Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr Justice Umar Ata Bandial has remarked that people’s problems can only be solved by the people’s decision, which would be music to the ears of Pakistan Tehrik Insaf supporters, who have been demanding fresh elections ever since Imran Khan, who headed its government, was ousted as PM last April. Chief Justice Bandial made these remarks while heading a three-member bench hearing Mr Khan’s case against the NAB law amendments passed by Parliament. Chief Justice Bandial said that the ‘current Parliament has been left unfinished. As a result, there is growing controversy surrounding the laws being debated in the present parliament.” Though this is not a final judgement, it might well indicate the direction in which Chief Justice Bandial is leaning. However, it also does seem to cross the line between the legislature and the executive, with the judiciary not interfering in the actions of the legislature. Chief Justice Bandial does not seem to be taking account of why the Parliament could be looked on as incomplete. Those are resignations by the PTI to protest the ouster of its government. Those resignations were in the process of being accepted and by-elections held to ensure that those constituencies where members resigned, got representation in the National Assembly. The judiciary, in the shape of the Lahore High Court, restored members who had resigned, but for whose constituencies by-elections had not been announced.
The judiciary has hardly covered itself in glory, ever since Maulvi Tamizuddin’s case. It sided with the military over the decades, upholding all the martial laws it imposed from Dosso’s case legitimizing Ayub to Zafar Ali Shah’s case legitimizing Musharraf. More recently, the Supreme Court under Chief Justices Asif Saeed Khosa and Saqib Nisar made judgements which weakened Parliament, as it did under Chief Justice Bandial himself, when it more or less reinterpreted the Constitution and unseated the MPAs who had voted against the PTI.
Chief Justice Bandial should stick to the touchstone of the Constitution when interpreting the law, and should keep in mind that while political parties are swayed by the emotions of the moment in how they react to judicial decisions, those decisions last forever, and may be quoted centuries later. Cleverness might be desirable in a lawyer when arguing for a client, but a judge must stick to what the law says. He has a heavy responsibility, which he should fulfill carefully.
