Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s judicial conduct has long been questioned for his apparent soft corner for the Sharifs. But if his perceived leniency towards them was concerning, his open hostility towards PTI and its leader, Imran Khan, has been more disturbing.
Most notable amongst his “subjective” decisions against Khan was revocation of PTI’s electoral symbol, the cricket bat.
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) revoked PTI’s electoral symbol, citing the party’s failure to conduct intra-party elections as mandated by the Elections Act of 2017. This decision was subsequently upheld by a Supreme Court bench, led by Isa.
This ruling required PTI candidates to contest elections as independents, significantly affecting their electoral strategy and logical consequences.
While the ECP’s decision and its endorsement by the Supreme Court is said to have a legal foundation in the Elections Act, 2017, these rulings sparked off significant debate.
Critics argued that the ECP’s decision was unlawful, contending that the Commission overstepped its authority and the punishment was discriminatory, disproportionate and detrimental to democratic principles.
They asserted that the denial of an electoral symbol impeded democratic participation of voters, especially in a country with significant illiteracy rates. Legal experts described the ruling as a “huge blow to fundamental rights” and a “defeat for democratic norms.”
Besides, under Isa’s leadership, there have been frequent delays in processing bail applications for Imran Khan and other PTI leaders. These delays have been perceived as deliberate efforts to entangle PTI members in legal challenges, confirming concerns about judicial impartiality.
Chief Justice Aamer Farooq of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) is yet another judge, facing similar allegations of succumbing to establishment’s intervention and going after political figures, being hounded by it.
The IHC’s verdicts, under Farooq’s leadership, are perceived as sympathetic to controversial policies that restricted civil liberties, especially in areas like freedom of speech and assembly.
This pattern of judicial activism against Khan stands in stark contrast to the judiciary’s extraordinary leniency toward Sharifs.
Farooq has been criticized for not fully investigating allegations of abuses, such as enforced disappearances and extra-judicial detentions.
One of the most damming allegations against Farooq is that Imran Khan’s arrest within the IHC premises on 9 May 2023, instantly validated by him, was orchestrated at the Establishment’s behest to incite public unrest.
Farooq ruled that Khan’s arrest was conducted in accordance with legal procedures. But the Supreme Court intervened through a suo moto notice, declared the arrest unlawful and ordered Khan’s immediate release, effectively overruling Farooq’s validation.
It was alleged that the manner and location of Khan’s arrest were designed to provoke public outrage.
These claims posit that the subsequent unrest provided a pretext for a crackdown on Khan’s political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
Generally speaking, judges in Pakistan have arrogated to themselves the right to interpret the law on a case-by-case basis, rather than relying on precedents. They feel free to disallow citing of any decision, including their own, as a precedent.
This reflects a nuanced stance, whereby they espouse the law’s flexibility in every sense of the word. Which gives them the license to interpret the law in politically-sensitive cases between civilians, according to their personal whims; and, decide the high-stake constitutional cases, involving the omnipotent, under the Doctrine of Necessity.
This blatant double standard underscores the selective application of justice, where the system is weaponized against some, while serving as a shield for others.
The judicial conduct of Isa and Farooq brazenly manifested this mindset.
Isa’s remarks, court room demeanor, rulings, decisions, and his relentless pursuit of cases, aimed at undermining Khan’s political standing, suggest a personal vendetta rather than an impartial application of the law.
Farooq, likewise, displayed a pattern of hostility in handling cases related to Khan, ensuring adverse rulings that weakened his legal and political position.
Ironically, their judicial overreach has not been subtle – it has been a systematic effort to sideline Khan, blatantly demonstrating a level of bias, unbefitting of their esteemed positions.
This pattern of judicial activism against Khan stands in stark contrast to the judiciary’s extraordinary leniency toward Sharifs.
The judiciary bent over backward to usher Nawaz to safety, relying on manipulated medical reports that were never substantiated with credible evidence, to rulings that defied legal precedents.
This brings us to graphic details of how the judiciary’s favoritism reached new heights in this case, thereby writing yet another chapter on Pakistan’s compromised judiciary.
(To be continued)
The writer is a former diplomat, based in Canberra and can be reached at khizar_niazi @hotmail.com