 |
| How did the confrontation between the judiciary and the parliament begin and what will be the end of it |
"We will not sacrifice the Prime Minister" (Khawaja Asif). "The court called the Chief Justice and asked why he asked for our records" (Shahid Khaqan Abbasi). "I assure you that there will be no compromise on the supremacy of the House" (Speaker National Assembly Raja Pervez Ashraf).
Politicians' embrace of the judiciary in Pakistan has been a part of history. From the execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and the impeachment of Yusuf Raza Gilani to the conviction of Nawaz Sharif, Pakistani history and politics are full of controversial court decisions whose impact reverberates in the Houses to this day.
After the kind of statements and actions coming out from the National Assembly of Pakistan even today, an unusual confrontation between the judiciary and the parliament has not been a hidden secret.
How unusual this confrontation is can be gauged from the fact that Imran Khan and his party have announced rallies in support of a Chief Justice who himself has been appointed to the 15-member Supreme Court. There are divisions and differences.
But the question is that only a year ago, the same Supreme Court order saved the current National Assembly from dissolution, as a result of which the Tehreek-e-Insaf won a no-confidence motion against the government and the PDM coalition came to power in such a short period. How did the situation reach such a level that now the demand for summoning the Chief Justice is being made in the National Assembly?
This question is also important because some time ago the government also approved the appointment of two junior judges in the Supreme Court, about which recently the Prime Minister of Law Nazir Tarar stated that this appointment was done by the then Army Chief. There was a compromise with the Chief Justice on advice to ease the tension.
How did the confrontation between the judiciary and the parliament begin?
After the court's suo motu notice on the holding of elections in Punjab, instead of reducing, the tension increased. First, the parties involved in the government raised objections to the Supreme Court bench, and later, when the judges in the judicial bench separated, the division within the Supreme Court became clear.
Another proof of this division came when the second most senior judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, questioned the Chief Justice's automatic notice powers, based on which the government introduced the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill.
However, before the bill could become a formal law, the Supreme Court issued a controversial order halting its implementation, which the Parliament said interfered with its constitutional powers.
The matter was not limited to legal and constitutional debate, but questions were raised on the assets of Supreme Court Justice Mazahir Akbar Naqvi on behalf of the PML-N.
Amid this controversy, a few alleged audios that surfaced on social media served to add fuel to the fire. In one audio, it was allegedly the mother-in-law of current Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, while in another audio, it was allegedly the voice of former Chief Justice Saqib Nisar's son.
Just a week ago, the Speaker of the National Assembly wrote a letter to the Supreme Court complaining about the judicial interference in the parliamentary proceedings, after which the Supreme Court called for the record of the debate in the Parliament on the Practice and Procedure Bill.
This judicial directive was loudly criticized in the National Assembly and there were suggestions that the Chief Justice should be called and asked why he asked for this record. In response to this criticism, Speaker National Assembly Raja Pervez Ashraf assured the House that there cannot be any compromise on the supremacy of the House.
On the other hand, a committee was formed to investigate the alleged audio of the former Chief Justice's son, while Chairman Public Accounts Committee Noor Alam Khan also told the National Assembly that he had asked for 10-year records of salaries and benefits of Supreme Court judges. On May 16, the principal accounting officer of the court has been summoned, in whose absence an arrest warrant can be issued.
Can the Parliament summon the Chief Justice?
Before we go into the details of what will be the next step in this battle between the Parliament and the Judiciary, let us first know the answer to the question of whether the National Assembly has the power to summon the Chief Justice as the former minister did. Azam Shahid Khaqan Abbasi demanded.
It should be noted that according to Article 68 of the Constitution of Pakistan, it is prohibited to discuss the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court or High Court in the Parliament of Pakistan.
Justice retired Shaikh Usmani has been a judge of the Sindh High Court.
Speaking to the BBC, he said that the powers of the institutions were fixed in the constitution, under which the executive, parliament, and judiciary have their respective roles.
He said that there is no such thing written in the constitution that gives the Parliament the power to summon the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Ahmad Bilal Mehboob is the President of the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency.
When the BBC asked him whether the Parliament has the authority to summon the Chief Justice, he said that it is a question, but the important thing is that those who are talking about summoning the Chief Justice. Is it even necessary to call them? You write a letter.
On the other hand, he said that the record of the proceedings of the National Assembly is public which is given on the website. If the Supreme Court wants to know the record, it does not need to ask for the record.
Ahmad Bilal Mehboob said that 'actually, this is a power play that both want to tell that we are powerful even though the state institutions should not do so.
What will be the end of the fight between parliament and the judiciary?
Justice Shaiq Usmani said that the entire controversy started with a decision in which the Chief Justice exceeded his authority. They should not have taken this decision.
However, according to him, the matters became more serious because the government does not want to hold the election, and "all this is being done to stop the election."
Ahmad Bilal Mehboob said that the Supreme Court has made some decisions on which the government is angry. He said that the procedure of the Supreme Court was also not correct, but due to three or four incidents, things got worse.
But what form will this confrontation take now and who will have to back down?
In response to this question, Ahmad Bilal Mehboob's position was that there is a possibility that the Supreme Court may take contempt of court proceedings against the Prime Minister or the Cabinet and that is why the National Assembly is showing its strength. They want to convince the court that we will not remain silent.
However, in his opinion, the Supreme Court will have to back down.
Explaining the reasons for this, he said that the issue started with giving the date of the election, but "I think the good thing is that the Election Commission filed a review petition, which gave the Supreme Court a way." That the decision of the election can be reconsidered.
"I think the Supreme Court will have to back down because they cannot get their decision implemented."
Ahmad Bilal Mehboob said that 'now there are two ways, either revise the decision or make a full court.'
He said that the Chief Justice seems to have the majority for the full court. In this way, no one will be disrespected.
On the other hand, retired Justice Shaiq Usmani says that the Chief Justice has not made a full court so far because there are differences in the Supreme Court.
He says that due to the formation of the bench on the election case, doubts arose.
However, Justice Shaiq Usmani also said that the request for revision by the Election Commission allowed the Chief Justice to consider his decision and give a decision that ends this dispute.