It is axiomatic that justice delayed is justice denied; however, it is equally true that justice hurried is justice buried. The provision of speedy yet qualitative and evenhanded justice is one of the bedrocks of an Islamic state in particular, and for modern-day democracy in general.
A legal/judicial system in which a petty land dispute or a trial of daylight murder takes decades to decide -with no guarantee of the dispensation of a fair and impartial adjudication — is symptomatic of a decaying society, where the rich and the powerful can ‘buy’ justice at will, whilst the poor and the hapless are left to fend for their own selves.
Such has been the situation of the judicial system in Pakistan ever since its birth, with no signs of any concerted effort on the part of any of the stakeholders to turn the tide. While the Bar (lawyers) and Bench (courts) engage themselves in internecine warfare all too often, the legislators and the government on the other hand have been totally oblivious to the role they can play to improve the judicial system in the country.
The current imbroglio between the Bar and the Bench has put the decimating English Civil War, fought between the Armies of the Royalists and Parliamentarians, to shame. Whilst the head of a Bar Association contemptuously refuses to obey the ‘royal’ fiat of an increasingly assertive High Court, only the poor litigants will suffer.
Instead of lending one’s support to one side or other in this unpleasant fracas, and without discussing the merits or demerits of either side, the need of the hour is first to come to an amicable settlement between the two important wheels of this judicial chariot: because in a heated environment like this, logic and reasonare often the first causalities. In this regard, the apology presented by the Bar leader before the Supreme Court, and the High Court’s abstinence from hearing the matter till the verdict of the Supreme Court, must be welcomed. However, if long-term changes are not brought about in this regard, such obnoxious incidents are bound to repeat.
Starting from the appointment of Judges, of either the lower or the higher judiciary, it is incumbent that — apart from evaluating technical knowledge and legal experience — the candidate ought to begauged for temperamental tendencies as well. The behavior of the judges, especially of the higher judiciary, is all the more wanting in this regard: with the young lawyers often being the unwilling victims. Such behaviour is understandable given the Judges’ focus on quick disposal of cases, which hardly leaves any room for an opportunity of hearing to a lawyer, unless he happens to be a Hamid Khan or Aitzaz Ahsan.
The lack of proper legal education and training, coupled with a lack of accountability, breeds what the media call wuklagardi
Further, some Honourable Judges have a penchant for asking unwanted and irrelevant questions too early, thus disturbing the flow of the arguments of the lawyers, notwithstanding the lack of training of the lawyers in this respect. Ishfaq Ahmed, the renowned spiritualist and writer, had rightly stated that it is not solely the technical knowledge, but the behavior of a person in position,that makes him a great person. The genesis of the current tussle between the Bar and Bench can thus be explained: that a judge of mediocre legal acumen could be the best dispenser of justice if he decides to listen rather than argue himself.
The Bar, on its behalf, has also chosen to neglect its duties. With hardly any focus on regulating and training the disciplines of law to bring them up-to-date with international standards under a regime of impractical self-accountability, the present deterioration of this once prestigious profession seems plausible. Given the current corrosion of the society as a whole — with lawyers being a subset of it — it would be too much to ask if we expect an elected leader of the Bar to hold the lawyers constituting his vote bank accountable. The lack of proper legal education and training, coupled with lack of accountability, breeds what our brothers in media call ‘wuklagardi’. If stringent conditions can be imposed on parliamentarians, the Bar representatives should not be an exception. The hooliganism of some rowdy elements of the Bar in the present scuffle can, therefore, also be explained.
Similarly, parliamentarians and the executive are colluding to maintain the status quo and their hold on the reins of power, with no time for improving the lives of citizens or the country’s legal system. The government has chosen to facilitate the ongoing onslaught on the Supreme Court from the ex-Prime Minister as well as his abortive effort to divide the lawyers’ community by orchestrating his loyalist lawyers, consisting mostly of the law officers of government departments, against the august court.
Instead, the government ought to prioritise the social welfare of its citizens, ie, the provision of free and quality education, equal employment opportunities, impeccable health facilities, and other basic necessities of the modern-day life, like uninterrupted power supply, along with transportation, communication and tourism facilities. Such an egalitarian society — not one that solely focuses on building bridges, roads and underpasses — engenders not only the traits of tolerance and respect for each other at a national level, but also would lead to lesser cases in litigation. Similarly, the legislature — instead of facilitating the amendment in the law that disqualified the ex-Prime Minister — should consider amending and relaxing the procedural intricacies that exist in the pursuit of elusive justice in this country.
Winston Churchill had rightly stated during the World War II that if the courts were working, nothing could go wrong in his country. With all that is going wrong in Pakistan; including destruction of the social fabric and family structure, financial and economic crises, deterioration of the law and order and, above all, the international isolation of Pakistan, can be explained through the rotting judicial system that has been allowed to prevail in the country for too long now.
The writer is an advocate of High Court. He can be reached at [email protected]. He tweets @naumanqaiser
Published in Daily Times, September 12th 2017.