Judicial independence

By: Hashim Abro | A vigorous debate is going on the judicial independence in Pakistan. People the world over; consider a free judiciary a constitutional fundamental because sans a free judiciary authoritarian forces and executive fiats frustrate human rights, pollute or politicise court verdicts and fob off partisan pronouncements as the rule of law. In the words of Justice Krishna Lyer, "Independence of judiciary is not genuflexion; nor is it opposition to every proposition of government. It is neither judiciary made to opposition measure nor government's pleasure." Of course, the universal fundamental is fearless and fair justice, and independent and humane justices are integral to the fulfilment of this imperative of the legal world order. If the right to justice is non-negotiable, so is the immunity of the judiciary from the intimidation by the Executive, the socio-economic mafia, mass hysteria, media propaganda or terrorist forces. Insidious temptation, incurable vices and deep-rooted subjective prejudices of judges themselves may menace that conscientious impartiality which is the essence of independent justice. Equal justice beyond pressure or purchase is the product; easy access to the humblest and the hated and easy finality without expensive appellate procrastination, is the process; public bearing with intelligent application of the law and social sensitivity to facts is the dynamics, and judgements, with reasons recorded and copies thereof given readily, constitute the democracy of justice. Justice can never be free where the 'justices are not free'. Independent judges are not an end but a means. The end is independence of justice, not bonded to bias, and not administered by a benchbar duet, the performers being open minded, free from outside or inside pressures and never obligations to, or suffer blackmail from, the Executive or dominant classes, mafia groups which may mug or terrorist groups which may shoot justices and justice. Regrettably, judiciary, as an institution in Pakistan, is itself subjected to attack or is hijacked by planting flimsy stories against the honourable judges, criticised, misrepresented, debunked, monetarily humbled and in many innovative ways made to feel that it is in their interest to toe the line. Even basic facilities are denied to them. I am of this firm opinion that neither the constitution nor the Parliament, not even the rhetoric of a few frustrated players of politics, can make 'justice and the justices free'. Not even flags and anthems, strikes and lockouts of courtrooms can make our judiciary and judges independent. And most certainly not orchestrated propaganda ditties drooled day-in and day-out in saccharine voices. As the old saying goes, 'only the truth can make justice and the justices free', because all those institutions and their fine trappings can be, and often are grossly abused and distorted. Unless the truth is known at every turn, all those fine things can become mere Executive weapons for its own preservation and survival, not the armour to protect and preserve the freedom of the citizen which they are supposed to be. Of course, no court decision should be a hostage to political, economic and other motives. So what is needed first and foremost to ensure that the courts of law be genuinely independent of anyone, no matter who he be. "The artist," said Picaso, "must discover a way to convince the general public the truth of his lies." For much too long the law persons have successfully managed to convince the people of the truth of their lies concerning the nature of judicial process. I consciously join the slender minority of people who believe with Thomas Huxley that the "foundation of morality is to have done, once and for all, with lying."