Another aspect of the judgment – by Asma Jahangir
Saturday 19th,Dec,2009.With Thanks.DAWN
The NRO case, Dr Mubashar Hasan and others versus the federation, has once again stirred a hornet’s nest.
There is thunderous applause for bringing the accused plunderers and criminals to justice and widespread speculation on the resignation of the president. Very little analysis is being done on the overall effect of the judgment itself.
While, the NRO can never be defended even on the plea of keeping the system intact, the Supreme Court judgment has wider political implications. It may not, in the long run, uproot corruption from Pakistan but will make the apex court highly controversial.
Witch-hunts, rather than the impartial administration of justice, will keep the public amused. The norms of justice will be judged by the level of humiliation meted out to the wrongdoers, rather than strengthening institutions capable of protecting the rights of the people.
There is no doubt that impunity for corruption and violence under the cover of politics and religion has demoralised the people, fragmented society and taken several lives. It needs to be addressed but through consistency, without applying different standards, and by scrupulously respecting the dichotomy of powers within statecraft. In this respect the fine lines of the judgment do not bode well.
The lawyers’ movement and indeed the judiciary itself has often lamented that the theory of separation of powers between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive has not been respected. The NRO judgment has disturbed the equilibrium by creating an imbalance in favour of the judiciary.
The judgment has also sanctified the constitutional provisions of a dictator that placed a sword over the heads of the parliamentarians. Moreover, it has used the principle of ‘closed and past transactions’ selectively.
It is not easy to comprehend the logic of the Supreme Court that in a previous judgment it went beyond its jurisdiction to grant life to ordinances — including the NRO — protected by Musharraf’s emergency to give an opportunity to parliament to enact them into law.
If the NRO was violative of fundamental rights and illegal ab initio, then whether the parliament enacted it or not it would have eventually been struck down. By affording parliament an opportunity to own up to the NRO appears to be a jeering gesture unbecoming of judicial propriety.
The NRO judgment has struck down the law also for being violative of Article 62(f), which requires a member of parliament to be, ‘Sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen’.
Hence, the bench will now judge the moral standing of parliamentarians on these stringent standards set by the notorious Zia regime. This article of the constitution has always been considered undemocratic and a tool to keep members of parliament insecure.
If parliamentarians, who also go through the rigorous test of contesting elections in the public domain, are to be subjected to such exacting moral standards then the scrutiny of judges should be higher still.
After all, judges are selected purely on the value of their integrity and skills. Judges who erred in the past seek understanding on the plea that they subsequently suffered and have made amends. Should others also not be given the same opportunity to turn over a new leaf? How will sagacity and non-profligate behaviour be judged?
Apart from Dr Mubashar Hasan, not even the petitioners of the NRO case are likely to pass the strenuous test laid down in Article 62 of the constitution. This could well beg the question whether it is wise for those in glass houses to be pelting stones.The judgment goes much further. It has assumed a monitoring rather than a supervisory role over NAB cases. In India, the supreme court directly interfered in the Gujarat massacre but it did not make monitoring cells within the superior courts.
Is it the function of the superior courts to sanctify the infamous NAB ordinance, the mechanism itself and to restructure it with people of their liking? It is true that the public has greater trust in the judiciary than in any other institution of the state, but that neither justifies encroachment on the powers of the executive or legislature nor does it assist in keeping an impartial image of the judiciary.
The long-term effects of the judgment could also be counter-productive; perpetrators are often viewed as victims if justice is not applied in an even-handed manner and if administered in undue haste with overwhelming zeal. It is therefore best to let the various intuitions of state take up their respective responsibilities because eventually it is the people who are the final arbiters of everyone’s performance.
kaut b kaala, moo b kaala, dil b kaaaaaaaala
wah ray CHEAP JUSTICE, buhat aala buhat aala
این آر او: فیصلے کے بعد کشیدگی کی فضا
اعجاز مہر
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام ، اسلام آباد
سپریم کورٹ نے سولہ دسمبر کو قومی مصالحتی آرڈیننس کو کالعدم قرار دیا تھا
قومی مصالحتی آرڈیننس یا این آر او کو غیر آئینی قرار دے کر اس کے تحت ختم کردہ تمام مقدمات بحال کرنے کے سپریم کورٹ کے حکم کے بعد بظاہر حکومت اور عدلیہ کے درمیاں کشیدگی کی فضا بن رہی ہے۔
سپریم کورٹ نے حکومت کو ہدایت کی ہے کہ قومی احتساب بیورو کے چیئرمین اور پراسیکیوٹرز کو تبدیل کریں کیونکہ انہوں نے عدلیہ سے تعاون نہیں کیا۔ ایک اور مقدمے میں طارق کھوسہ کو فیڈرل انویسٹیگیشن ایجنسی یعنی ایف آئی اے کا ڈائریکٹر جنرل لگانے کا حکم بھی دیا ہے۔
عدالت کے ایسی احکامات پر عاصمہ جہانگیر اور سابق چیف جسٹس سعید الزمان صدیقی سمیت بعض قانونی ماہرین کے جو ٹی وی چینلز پر تبصرے سامنے آئے ہیں، اس میں انہوں نے کہا ہے کہ عدلیہ اپنی حدود سے تجاوز کرتے ہوئے انتظامیہ کے معاملات میں مداخلت کر رہی ہے۔
این آر او کے بارے میں عدالتی فیصلے کے فوری بعد تو صدر آصف علی زرداری کی سُبکی ہوئی لیکن گزشتہ دو روز سے جو ماحول بن رہا ہے اور عدلیہ کی آزادی اور اختیارات کے بارے میں جو سوالات اٹھ رہے ہیں اس سے بظاہر این آر او کا فیصلہ عدلیہ کے گلے پڑ سکتا ہے۔
بقول عاصمہ جہانگیر کے کہ سپریم کورٹ کے چیف جسٹس نے تمام ججوں پر مشتمل بینچ بنا کر جو متفقہ فیصلہ دیا ہے وہ انصاف کے بنیادی اصولوں کے مطابق نہیں ہے کیونکہ ان کے بقول انہوں نے اپیل کی گنجائش ہی نہیں چھوڑی۔
بقول عاصمہ جہانگیر کے کہ سپریم کورٹ کے چیف جسٹس نے تمام ججوں پر مشتمل بینچ بنا کر جو متفقہ فیصلہ دیا ہے وہ انصاف کے بنیادی اصولوں کے مطابق نہیں ہے کیونکہ ان کے بقول انہوں نے اپیل کی گنجائش ہی نہیں چھوڑی۔
پیپلز پارٹی کے کارکن تو کہتے ہیں کہ این آر او کے تحت آٹھ ہزار سے زیادہ مقدمات ختم ہوئے لیکن عدالتی کارروائی کے دوران ججوں کے ریمارکس اور جاری کردہ حکم سے انہیں ایسا لگتا ہے کہ عدالت کا فوکس صدر آصف علی زرداری پر ہی رہا ہے۔ سینیٹ میں قائد ایوان نیئر بخاری سمیت اکثر رہنماؤں کا کہنا ہے کہ اربوں روپے قرضہ معاف کروانے، آئی ایس آئی کے ذریعے سیاستدانوں میں کروڑوں روپے تقسیم کرنے، کراچی میں وکلاء کو زندہ جلانے، بارہ مئی کے واقعات، سینکڑوں لاپتہ افراد کے مقدمات سمیت جو عوامی تشویش کے کیسز ہیں عدلیہ انہیں کیوں بھول گئی ہے؟
این آر او کے فیصلے کے بعد پیپلز پارٹی والے کہہ رہے ہیں کہ کیری لوگر بل کے معاملے سمیت پہلے جرنیل اور کچھ مخصوص صحافی ہاتھ دھو کر صدر آصف علی زرداری کے پیچھے پڑے اور ابھی ان کے ساتھ جج بھی شامل ہوگئے ہیں
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2009/12/091220_nro_gov_sc_zee.shtml
Zia-ul-Haq seems to be reincarnated in judiciary in Pakistan:
Pakistan court orders ears and noses to be cut off
A Pakistani court has ordered that two men have their ears and noses cut off, as punishment for doing the same to a woman who refused to marry one of them.
The two brothers were found guilty of kidnapping 20-year-old Fazeelat Bibi, one of their cousins, in September.
The judge in Lahore also sentenced them to life in prison.
Sentence was passed on Monday under a rarely invoked Islamic law dating from the 1980s. In the past similar sentences have been revoked on appeal.
‘Eye for an eye’
Government prosecutor Ehtisham Qadir said the punishment had been awarded in accordance with the Islamic principle of “an eye for an eye”.
Sher Mohammad and Amanat abducted Fazeelat Bibi as she returned home from work at a brick kiln in the Raiwind area of Lahore, the court heard.
“They put a noose around her neck, and then cut off her ears and nose,” Mr Qadir told the BBC.
Three alleged accomplices are still being sought by police.
The crime was committed after Fazeelat Bibi’s parents refused to give her hand in marriage to Sher Mohammad, Mr Qadir said.
Islamic laws were introduced in Pakistan during the military regime of General Ziaul Haq in the 1980s.
The BBC’s M Ilyas Khan in Islamabad says punishments prescribed under the laws have rarely been awarded, and never carried out.
Pakistani human rights activists have long campaigned for more to be done to stop attacks against women, which often include facial disfigurement.
However, they also disagree with the type of punishment handed out in Lahore, correspondents say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8425820.stm