A court destined to defend rights in place protected power, and in doing so, he revealed how fragile it is really our freedom.
In 1817, the president of the Supreme Court John Marshall, one of the founding parents of the United States, pronounced what is often called the shortest trial in judicial history: “The United States never pays costs.” This was the totality of a unanimous majority decision in the case of the Supreme Court of United States v. Barker. Six words resolved a matter of complex law that had remained unanswered for twenty years, and solidified jurisprudence on sovereign immunity with clarity and precision.
Exactly 208 years later, the unthinkable happened. In a judgment written by the president of Justice Sarfraz Dogar, the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) ruled the case of a restricted journalist to leave the country with the following: “The objection of the office remains.” Move about Judge Marshall, that looks like four words and a newly broken world record for me.
Pakistan: 1, USA: 0.
An impressive surprise like this should be exactly the type of judicial achievement that the editors of the 26th amendment dreamed. So where are the balloons, the coverage of the media, the celebrations in the streets? Why is this writer publicly noticed such a great achievement?
Well, it could have something to do with the difference between these two judgments. The brevity is the soul of ingenuity, and that adage of Shakespeare applies to both. But while the first sought to exceed the limits of how much it could achieve with how few words, the second adopted a different approach, by not trying to achieve anything at all.
When the courts protect power, not people
For the context, the journalist, Asad Ali Toor, had approached the Court after he was arrested at an airport and prevented him from leaving the country to attend a training program. It had been placed in the “Provisional National Identification List”, which exists under a permanent order of 2018 to prevent fugitives of “atrocious crimes”, such as rape, murder or terrorism, to fled abroad.
The only “atrocious” crime that has been accused is irritating some very powerful people. Anyway, his name was on the list; He was not told this fact until he was packed and ready to address his flight, and someone in a very high position probably enjoyed the deliberate act of causing pain.
Courts exist with the precise purpose of protecting regular citizens of a massacre like this. What happened to Toor was illegal in at least a dozen different ways: he was not even accused of anything that deserved inclusion in the kids; The reasoning or notice of the presentation was not notified; The courts have constantly argued that one must be informed when placed on that list; A defendant must receive the right to appeal; The Constitution guarantees freedom of movement; And the list continues and continues. Toor has a story of being attacked and punished for his journalism (even the people who sold his parrots were not saved), and this cannot be ignored by judging his current abuse.
For a case like this to land before a judge is a mature and easy opportunity to affirm that justice is not dead in this country, that some loose gear in our great governmental machinery cannot arbitrarily decide that he does not like it and, therefore, must deal with a certain amount of misery as a prerequisite for its existence here. Confronted with such a transparently unfair situation, a judge has the opportunity to issue a comprehensive verdict that strengthens individual freedoms and at least tries to ensure that no citizen of this country never crosses such an indignity again.
Judge Babar Sattar of this same court did exactly that in his excellent judgment on the illegal telephone coup. If the president of the Supreme Court wishes, he could have affirmed and strengthened the constitutional right to free movement in a way that made Pakistan a better place, with a stronger rule of law, for all of us.
Instead, we obtained the shortest trial in the world. The registrar’s office had told Toor that, before coming to court, he must first go to the government department that has the visible intention of making his life miserable. The objection of the office was sustained. The training program continued without him. Now, I could also happen to you. Whether you love him or hate him, agree with his opinions or not, or even know who he is, Toor has unravels the scope of all our freedoms and their lack of them. For now, they are worth a large total of four words.
Later, however, we obtained too many words from the president of the Supreme Court.
Misogyny, misconduct and language of the law
In another case about the freedom to leave the country, he punished Imaan Mazari, the same lawyer who represented Toor, to criticize his work. According to the reports, in the open court, according to the reports, he threatened the contempt procedures, said “shut up”, and then appealed to another lawyer, who turned out to be Mazari’s husband, to say “control it, someday if you catch it …”. There was no doubt that these comments were sexist, threatening and unacceptable. There was an apology.
On the other hand, the next day, according to journalists in the courtroom, the president of the Supreme Court declared: “Imaan Mazari is like my daughter. Yesterday, as president of the Supreme Court and the elderly, I was explaining things. My comments were taken from context.” Specifically, he denied having said that he was going to “catch her” and declared (in contradiction with the reports of multiple journalists) that, in fact, she had only asked her husband to catch her (as if that were better).
There is an old saying that says: “When you are in a hole, stop digging.” But the president of the Supreme Court had not yet been done. “If you start the contempt procedures, the girl’s career will ruin. I explained how my children, but I didn’t understand.” A surprisingly inappropriate word was used to refer to a professional and consummated lawyer: “Bachi“. By duplicating a worldview that sees women as minor beings, devoid of agency and subject to moderation, control and unre requested advice of the men who surround them, the president of the Supreme Court revealed a lot. But it was clear during their punishment that one should criticize the decisions, and not the person, so it is everything I will do.
The decision of the president of the IHC to belittle a female defender of daring to face him has caused criticism in all areas. His decision to present a non -apology and greater condescension disguised as benevolence only worsened his position. And his decision not to provide an unconditional apology to all women who appear in their court, despite the multiple sentences of associations of lawyers and women’s groups, leads this issue to unacceptable levels of misconduct.
Apparently, there is a story in this behavior. In an interview with Matiullah Jan, Mazari’s husband reported that Dugar justice had been protested by the bar in fine and finally transferred to refer to a lawyer as a lawyer as ‘Ulloo Ka Patha’ In court. The Supreme Judicial Council is the only body empowered to hold judges for shares like this. At least, I should convene to take note and release the minutes of the meeting to the public to let the country know that the entire justice system does not approve misogyny.
How a clause changed everything
It cannot be ignored that everything that has read here is a direct result of the amendment 26. That is what allowed this president of the Supreme Court to transfer from number 15 in antiquity in the Superior Court of Lahore (LHC) to number one in Islamabad, jumping on some of the most brilliant jurists of our country. The public was never reasoned on why the Dogar judge was considered better than those who replaced for the main work in the court of the capital of this nation.
Five seated judges went to the registration to argue (very convincing) that this transfer was illegal and was not equivalent to anything but an attack against the independence of the Judiciary; Going so far as to present a request against transfer appointments in the Supreme Court (SC). This challenge was heard by the Constitutional Bank, a creation of the 26th amendment, and it was exactly as you would expect.
With every day that passes, the disaster that created this amendment is added layers, and the perspective of any significant rejection feels less and less likely. The robust challenges to their legality remain completely ignored by the SC. And almost a year after their promulgation, while their impacts are immense and impossible to quantify, the result here is simple; The same IHC that once represented the best of our Judiciary, which goes back against power, offers intelligent and progressive judgments and defended the vulnerable, has reduced to punish activists and transmit misogyny.
This country deserves better. And if you can see justice, we cannot make the judges see half of the population as beings smaller than the other.
