Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr Justice Fez Isa, headed the bench which began hearing of the review petitions against the judgement, which he had authored, on the Faizabad dharna case. The case dates back to 2017, and he had found that the various intelligence agencies were interfering in politics, specifically by backing the dharna organizers, the Tehrik Labbaik Pakistan, against the government, and had recommended that action be taken against officers responsible, A number of review petitions were filed, but were kept unheard. Because of this, the judgement was kept unimplemented. It would have suited those who would have faced cases to have the review petitions left unheard. Instead of hearing them, there was an attempt by the PTI government to have Mr Justice Isa removed from the Supreme Court through the Supreme Judicial Council, which failed, leaving Mr Justice Isa to become Chief Justice, and thus able to determine which case shall be fixed for hearing. His remark on the opening day, that if the judgement had been implemented, the country would have been spared much of what it had gone through, was significant.
The refusal of the Court to accept the applications for withdrawals, with the learned Chief Justice remarking that they had filed the review petitions on prompting, and were now withdrawing them on prompting from the same people, indicates that the Court does not want to get rid of the matter, but give implementation to the judgement. That makes sense from the point of view of upholding the writ of the state, and of the Supreme Court, which is one of its organs. The refusal to obey the Supreme Court then, it can be argued, led to later disobedience, in the ECP refusing to hold elections when ordered.
The Supreme Court is refusing to let go, and has adjourned the case to November 1. It has become clear that the case and its review petitions, have become key to the course of future politics, for if the judgement is implemented, the assurance of impunity held out to those functioning as ‘political fixers’ would become dubious. It is to be seen how far the Supreme Court can go.
