Public meetings are not courts

Sir: Judges represent the collective will of the people. The people give their verdict through the judiciary, not in public meetings. Every clever leader can get decisions in his favour in a public meeting. The same mob can support quite opposite stances of politicians. So this method of exploiting a charged mob is not acceptable in democracy. It is wrong who sever does it.

This is a pressure tactic by politicians. No true leader would resort to this. The Quaid a Azam never did so. He believed in the supremacy of law and put in a legal struggle although the law of those days did not have the consent of the Indian Muslims. The lesson that he taught is that LAW is supreme.

The verdict of the judges is never based on their personal whims and prejudices. Hence the sanctity of their decisions. It is immaterial whether the number of judges is one or two or five. They are the custodians of law and they represent the entire population of the country. A few thousand people in a public meeting don’t have the authority to change or reject even a civil judge’s decision. Indra Ghandhi appeared many times in the court of a civil judge.

Anybody who tries to belittle the judiciary, in fact, misleads the people. People are the fountain of power which is exercised by their representatives but supervised by the judiciary. A law passed by 300 law-makers can be squashed by the judges if it is found to be against the constitution. So the constitution is superior to every other thing.

Everything can’t be left at the mercy of MPA’s or MNA’s alone. They can often be a very undependable lot. They are often motivated by their personal and party interests. Some of them can be men of very low character. They can even be involved in criminal activities. Therefore a strong system of checks and balances is a pre-condition of democracy.

Prof Muzaffar Bokohari


Published in Daily Times, September 23rd 2018.