Maryam Nawaz is on a roll again. This time, the PML-N vice president has lambasted the written order by none other than the country’s top judge. Disregarding Chief Justice of Pakistan Gulzar Ahmed for asking Supreme Court Justice Qazi Faez Isa for not hearing cases involving Prime Minister Imran Khan, Nawaz believes this development “is not good for the credibility and respect of the judiciary.” In a desperate attempt to raise her party profile as part of the ongoing election campaign, the leader pointed to completely different “decisions and…remarks” when it was her father’s turn to face the court. Whether the opposition parties are on the same frequency as the chief justice on Justice Isa’s case, it takes tremendous lack of wisdom to target the judiciary supremo. Already, deadly fires have been stoked on the domain of contempt of court. As per Article 5 of the constitution, judges are considered well above criticism. Particularly in ongoing court proceedings, such critique holds a very real threat of prejudicing a fair trial. Commenting on the CJP’s instructions to a Supreme Court judge, especially when the matter of upholding “the principle of un-biasness and impartiality,” is in question would produce nothing but controversies. Maryam’s inclination to not disturb the balance starkly contrasts with her party’s blatant criticism of Justice Azmat Saeed as part of the committee investigating the Broadsheet scandal. He was then said to not have headed the panel because he was an alleged part of the NAB when the asset recovery agreement was signed (a fact later dismissed as being far from the truth). How could the same political party object to Justice Isa not hearing petitions against the same person he had, in a personal capacity, filed an appeal again. Isn’t this a similar obstruction in the delivery of unquestionable justice? PML-N and judiciary in Pakistan have a very bitter and unreliable relationship. November 1997’s bitter memories when dozens upon dozens of PML-N’s supporters unleashed their fury on the Supreme Court building when the then chief justice was hearing a contempt case against Nawaz Sharif are not to be forgotten. Furthermore, a telephonic conversation between the then Ehtesab Commission Chairman Saifur Rehman (of Nawaz’s second tenure) and LHC judge Malik Abdul Qayyum was oft-highlighted by the PPP concerning Asif Ali Zardari’s accountability trial. The judge was under immense pressure to convict Zardari without delay. Where was the PML-N uproar when former chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry continued to pass verdicts (often siding with the Nawaz administration) even after his son Arsalan’s shady activities were laid bare before the country? Just because the judge had stood by Sharif’s return to Pakistani politics, his family’s long dalliance with powerful figures in exchange for his influence as well as key administrative posts was repeatedly swept under the rug. Even in recent times, his party leaders have repeatedly used all outlets available to voice their criticism of judicial activism in the wake of his ouster from the corridors of power. So much so that PML-N has gone to the extent of using the floor of parliament for its criticism (making use of Article 69 that bar courts from investigating parliamentary proceedings). Then again are the allegations regarding judges acting on bribes and open influence of intelligence agencies. No one should be allowed to make a mockery of the idea of justice. The judiciary deserves utmost respect even in countries that take pride in their championship of free speech. Tainting the judiciary is akin to tainting the rule of law–something for which no leeway should be given to whosoever. *