Be vigilant, not political, PML(N) Vice-President Maryam Nawaz requested the Supreme Court the other day. There is a lot of context to this statement. Yes, the judiciary has a thankless job, being criticized across the political divides depending on the decisions it makes. It will never be considered impartial, that being an occupational hazard.
This time it is the PML(N) that has a bone to pick with the judiciary. The PTI’s recent violation of a decision by the Supreme Court regarding protests in Islamabad went unaddressed by the apex judiciary. Maybe he didn’t get word of our decision, said the Chief Justice, tearing asunder what most students are told their first day at law college regarding ignorance of the law being no excuse.
But what perhaps is more disturbing is an implied- and at times, clearly stated- openness the judiciary has to the idea of playing the role of a mediator between the government and the opposition. That is a troublesome area. The unprofessional role of our military establishment in the nation’s history is discussed most in political circles, as it should be. The judiciary’s role used to be discussed usually as a willing or unwilling accomplice to the military in their misadventures. But in the aftermath of the otherwise remarkable lawyers’ movement, there has been a rise in judicial activism, and that requires more study, analysis and ultimately, discouragement.
With a huge backlog of cases piling up at all tiers of the judiciary, perhaps it would serve the judiciary (and its image amongst the public) well to focus on those cases and reserve the suo motu initiatives to matters of fundamental human rights. What the latter are, yes, is subject to debate and, therefore, the mood of the court. But one expects for wise professional judges to be able to ascertain what those are. To realise that Parliament is supreme and the courts’ job is to only ensure that the laws that Parliament has passed, are enforced properly.
