For the last few days, the pro-PDM circles, especially the PML-N workers, writers and social media activists have been loudly mentioning a term “judicial establishment”. By this they mean the Chief Justice of Pakistan and perhaps a few judges of the Supreme Court and likewise some judges of the High Courts.
The ruling coalition believes that these judges are supporting the PTI and giving them unnecessary relief. In this regard, some conspiracy theories are also circulating, the PML-N friends supporters are fuming them and not hesitating in spreading them on social media, while Maryam Nawaz Sharif has openly said all this in her rallies, but even the photographs of the judges were shown.
Understand “establishment” before “judicial establishment”
Before “judicial establishment” we have to understand the term establishment. Worldwide, the establishment refers to a section of military and non-military elites, a certain type of bureaucratic structure, media tycoons, top business icons, etc. It aims to ensure continuity of policies.
In democratic countries, the elected prime minister or president changes or is likely to change every few years, in which case the responsibility for the continuation of some of the most important national policies rests with the same establishment.
In Pakistan, however, the establishment refers primarily to the military elite. When they want to, bring along a prominent person from another field, otherwise they don’t need anyone. Continuity of the military establishment is possible because they have an organized structure. Whoever the head of the armed forces is, he will inherit a certain system, a system of briefings, data analysis, files created at different periods, reports and so on. All this is organized so that no matter who comes, the system continues.
National security issues are also long-term, such as Pakistan-India relations, which have been of constant importance in the last fifty-sixty years, Pakistan-US relations, Pakistan-China relations, Afghan policy, nuclear program, missile program, relations with friendly Muslim countries, etc. . All these are matters on which the policy cannot be changed after every few months. Policies are made after much thought and deliberation and it will take a long time to change them.
Is “judicial establishment” practically possible?
Unlike the establishment, the term “judicial establishment” is practically impossible. There are two reasons for this:
The most important thing is that the Chief Justice of Pakistan is not a tenured post, that is, there is no term of office. The term of office of Army Chief is three years. A general who is due to retire after ten days of the week, if he is made the army chief i.e. four star general, he will hold that post for the next three years, irrespective of his age. The same is the case with the post of Chairman Joint Chiefs Staff Committee apart from Army Chief.
That’s why whoever comes will have a mandatory three years, if he gets an extension like General Bajwa and General Kayani, it will be six years. Let’s assume three years, then this time is enough for the army chief to fully implement his vision. If he wants to make a special change in his organization or something else, he has so much time.
First difference between establishment and judiciary
The Chief Justice does not have the facility of being the head of the establishment. The Chief Justice will retire as soon as a Supreme Court judge reaches a certain age, even if he has been appointed as Chief Justice for fifteen days before. Different chief justices become CJPs for different periods, some have a few months, some have a year or two years, only half a chief comes who has three or four years. Justice Jawad S. Khawaja became the Chief Justice for one and a half months, the current Chief Justice became the Chief Justice last year, he will retire in September, the next Chief Justice Faiz Isa will probably have thirteen to fourteen months.
Second difference
Another difference is that the army chief is senior to all the generals, he has superiority over them, he can retire any three star general very easily. This has happened several times in the past. General Hameed Gul retired like this, similarly General Tariq Pervez got retired by the then Chief after meeting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan has no such privilege or right. All judges of the Supreme Court are equal, the Chief is only the most senior judge and has some administrative powers, but he cannot order or coerce his fellow judges.
Third difference
The third point is that the establishment has long-term issues, their long-term, short-term, mid-term solutions, etc.
There are day-to-day issues in the judiciary. Cases come on a daily basis, which have to be seen and decided. Judiciary does not have anything for which a regular establishment is established and then Chief Justices keep coming and retiring so fast that nothing is possible. Sometimes, two, three and sometimes four chief justices change in five years. In such a case, no alliance is possible.
Therefore, it is a far-fetched theory that the judicial establishment has been formed or exists and wants to give civil governments a tough time. No, nothing like that and hypothetically not possible.
Why does PDM have reservations about the judiciary?
Apparently, there is only one reason for this. Currently, almost all the forces, institutions and departments of the country are united against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Imran Khan. Political parties of PDM and their allies PPP etc. all want to eliminate Imran Khan politically at all costs. They want to disqualify him and throw him in jail. Everyone else is on the same page in this regard. Judiciary is the only constitutional institution from which Imran Khan can get some relief. For this reason, the judiciary is being targeted.
Now let’s see that the Election Commission of Pakistan was not ready to hold the election in the first place, the caretaker governments and the governors were showing the worst negligence and indifference. Finally, the matter went to the judiciary and it gave a decision. Then the Election Commission was forced to set the date of election in Punjab i-e-30th April, while in KP, the governor, showing terrible prejudice and malice, postponed the election by a whole month and gave the date of 28th May.
Even then, everyone knew that the PDM and caretaker governments did not want to hold elections. They know very well that PTI will win with two-third majority in both Punjab and KP.
Well, somehow the matter was rolling towards the election, suddenly the Election Commission postponed the election till October 8, i.e. five months ahead, without any solid reason or argument. As much noise as Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf made on this, no one listened. PTI has no other place of hearing except the judiciary. Only the Supreme Court can give it some kind of relief. Also because the decision of the Supreme Court has been violated.
Why is PTI looking towards SC?
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf had to go to the Supreme Court what would they have done. The protest rally was not allowed and they could barely hold the meeting. Imran Khan and other leaders are tied up in cases from all sides so that they cannot think of anything else. Judiciary is the only place of protection for them and judiciary always provides protection to the oppressed all over the world. Not only in Pakistan but all over the world people go to the judiciary for justice.
That is why the government and its allies have attacked the judiciary. Their aim is to make the Chief Justice of Pakistan and some other judges so controversial that they cannot take any big and bold decision. That is why propaganda is being done against certain judges by naming them, even videos of dubious confessions have been played to make them controversial.
What is happening in the Supreme Court?
There is no doubt that there is a clear division in the Supreme Court. This is not due to malicious intent. Actually these are two different schools of thought. One school of thought advocates taking suo motu notices on matters of public interest. This tradition was started with former Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary, the majority of the later Chief Justices continued it.
Justice Saqib Nisar also misused it and made this authority controversial, which is why his successor Chief Justice Asif Khosa did not take suo moto even once during his tenure. However, the Chief Justice and Judges who took Somoto are of the opinion that rules and procedure etc. are important, but the issue of public interest takes priority over everything and the victim should get relief. At that time, apart from the Chief Justice, among the senior judges, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Mazhar Naqvi etc. seemed to support this school of thought.
The position of the second school of thought is based on a certain kind of idealistic dogmatism. Some of them are not in favor of taking unnecessary suo moto, they think that there should be a special procedure regarding the use of Article 184-3 of the Constitution. Justice Faiz Isa has explained all this in detail in one of his decisions two days ago. In his opinion, only the Chief Justice should not take this notice and a special bench should not be formed for this purpose, all this should be done by a committee of senior judges.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has said in some of his judicial comments and judgments that if suo motu is to be taken under Article 184-3, then the full court i.e. the entire Supreme Court should hear the matter instead of a special bench. That is, the matter should be so important that the entire Supreme Court will stop all work and hear the same case. Justice Tariq Masood and Justice Aminuddin, Justice Jamal Mandukhel are among the supporters of this school of thought among the senior judges. Some of these distinguished judges are in favor of discussing political issues in Parliament instead of bringing them to the judiciary and according to them, politicians should solve political issues themselves.
What can happen next?
God forbid, but even as a hypothesis, a risk may be that the division in the Supreme Court deepens and the two factions of the ruling judiciary come in front of each other.
However, people who are familiar with the thinking and principled approach of the distinguished judges insist that it is only a difference of opinion between two different schools of thought and there are discussions within the chambers of the judges. will not be influenced by any political faction. We should hope that inshallah it will be like this and all matters will be dealt with understanding.
Election postponement case
The Chief Justice had constituted a five-member larger bench on this issue, one of the judges, Justice Aminuddin, has apologized and left the bench. The Chief has continued with a four-member bench instead of a new or larger bench, but Justice Mandukhel also left. At present, the bench consists of Chief Justice Atta Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar is hearing the case. The bench will continue hearing the same case on Monday. The bench is expected to pronounce its verdict on the case soon.
Then it is possible that the judicial reform bill approved by the Parliament will be challenged in the court and a seven-member or nine-member large bench or full court will be formed on the matter. In the next few days, reporters covering the Judiciary will have a lot of work to do. The Supreme Court has to decide some very important issues for the country and the nation.
It is also a war of nerves because the Supreme Court is under attack by the PDM government and all its allies. May Allah keep everyone safe and the country and nations will not be harmed in this crisis.
