also be called extraordinary justice. If one party is not getting bail and the other is getting it at night, it will not be called equal justice.

For the common man, no DC is punished for contempt of court, but if it is given to a certain political party and the accused of May 9, then there will be a question. If we are against the interference of the army in politics, we are also against the interference of judges in politics. If the standard of judiciary is different for one politician and the standard is different for another politician, then it should also be considered as interference in politics. Whether the intervention is in the form of a like-minded bench, in the form of a monitoring judge, in the form of opening courts at night and giving bail, intervention is intervention.

Interference has also taken place in the form of extra-constitutional decisions. For a political player, decisions that violate the constitution are also interference. Therefore, all forms of interference must stop. There should be an accountability mechanism in terms of punishing someone and giving relief to someone in similar cases.