| Variable | Value |
|---|
| Edit count of user (user_editcount) | |
| Name of user account (user_name) | 94.242.255.202 |
| Time email address was confirmed (user_emailconfirm) | |
| Age of user account (user_age) | 0 |
| Groups (including implicit) user is in (user_groups) | *
|
| Page ID (article_articleid) | 4985 |
| Page namespace (article_namespace) | 0 |
| Page title (without namespace) (article_text) | Chief justices over the ages:Pakistan |
| Full page title (article_prefixedtext) | Chief justices over the ages:Pakistan |
| article_restrictions_create | |
| Edit protection level of the page (article_restrictions_edit) | |
| Move protection level of the page (article_restrictions_move) | |
| article_restrictions_upload | |
| Last ten users to contribute to the page (article_recent_contributors) | |
| Action (action) | edit |
| Edit summary/reason (summary) | The problem with banks who received bail-out monies., <a href="http://paydayloansuk1.com/">Payday Loans</a>, dhopsf, |
| Whether or not the edit is marked as minor (minor_edit) | |
| Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext) | {| class="wikitable"
|-
|colspan="0"|<div style="font-size:100%">
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.<br/>You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry,<br />deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries.<br/>Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings;<br/>and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject.<br/>
Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly <br/> on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch.
See [[examples]] and a tutorial.</div>
|}
[[Category: Pakistan |C]]
[[Category: Law,Constitution,Judiciary |C]]
[[Category: Judiciary: Pakistan|C ]]
[[Category:Name|Alphabet]]
=Chief justices over the ages:Pakistan=
Deception to every rule
By Anjum Niaz
[http://dawn.com/ Dawn]
[[File: Anjum niaz.PNG| Anjum niaz |frame|500px]]
Uneasy must lie the head wearing the crown while a non-functioning chief justice has taken a shine to the people’s court.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s road show drew bumper crowds but in Karachi in company of Aitzaz Ahsan, currently closeting up as his attorney, chauffer, bodyguard, minder and spokesman. Forget the recent bloody brawls between MQM and the rest of the political parties. The disfranchised dictator, porous parliamentarians, politically-charged militants on a rampage, and corrupt bureaucracy speak with forked tongues. They lie to us with brazen faces. They hold rallies with our money and have the temerity to tell us how popular they are.
In their time, had honourable chief justices Muhammad Munir, A R Cornelius, Hamoodur Rehman, Yaqub Ali, Anwarul Haq outlawed martial law and tried the generals who abrogated the Constitution, General Musharraf today would be addressing the GHQ instead of rented rallies posing as a populist. Justice Kayani was different. He was a principled dissolute – unrestrained by convention: “Field Marshal, when you imposed martial law first there was silence, then we started to hear whispers and sir, when many people whisper it can turn into a whispering campaign,” M. Rustam Kayani had blurted out to Ayub Khan at the CSP Academy in Lahore 49 years ago. The latter’s face had turned red.
“Judges are a part of society in which they live and they cannot but be influenced by the pressures of public opinion,” Justice Kayani would argue. His conscience was swayed by popular sentiment and not the presidency. No wonder he never made it to the Supreme Court. Justice Dorab Patel too spurned the frills of the Supreme Court opting to resign in 1981 rather than taking the oath of allegiance to Ziaul Haq.
Justice Patel died leaving behind a deeply felt book Testament of a Liberal. In it, some brother judges are shown as “more political than legal.” He quotes C J Munir’s (1954-60) dictum which the CJ himself had violated: “When politics enters the portal of the Palace of Justice, democracy, its cherished inmate, walks out by the backdoor.”
Justice Munir validated not only the 1958 coup but “all future coups, provided they are successful”. Many years after his retirement, Justice Munir revealed that he was summoned by General Ayub Khan a day before the coup and shown a draft of “The Laws (Continuance of Force) Order which cancelled out the 1956 Constitution and the Fundamental Rights. Instead of dismissing it outright, the honourable judge became a party to it.
Cases questioning martial law and its critics were tried and convicted by a jirga under the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The Supreme Court lumped all such decisions under State v. Dosso and others (PLD 1958 SC 533). Justice Cornelius wrote a “lengthy hymn of praise of jirga trials…With respect, this was a function more appropriate for a politician than a Judge,” writes Justice Patel. Cornelius’s judgment in Dosso’s case was a “disaster for human rights of millions of people.”
Governments and public authorities are the worst enemies of rights of all types, continues Justice Patel, giving another example of Chief Justice Cornelius (1960-68) accepting Ayub Khan as the “Supreme Authority.” In Malik Ghulam Jilani v the Province of West Pakistan case, the appellants were held under the Defence of Pakistan Rules for criticising Ayub’s government. The CJ in his judgment wrote: “[the plea of the appellants] appears indeed to be a justification for politicians to play with fire in the hope that they will eventually be able to subdue the conflagration they cause. To bring about political changes by Constitutional means alone is legitimate.”
Kowtowing to the rulers, the judiciary in the past abhorred criticism. The Supreme Court didn’t even spare law secretary Sir Edward Snelson for his criticism of judges. Under contempt of court, a bench comprising Justice Shabbir Ahmed, Justice Yakub Ali and Justice Ortcheson fined Snelson Rs2,000 -- the maximum fine permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. Ironically, Justice Shabbir Ahmed after retirement practised law and was convicted in a similar contempt of court case when he commented on a case under review by the SC in a newspaper interview.
Chief Justice Hamoodur Rehman(1968-75) followed his predecessors’ practice of not ruffling the rulers. Justice Patel says that the CJ set aside Government of West Pakistan v Begum Kashmiri case only after he noticed that “times were changing… it seemed that the tide had turned against Ayub.”
Chief Justice Yaqub Ali (1975-77) was no different. He dissented with his brother judges on providing relief to Ch Zahoor Elahi and his family whom Bhutto had victimised repeatedly. The CJ also caved in to Bhutto in Wali Khan’s case. Later his party, National Awami Party was dissolved for working against the “interests of the state.” Bhutto warned the judges that the “responsibility of the consequence will be of the Supreme Court” should they reject his reference against NAP. Rushing to Bhutto’s defence was the CJ: “The PM did not intend to show any disrespect to this court and to influence its decision in any way,” said the CJ. Such gratuitousness, writes Patel, “had a disastrous effect on the image of the judiciary.”
Thus ends the tale of opportunities missed or mis-chosen by our chief justices in the past.
“The path to criticism is a public way; justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respect, even though outspoken, of ordinary men,” remarked a British jurist Atkins on the law of contempt. As citizens we have every right to be interested in the verdict the CJ gets. Speculate on what will be a just verdict we should not but expect a just verdict we should. |
| New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext) | {| class="wikitable"
|-
|colspan="0"|<div style="font-size:100%">
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.<br/>You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry,<br />deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries.<br/>Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings;<br/>and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject.<br/>
Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly <br/> on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch.
See [[examples]] and a tutorial.</div>
|}
[[Category: Pakistan |C]]
[[Category: Law,Constitution,Judiciary |C]]
[[Category: Judiciary: Pakistan|C ]]
[[Category:Name|Alphabet]]
The problem with banks who received bail-out monies., <a href="http://paydayloansuk1.com/">Payday Loans</a>, dhopsf, |
| Unified diff of changes made by edit (edit_diff) | @@ -13,38 +13,4 @@
[[Category: Judiciary: Pakistan|C ]]
[[Category:Name|Alphabet]]
-=Chief justices over the ages:Pakistan=
-
-Deception to every rule
-
-By Anjum Niaz
-
-[http://dawn.com/ Dawn]
-
-[[File: Anjum niaz.PNG| Anjum niaz |frame|500px]]
-
-Uneasy must lie the head wearing the crown while a non-functioning chief justice has taken a shine to the people’s court.
-
-Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s road show drew bumper crowds but in Karachi in company of Aitzaz Ahsan, currently closeting up as his attorney, chauffer, bodyguard, minder and spokesman. Forget the recent bloody brawls between MQM and the rest of the political parties. The disfranchised dictator, porous parliamentarians, politically-charged militants on a rampage, and corrupt bureaucracy speak with forked tongues. They lie to us with brazen faces. They hold rallies with our money and have the temerity to tell us how popular they are.
-
-In their time, had honourable chief justices Muhammad Munir, A R Cornelius, Hamoodur Rehman, Yaqub Ali, Anwarul Haq outlawed martial law and tried the generals who abrogated the Constitution, General Musharraf today would be addressing the GHQ instead of rented rallies posing as a populist. Justice Kayani was different. He was a principled dissolute – unrestrained by convention: “Field Marshal, when you imposed martial law first there was silence, then we started to hear whispers and sir, when many people whisper it can turn into a whispering campaign,” M. Rustam Kayani had blurted out to Ayub Khan at the CSP Academy in Lahore 49 years ago. The latter’s face had turned red.
-
-“Judges are a part of society in which they live and they cannot but be influenced by the pressures of public opinion,” Justice Kayani would argue. His conscience was swayed by popular sentiment and not the presidency. No wonder he never made it to the Supreme Court. Justice Dorab Patel too spurned the frills of the Supreme Court opting to resign in 1981 rather than taking the oath of allegiance to Ziaul Haq.
-
-Justice Patel died leaving behind a deeply felt book Testament of a Liberal. In it, some brother judges are shown as “more political than legal.” He quotes C J Munir’s (1954-60) dictum which the CJ himself had violated: “When politics enters the portal of the Palace of Justice, democracy, its cherished inmate, walks out by the backdoor.”
-
-Justice Munir validated not only the 1958 coup but “all future coups, provided they are successful”. Many years after his retirement, Justice Munir revealed that he was summoned by General Ayub Khan a day before the coup and shown a draft of “The Laws (Continuance of Force) Order which cancelled out the 1956 Constitution and the Fundamental Rights. Instead of dismissing it outright, the honourable judge became a party to it.
-
-Cases questioning martial law and its critics were tried and convicted by a jirga under the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The Supreme Court lumped all such decisions under State v. Dosso and others (PLD 1958 SC 533). Justice Cornelius wrote a “lengthy hymn of praise of jirga trials…With respect, this was a function more appropriate for a politician than a Judge,” writes Justice Patel. Cornelius’s judgment in Dosso’s case was a “disaster for human rights of millions of people.”
-
-Governments and public authorities are the worst enemies of rights of all types, continues Justice Patel, giving another example of Chief Justice Cornelius (1960-68) accepting Ayub Khan as the “Supreme Authority.” In Malik Ghulam Jilani v the Province of West Pakistan case, the appellants were held under the Defence of Pakistan Rules for criticising Ayub’s government. The CJ in his judgment wrote: “[the plea of the appellants] appears indeed to be a justification for politicians to play with fire in the hope that they will eventually be able to subdue the conflagration they cause. To bring about political changes by Constitutional means alone is legitimate.”
-
-Kowtowing to the rulers, the judiciary in the past abhorred criticism. The Supreme Court didn’t even spare law secretary Sir Edward Snelson for his criticism of judges. Under contempt of court, a bench comprising Justice Shabbir Ahmed, Justice Yakub Ali and Justice Ortcheson fined Snelson Rs2,000 -- the maximum fine permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. Ironically, Justice Shabbir Ahmed after retirement practised law and was convicted in a similar contempt of court case when he commented on a case under review by the SC in a newspaper interview.
-
-Chief Justice Hamoodur Rehman(1968-75) followed his predecessors’ practice of not ruffling the rulers. Justice Patel says that the CJ set aside Government of West Pakistan v Begum Kashmiri case only after he noticed that “times were changing… it seemed that the tide had turned against Ayub.”
-
-Chief Justice Yaqub Ali (1975-77) was no different. He dissented with his brother judges on providing relief to Ch Zahoor Elahi and his family whom Bhutto had victimised repeatedly. The CJ also caved in to Bhutto in Wali Khan’s case. Later his party, National Awami Party was dissolved for working against the “interests of the state.” Bhutto warned the judges that the “responsibility of the consequence will be of the Supreme Court” should they reject his reference against NAP. Rushing to Bhutto’s defence was the CJ: “The PM did not intend to show any disrespect to this court and to influence its decision in any way,” said the CJ. Such gratuitousness, writes Patel, “had a disastrous effect on the image of the judiciary.”
-
-Thus ends the tale of opportunities missed or mis-chosen by our chief justices in the past.
-
-“The path to criticism is a public way; justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respect, even though outspoken, of ordinary men,” remarked a British jurist Atkins on the law of contempt. As citizens we have every right to be interested in the verdict the CJ gets. Speculate on what will be a just verdict we should not but expect a just verdict we should.
+The problem with banks who received bail-out monies., <a href="http://paydayloansuk1.com/">Payday Loans</a>, dhopsf, |
| New page size (new_size) | 916 |
| Old page size (old_size) | 6815 |
| Size change in edit (edit_delta) | -5899 |
| Lines added in edit (added_lines) | The problem with banks who received bail-out monies., <a href="http://paydayloansuk1.com/">Payday Loans</a>, dhopsf,
|
| Lines removed in edit (removed_lines) | =Chief justices over the ages:Pakistan=
Deception to every rule
By Anjum Niaz
[http://dawn.com/ Dawn]
[[File: Anjum niaz.PNG| Anjum niaz |frame|500px]]
Uneasy must lie the head wearing the crown while a non-functioning chief justice has taken a shine to the people’s court.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s road show drew bumper crowds but in Karachi in company of Aitzaz Ahsan, currently closeting up as his attorney, chauffer, bodyguard, minder and spokesman. Forget the recent bloody brawls between MQM and the rest of the political parties. The disfranchised dictator, porous parliamentarians, politically-charged militants on a rampage, and corrupt bureaucracy speak with forked tongues. They lie to us with brazen faces. They hold rallies with our money and have the temerity to tell us how popular they are.
In their time, had honourable chief justices Muhammad Munir, A R Cornelius, Hamoodur Rehman, Yaqub Ali, Anwarul Haq outlawed martial law and tried the generals who abrogated the Constitution, General Musharraf today would be addressing the GHQ instead of rented rallies posing as a populist. Justice Kayani was different. He was a principled dissolute – unrestrained by convention: “Field Marshal, when you imposed martial law first there was silence, then we started to hear whispers and sir, when many people whisper it can turn into a whispering campaign,” M. Rustam Kayani had blurted out to Ayub Khan at the CSP Academy in Lahore 49 years ago. The latter’s face had turned red.
“Judges are a part of society in which they live and they cannot but be influenced by the pressures of public opinion,” Justice Kayani would argue. His conscience was swayed by popular sentiment and not the presidency. No wonder he never made it to the Supreme Court. Justice Dorab Patel too spurned the frills of the Supreme Court opting to resign in 1981 rather than taking the oath of allegiance to Ziaul Haq.
Justice Patel died leaving behind a deeply felt book Testament of a Liberal. In it, some brother judges are shown as “more political than legal.” He quotes C J Munir’s (1954-60) dictum which the CJ himself had violated: “When politics enters the portal of the Palace of Justice, democracy, its cherished inmate, walks out by the backdoor.”
Justice Munir validated not only the 1958 coup but “all future coups, provided they are successful”. Many years after his retirement, Justice Munir revealed that he was summoned by General Ayub Khan a day before the coup and shown a draft of “The Laws (Continuance of Force) Order which cancelled out the 1956 Constitution and the Fundamental Rights. Instead of dismissing it outright, the honourable judge became a party to it.
Cases questioning martial law and its critics were tried and convicted by a jirga under the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The Supreme Court lumped all such decisions under State v. Dosso and others (PLD 1958 SC 533). Justice Cornelius wrote a “lengthy hymn of praise of jirga trials…With respect, this was a function more appropriate for a politician than a Judge,” writes Justice Patel. Cornelius’s judgment in Dosso’s case was a “disaster for human rights of millions of people.”
Governments and public authorities are the worst enemies of rights of all types, continues Justice Patel, giving another example of Chief Justice Cornelius (1960-68) accepting Ayub Khan as the “Supreme Authority.” In Malik Ghulam Jilani v the Province of West Pakistan case, the appellants were held under the Defence of Pakistan Rules for criticising Ayub’s government. The CJ in his judgment wrote: “[the plea of the appellants] appears indeed to be a justification for politicians to play with fire in the hope that they will eventually be able to subdue the conflagration they cause. To bring about political changes by Constitutional means alone is legitimate.”
Kowtowing to the rulers, the judiciary in the past abhorred criticism. The Supreme Court didn’t even spare law secretary Sir Edward Snelson for his criticism of judges. Under contempt of court, a bench comprising Justice Shabbir Ahmed, Justice Yakub Ali and Justice Ortcheson fined Snelson Rs2,000 -- the maximum fine permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. Ironically, Justice Shabbir Ahmed after retirement practised law and was convicted in a similar contempt of court case when he commented on a case under review by the SC in a newspaper interview.
Chief Justice Hamoodur Rehman(1968-75) followed his predecessors’ practice of not ruffling the rulers. Justice Patel says that the CJ set aside Government of West Pakistan v Begum Kashmiri case only after he noticed that “times were changing… it seemed that the tide had turned against Ayub.”
Chief Justice Yaqub Ali (1975-77) was no different. He dissented with his brother judges on providing relief to Ch Zahoor Elahi and his family whom Bhutto had victimised repeatedly. The CJ also caved in to Bhutto in Wali Khan’s case. Later his party, National Awami Party was dissolved for working against the “interests of the state.” Bhutto warned the judges that the “responsibility of the consequence will be of the Supreme Court” should they reject his reference against NAP. Rushing to Bhutto’s defence was the CJ: “The PM did not intend to show any disrespect to this court and to influence its decision in any way,” said the CJ. Such gratuitousness, writes Patel, “had a disastrous effect on the image of the judiciary.”
Thus ends the tale of opportunities missed or mis-chosen by our chief justices in the past.
“The path to criticism is a public way; justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respect, even though outspoken, of ordinary men,” remarked a British jurist Atkins on the law of contempt. As citizens we have every right to be interested in the verdict the CJ gets. Speculate on what will be a just verdict we should not but expect a just verdict we should.
|
| All external links in the new text (all_links) | http://paydayloansuk1.com/
|
| Links in the page, before the edit (old_links) | http://dawn.com/
|
| All external links added in the edit (added_links) | http://paydayloansuk1.com/
|
| All external links removed in the edit (removed_links) | http://dawn.com/
|
| Parsed HTML source of the new revision (new_html) | <table class="wikitable">
<tr>
<td colspan="0"><div style="font-size:100%">
<p>This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.<br />You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry,<br />deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries.<br />Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings;<br />and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject.<br />
</p><p>Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly <br /> on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch.
</p>
See <a href="/ind/index.php/Examples" title="Examples">examples</a> and a tutorial.</div>
</td></tr></table>
<p>The problem with banks who received bail-out monies., <a href="<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://paydayloansuk1.com/">http://paydayloansuk1.com/</a>">Payday Loans</a>, dhopsf,
</p> |
| New page text, stripped of any markup (new_text) |
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry,deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries.Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings;and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject.
Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch.
See examples and a tutorial.
The problem with banks who received bail-out monies., <a href="http://paydayloansuk1.com/">Payday Loans</a>, dhopsf,
|
| old_html | <table class="wikitable">
<tr>
<td colspan="0"><div style="font-size:100%">
<p>This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.<br />You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry,<br />deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries.<br />Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings;<br />and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject.<br />
</p><p>Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly <br /> on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch.
</p>
See <a href="/ind/index.php/Examples" title="Examples">examples</a> and a tutorial.</div>
</td></tr></table>
<h1><span class="editsection">[<a href="/ind/index.php?title=Chief_justices_over_the_ages:Pakistan&action=edit&section=1" title="Edit section: Chief justices over the ages:Pakistan">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline" id="Chief_justices_over_the_ages:Pakistan">Chief justices over the ages:Pakistan</span></h1>
<p>Deception to every rule
</p><p>By Anjum Niaz
</p><p><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://dawn.com/">Dawn</a>
</p>
<div class="thumb tright"><div class="thumbinner" style="width:204px;"><a href="/ind/index.php/File:Anjum_niaz.PNG" class="image"><img alt="" src="/ind/images/2/26/Anjum_niaz.PNG" width="202" height="268" class="thumbimage" /></a> <div class="thumbcaption">Anjum niaz</div></div></div>
<p>Uneasy must lie the head wearing the crown while a non-functioning chief justice has taken a shine to the people’s court.
</p><p>Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s road show drew bumper crowds but in Karachi in company of Aitzaz Ahsan, currently closeting up as his attorney, chauffer, bodyguard, minder and spokesman. Forget the recent bloody brawls between MQM and the rest of the political parties. The disfranchised dictator, porous parliamentarians, politically-charged militants on a rampage, and corrupt bureaucracy speak with forked tongues. They lie to us with brazen faces. They hold rallies with our money and have the temerity to tell us how popular they are.
</p><p>In their time, had honourable chief justices Muhammad Munir, A R Cornelius, Hamoodur Rehman, Yaqub Ali, Anwarul Haq outlawed martial law and tried the generals who abrogated the Constitution, General Musharraf today would be addressing the GHQ instead of rented rallies posing as a populist. Justice Kayani was different. He was a principled dissolute – unrestrained by convention: “Field Marshal, when you imposed martial law first there was silence, then we started to hear whispers and sir, when many people whisper it can turn into a whispering campaign,” M. Rustam Kayani had blurted out to Ayub Khan at the CSP Academy in Lahore 49 years ago. The latter’s face had turned red.
</p><p>“Judges are a part of society in which they live and they cannot but be influenced by the pressures of public opinion,” Justice Kayani would argue. His conscience was swayed by popular sentiment and not the presidency. No wonder he never made it to the Supreme Court. Justice Dorab Patel too spurned the frills of the Supreme Court opting to resign in 1981 rather than taking the oath of allegiance to Ziaul Haq.
</p><p>Justice Patel died leaving behind a deeply felt book Testament of a Liberal. In it, some brother judges are shown as “more political than legal.” He quotes C J Munir’s (1954-60) dictum which the CJ himself had violated: “When politics enters the portal of the Palace of Justice, democracy, its cherished inmate, walks out by the backdoor.”
</p><p>Justice Munir validated not only the 1958 coup but “all future coups, provided they are successful”. Many years after his retirement, Justice Munir revealed that he was summoned by General Ayub Khan a day before the coup and shown a draft of “The Laws (Continuance of Force) Order which cancelled out the 1956 Constitution and the Fundamental Rights. Instead of dismissing it outright, the honourable judge became a party to it.
</p><p>Cases questioning martial law and its critics were tried and convicted by a jirga under the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The Supreme Court lumped all such decisions under State v. Dosso and others (PLD 1958 SC 533). Justice Cornelius wrote a “lengthy hymn of praise of jirga trials…With respect, this was a function more appropriate for a politician than a Judge,” writes Justice Patel. Cornelius’s judgment in Dosso’s case was a “disaster for human rights of millions of people.”
</p><p>Governments and public authorities are the worst enemies of rights of all types, continues Justice Patel, giving another example of Chief Justice Cornelius (1960-68) accepting Ayub Khan as the “Supreme Authority.” In Malik Ghulam Jilani v the Province of West Pakistan case, the appellants were held under the Defence of Pakistan Rules for criticising Ayub’s government. The CJ in his judgment wrote: “[the plea of the appellants] appears indeed to be a justification for politicians to play with fire in the hope that they will eventually be able to subdue the conflagration they cause. To bring about political changes by Constitutional means alone is legitimate.”
</p><p>Kowtowing to the rulers, the judiciary in the past abhorred criticism. The Supreme Court didn’t even spare law secretary Sir Edward Snelson for his criticism of judges. Under contempt of court, a bench comprising Justice Shabbir Ahmed, Justice Yakub Ali and Justice Ortcheson fined Snelson Rs2,000 -- the maximum fine permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. Ironically, Justice Shabbir Ahmed after retirement practised law and was convicted in a similar contempt of court case when he commented on a case under review by the SC in a newspaper interview.
</p><p>Chief Justice Hamoodur Rehman(1968-75) followed his predecessors’ practice of not ruffling the rulers. Justice Patel says that the CJ set aside Government of West Pakistan v Begum Kashmiri case only after he noticed that “times were changing… it seemed that the tide had turned against Ayub.”
</p><p>Chief Justice Yaqub Ali (1975-77) was no different. He dissented with his brother judges on providing relief to Ch Zahoor Elahi and his family whom Bhutto had victimised repeatedly. The CJ also caved in to Bhutto in Wali Khan’s case. Later his party, National Awami Party was dissolved for working against the “interests of the state.” Bhutto warned the judges that the “responsibility of the consequence will be of the Supreme Court” should they reject his reference against NAP. Rushing to Bhutto’s defence was the CJ: “The PM did not intend to show any disrespect to this court and to influence its decision in any way,” said the CJ. Such gratuitousness, writes Patel, “had a disastrous effect on the image of the judiciary.”
</p><p>Thus ends the tale of opportunities missed or mis-chosen by our chief justices in the past.
</p><p>“The path to criticism is a public way; justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respect, even though outspoken, of ordinary men,” remarked a British jurist Atkins on the law of contempt. As citizens we have every right to be interested in the verdict the CJ gets. Speculate on what will be a just verdict we should not but expect a just verdict we should.
</p> |
| old_text |
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry,deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries.Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings;and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject.
Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch.
See examples and a tutorial.
[edit] Chief justices over the ages:Pakistan
Deception to every rule
By Anjum Niaz
Dawn
Anjum niaz
Uneasy must lie the head wearing the crown while a non-functioning chief justice has taken a shine to the people’s court.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s road show drew bumper crowds but in Karachi in company of Aitzaz Ahsan, currently closeting up as his attorney, chauffer, bodyguard, minder and spokesman. Forget the recent bloody brawls between MQM and the rest of the political parties. The disfranchised dictator, porous parliamentarians, politically-charged militants on a rampage, and corrupt bureaucracy speak with forked tongues. They lie to us with brazen faces. They hold rallies with our money and have the temerity to tell us how popular they are.
In their time, had honourable chief justices Muhammad Munir, A R Cornelius, Hamoodur Rehman, Yaqub Ali, Anwarul Haq outlawed martial law and tried the generals who abrogated the Constitution, General Musharraf today would be addressing the GHQ instead of rented rallies posing as a populist. Justice Kayani was different. He was a principled dissolute – unrestrained by convention: “Field Marshal, when you imposed martial law first there was silence, then we started to hear whispers and sir, when many people whisper it can turn into a whispering campaign,” M. Rustam Kayani had blurted out to Ayub Khan at the CSP Academy in Lahore 49 years ago. The latter’s face had turned red.
“Judges are a part of society in which they live and they cannot but be influenced by the pressures of public opinion,” Justice Kayani would argue. His conscience was swayed by popular sentiment and not the presidency. No wonder he never made it to the Supreme Court. Justice Dorab Patel too spurned the frills of the Supreme Court opting to resign in 1981 rather than taking the oath of allegiance to Ziaul Haq.
Justice Patel died leaving behind a deeply felt book Testament of a Liberal. In it, some brother judges are shown as “more political than legal.” He quotes C J Munir’s (1954-60) dictum which the CJ himself had violated: “When politics enters the portal of the Palace of Justice, democracy, its cherished inmate, walks out by the backdoor.”
Justice Munir validated not only the 1958 coup but “all future coups, provided they are successful”. Many years after his retirement, Justice Munir revealed that he was summoned by General Ayub Khan a day before the coup and shown a draft of “The Laws (Continuance of Force) Order which cancelled out the 1956 Constitution and the Fundamental Rights. Instead of dismissing it outright, the honourable judge became a party to it.
Cases questioning martial law and its critics were tried and convicted by a jirga under the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The Supreme Court lumped all such decisions under State v. Dosso and others (PLD 1958 SC 533). Justice Cornelius wrote a “lengthy hymn of praise of jirga trials…With respect, this was a function more appropriate for a politician than a Judge,” writes Justice Patel. Cornelius’s judgment in Dosso’s case was a “disaster for human rights of millions of people.”
Governments and public authorities are the worst enemies of rights of all types, continues Justice Patel, giving another example of Chief Justice Cornelius (1960-68) accepting Ayub Khan as the “Supreme Authority.” In Malik Ghulam Jilani v the Province of West Pakistan case, the appellants were held under the Defence of Pakistan Rules for criticising Ayub’s government. The CJ in his judgment wrote: “[the plea of the appellants] appears indeed to be a justification for politicians to play with fire in the hope that they will eventually be able to subdue the conflagration they cause. To bring about political changes by Constitutional means alone is legitimate.”
Kowtowing to the rulers, the judiciary in the past abhorred criticism. The Supreme Court didn’t even spare law secretary Sir Edward Snelson for his criticism of judges. Under contempt of court, a bench comprising Justice Shabbir Ahmed, Justice Yakub Ali and Justice Ortcheson fined Snelson Rs2,000 -- the maximum fine permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. Ironically, Justice Shabbir Ahmed after retirement practised law and was convicted in a similar contempt of court case when he commented on a case under review by the SC in a newspaper interview.
Chief Justice Hamoodur Rehman(1968-75) followed his predecessors’ practice of not ruffling the rulers. Justice Patel says that the CJ set aside Government of West Pakistan v Begum Kashmiri case only after he noticed that “times were changing… it seemed that the tide had turned against Ayub.”
Chief Justice Yaqub Ali (1975-77) was no different. He dissented with his brother judges on providing relief to Ch Zahoor Elahi and his family whom Bhutto had victimised repeatedly. The CJ also caved in to Bhutto in Wali Khan’s case. Later his party, National Awami Party was dissolved for working against the “interests of the state.” Bhutto warned the judges that the “responsibility of the consequence will be of the Supreme Court” should they reject his reference against NAP. Rushing to Bhutto’s defence was the CJ: “The PM did not intend to show any disrespect to this court and to influence its decision in any way,” said the CJ. Such gratuitousness, writes Patel, “had a disastrous effect on the image of the judiciary.”
Thus ends the tale of opportunities missed or mis-chosen by our chief justices in the past.
“The path to criticism is a public way; justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respect, even though outspoken, of ordinary men,” remarked a British jurist Atkins on the law of contempt. As citizens we have every right to be interested in the verdict the CJ gets. Speculate on what will be a just verdict we should not but expect a just verdict we should.
|
| Unix timestamp of change (timestamp) | 1392480884 |
