Ko Krvñ is tuut ko bad-gumñ haram
Keh AMR-E-KRVÑ MIÑ NAHÑ HE-DIL-AVZ
Allama Iqbal
For some time, most of those who are in their right mind have had no doubt that everything is not right with the superior judiciary. Now, even the toughest skeptics have been forced to get out of the fence.
The disturbing images of five judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) walking along the door of the litigants of the Supreme Court to host their requests was perhaps the drop that filled the height.
Their complaints are not personal. Their complaints focus on not having their judicial duties according to their conscience and the Constitution.
The complaint they express is not an imperative legislature or an executive to be crazy. It is against its own president of Justice.
The differences of opinion between groups of judges or between them and their boss are not uncommon. Sometimes subtle, sometimes strong, but rarely, if ever, incivil, such dissensions have a long history.
The five IHC judges have only formally addressed their request to the Supreme Court, their true appeal is before the court of the people.
These are not peculiar of Pakistan. The passions and prejudices that afflict the rest of us do not pass to the judges. Often, such disagreements are natural and healthy. They contribute to the growth of the Judiciary as a department involved in rational discourse.
Such matters were resolved in the rooms of the Committee of the respective Higher Courts. However, the way was such that it kept the community alive and the integrated institution. The images splashed the pages of the national newspapers that break with this tradition. They undermine public trust in the administration of the IHC by its president of the Supreme Court.
Critics can argue that all this was a ‘Tamasha’, a mere show. The judges had access to a defender in the registry and the requests could have been filled through it. Such criticism loses the point: there has been a breakdown of communication between the judges and their boss. They have lost faith in him and no longer consider him someone interested in facilitating the administration of justice.
Given their recent experience, they cannot be optimistic about the prospects for success in the Supreme Court.
One can ask, then, why leaning in wind mills? In my opinion, being cunning lawyers, they have only formally addressed their request to the Supreme Court. His true appeal is before the court of the people; Their presentations are aimed at those who can still have a pinch of faith in the constitutional promise of a republican government.
The content of the requests will be subject to a separate trial. What laments here is the decline in the form and form in the IHC, at least for now. A mere look at requests is enough to reveal that most of these complaints could have been repaired by the president of the Supreme Court. Some give and take, a friendly discussion and a promise to restore the course would have calmed things.
The president of the Supreme Court of IHC may be too invested in the position he has taken. You may not have taken a sheet of the favorite book from the father of the nation: Morley on the commitment.
New in office, you can lack the skill required to turn rivals into a team. You may not have your hand required to stabilize the ship. Here, the president of the president of Pakistan could have provided help; A man with an enviable first level temperament. After all, it is in the words of the Supreme Court, ‘Paterfamilias’, or head of the judicial family.
The uproar may have escaped his attention. He may even have continued believing that it was a storm in a cup of tea until the fanatic was fertilized.
Even then, not everything was lost. The Chief of the Constitutional Bank, in whose Remit the matter fell, could have quickly constituted a bank. You could have issued notices and instructions since the issues are resolved friendly within an established period. The mediation behind the scene of well -respected judges both served and retired would have helped.
All this was not being. The requests have not been included in the audience. The registration of the Supreme Court has registered its objections to the petition and the issues are now pending a greater consideration. If one thing is clear, in the practice of the Supreme Court it is that, although the registration can notice what it perceives as defects in a request, the matter must be presented before a bank of the Court to confirm the objections or cancel them and listen to the case on the merits.
IHC is the only superior court in the country where you can call all federal executive and legislative measures in question. In this regard it is unique. Allow this agitation to paralyze the IHC and it is a bad service for the State. These requests must be heard and decide on merits immediately.
Keeping them pending will deepen the discomfort. By persuasion, through mediation, by soft direction and, ultimately, if necessary, through orders, the Supreme Court must push the president of the IHC court so that their judges trust, deal with them with respect and build consensus. A failure to do so would fail in the nation.
Diloñ K Uljhaneñ Barht Raheñg
Kuchh Mashvare Bham Na Hoñge agar
Hafeez Hoshiarpuri
The writer is a former Attorney General of Pakistan and a distinguished lawyer
Posted in Dawn, September 25, 2025
