It was going to be a historic decision but it turned out to be a disappointment. The majority could not break away from its tradition of being timid, lame, and uninspiring. Though all honourable judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan were convinced that the nation had been cheated by its current rulers, but they differed in their opinions on the way forward. Two of them wanted to make an example of the culprit; the other three sought greater details before parting with their most valued verdict. Justice had once again been delayed. If justice delayed is justice denied, the people of Pakistan have indeed never seen justice in real sense. The accused had been given yet another lease of life. The results are obvious: a gleeful party, broad grins on the lackeys’ faces, sweets galore, the princess calling the Panama Leaks a ‘crap’, and uncle Jindal joining the celebrations in Murree where he was not supposed to be. The social media reaction was revolting, rude, impudent and scornful. Among those who reacted to the verdict was the ex-chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. He demanded the premier’s resignation. If he was in such a situation, he would have sent the prime minister packing without as much as batting an eyelid. Even in his most ugly moments, Chaudhry was free and fearless. And we have other such CJs to commemorate as well. Take the examples of Chief Justices A.R. Cornelius and Sajjad Ali Shah. Cornelius had refused to attend Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s dinner and Sajjad Ali Shah’s term in office had witnessed an attack on the Supreme Court building by enraged PML-N goons. Among SC justices, one can recall Justice Rustam Kiyani who had the courage to take a dig on the most feared tyrant of his day, governor Amir Muhammad Khan. The rest is a tale full of woes and regrets. The first Chief Justice, Muhammad Munir, was also the first to bring ultimate disgrace to the Apex court. In the historic Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan’s case, he had shamefully sided with an unelected governor general, Ghulam Muhammad, against an elected PM, Muhammad Ali Bogra. The latter’s only fault was that he had presented a draft constitution seeking establishment of parliamentary democracy of the Westminster-type — a system of governance preferred by the founding father. The draft had naturally contained only ceremonial powers for the governor general. The then CJ’s second act also smacked of the same courtier’s mentality when he advised General Ayub Khan to dismiss from office the president, Iskander Mirza, because ‘in martial; Law regimes the role of the president becomes redundant’. The court made an exhibition of itself when it indicted Ayub Khan after his death and Yahya Khan after he had already been deposed. The court’s frequent recourse to the so-called ‘Law of Necessity’ and its role in the ‘judicial murder’ of an elected prime minister are also quite well known. Our society at large and our custodians of justice have failed to realise that even a slight insensitivity in dispensation of justice has multifarious ramifications far beyond that particular case. Sadly, the nation fails to notice injustice until it involves our persons. Injustice exaggerates class differences, causes disgruntlement, nurtures impatience and anger, and, if perpetrated repeatedly, leads to violence. It compels people to shun legal recourse and seek revenge privately. It spreads despair and helplessness among the weak and encourages the powerful to commit excesses at will. It can eventually cause havoc to a society’s value system and destroy the entire social fabric. Where is the solution? In a democratic system, the solution to such problems should lie with the Parliament — the political leadership of the country. But all stakeholders — the executive, the bureaucracy, the military and the courts — have remained suspicious of the politicians’ ability in leading the nation on their own. The history is our witness. Our sad experimentation with various forms of governments, going back and forth from the presidential to the parliamentary system, interspersed with half-cooked innovations, has finally landed us with dynastic politics. The contenders of these dynasties are unfortunately solely concerned with gaining and retaining power by hook or by crook. They beg foreign power brokers and raise provincial slogans at the cost of national honour and unity. So who can stop them short of going absolutely berserk? The military naively thought it could deliver. The most recent edition of military rule is a sad commentary on its medalling with the political process. The military solution results in small gains in the short-term but comes with big losses in the long term. The solution to our woes has to be legal, constitutional and self-sustaining, and it lies in the rule of law. The judiciary needs to ensure this. Thus, it should come with a heavy hand on all those who break the law. It is the only institution that can weed out corruption, make the whole legal system — including law enforcement agencies — effective and independent. If the judiciary is successful in achieving this, everything pertaining to governance will start falling in place. Rule of law and a sense of justice and fair play marks the difference between progressive and regressive societies. The people in North America and Europe are as prone to be unruly as the people of the Subcontinent. The only difference is presence of swift and effective accountability in the former instance. The writer has served the Pakistan Army as a major general