Pakistan’s judicial history is a treasure trove of astonishing decisions, extraordinary narratives and unmatched tales of judicial creativity, starting with Chief Justice Muhammad Munir right up to Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa. Even the most brilliant legal minds struggle to pinpoint the crown jewel of this dubious legacy.
While there is no dearth of contentious figures in the judiciary, Justice Athar Minallah deserves special mention for his tendency to deliver remarks that blur the line between judicial probity and sheer absurdity.
His remark during the hearing of Nawaz Sharif’s bail appeal for medical treatment abroad left legal professionals and the public at large totally aghast, as it seemed less about law and more about personal whims. He not only disgraced himself but also undermined the judiciary’s credibility.
As discussed in previous articles, in late 2019, Nawaz Sharif, the thrice dismissed Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on charges of corruption, had petitioned the Islamabad High Court (IHC) for bail and permission to seek medical treatment abroad, citing serious health concerns.
At the time, Sharif was serving a sentence in the Al-Azizia Steel Mills case, a corruption case that stemmed from the Panama Papers revelations.
His legal team argued that his health had deteriorated significantly, making urgent treatment abroad necessary as they claimed, local facilities were inadequate.
Minallah who was then serving as Chief Justice of IHC, led a two-member bench to hear the case.
It was expected and rightly so that the judiciary’s role should be to interpret the law
During the proceedings, he hit banner headlines when he remarked that the government “guarantees that Nawaz Sharif will live until the next hearing.”
In simple terms, he demanded that the government assure the court that it would not let Azrael (Angel of Death) approach Sharif till the next hearing. Disgusting!
Blinded by his eagerness to shield a convict, Minallah took a page from Justice Khosa’s book – disregarding not just a Hadith that emphasized justice for all, regardless of status and gender, but also displaying a breathtaking defiance of the Quranic decree on death.
In his audacious demand, he positioned himself against the divine command that death was pre-destined and inescapable. It arrives at its appointed time, no matter where one hides – even in the tallest of towers:
“Wherever you may be, death will overtake you, even if you should be within towers of lofty construction…” (Surah An-Nisa, 4:78)
The idea of seeking a guarantee for a mortal’s survival until a particular time was, to say the least, legally, religiously, and practically untenable. Such a Satanic demand could have come only from a Pakistani judge!
Minallah’s preposterous remark reflected his misplaced concern over a hardened criminal’s health and the urgency of his medical condition. It was meant to pressure the government to expedite decisions on Sharif’s treatment.
Quite naturally, this placed the government in a difficult position. On the other hand, this also prompted public debate about judicial overreach in cases of high-profile criminals.
Minallah’s remarks were criticized as judicial overreach, blurring the lines between judicial and executive authority. It was felt that the judiciary was pressuring the government into a position that was neither feasible nor within the typical scope of judicial mandates.
It was expected and rightly so that the judiciary’s role should be to interpret the law rather than impose impractical demands that hold the government accountable for unpredictable medical outcomes.
However, supporters of Justice Minallah’s stance saw his demand as an expression of judicial compassion, emphasizing the right to health and humane treatment for even those convicted of crimes.
For them, the comment underscored the importance of respecting the dignity and well-being of all individuals, including prisoners. In this view, the statement served as a call to prioritize humanity and empathy in judicial proceedings.
Nonetheless, the view that prevailed was that the judiciary was sympathetic to Sharif, or at least overly concerned, ensuring that his case was treated with utmost urgency and full sympathy.
Minallah’s comment reconfirmed the perception that high-profile cases in Pakistan were often treated with greater urgency and flexibility. It acknowledged a double standard for elite convicts, implying that influential figures received judicial leniency, unavailable to ordinary citizens. It exposed the judiciary’s contempt for judicial boundaries and disregard for across-the-board accountability.
To conclude, Justice Minallah’s demand that the government guarantee Nawaz Sharif’s survival until the next court hearing will likely be remembered as one of the most bizarre and contentious remarks ever made from the bench in Pakistan’s judicial history.
Given his astounding arrogance, this backdrop set the stage for yet another extraordinary and, arguably, more ludicrous episode, in which he co-starred with Supreme Court Chief Justice, Umar Ata Bandial.
(To be continued)
The author is a former diplomat, based in Canberra and can be reached at khizar_niazi @hotmail.com