- The judiciary is about to decide the Qazi Faez Isa case
While the year, 2020, has brought about its fair share of setbacks and surprises, it appears that there will be more than one reasons why this year will be marked in the annals of history. The Qazi Faez Isa case, which had slowed down owing to the pandemic, has picked up pace again. Seemingly, the full court appears to be in the mood to decide the matter before hanging their robes for the summer vacations.
In the words of Mr Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the government’s ‘tout’ has stepped down to plead on behalf of the federal government. The bench which till now appears to have been divided seems to be unifying around one question; targeting of judges. The very aptly put questions by Mr Justice Munib Akhtar have narrowed down the government’s hopes of putting forward a widespread debate in a bid to confuse and divide the bench. The stance being taken by the government has been nipped in the bud by the intellectual judge from Karachi who till now appeared to be leaning towards the other side of the spectrum. Even the retrospective effect of the anti-money laundering laws and any hopes of the government to catch Justice Isa in them has been shunned.
What started on a notion of judicial accountability, it has found higher purpose to it. The decision on these petitions will not only decide the fate of Mr Justice Isa but rather will settle the pedestal upon which the superior judiciary will stand in the future. The case has swiftly taken a turn towards institutional conflict as much as we’d like to think otherwise. It is a veiled round two of the conflicts between the judiciary and the establishment with, the first being the Iftikhar Chaudhry episode. While both institutions will come out of this, eventually, the federal government, it appears, will be thrown under the bus as collateral. Warnings of repercussions in case of mala fide being established have already been issued.
The ball is in the actual court now. It is for these robed gentlemen to decide the course of the judicial ship going forward. Will they affirm the deliverance of independent verdicts or else, condone muffling of dissent at its inception
The government led by its man of action is under heavy burden to discharge the onus of the queries being shot towards them. The bench has turned hostile towards the federal government owing to its inability to stand its ground and defend its actions.
Questions regarding illegal surveillance of judges remain at the forefront. Probably the members of the bench feel the heat closer to home that they now consider it prudent to delve into these questions. The constitution of the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) and its mandate to inquire into judges of the superior judiciary is also at the forefront. Any decision against the federal government will most likely target the ARU as the frontline soldier in this tirade against the judiciary.
The bright light behind the filing of these references has also been inquired upon, probably to affix responsibility. In the aftermath of the Covid-19 lockdown, it appears that the bench has united as an institution. The far reaching consequences of the decision have been comprehended in its truer form. The fate of Mr Justice Isa is the fate of all has been dilated upon by the judges, it so appears.
Amidst the deplorable handing of the coronavirus crisis, the federal government needs to brace itself for the ill-advised filing of these references. The Supreme Court is gearing up to come hard on the federal government for its references rooted in mala fides. The bright light is all set to take the government into the corridors of darkness with no olive branch available to be extended. The only way forward to wriggle out of the situation is to withdraw the references at this stage or else, be ready to face the brunt of a united institution. The turn of the decade is going to, hopefully, take a new turn of events in the harrowed past of the judiciary. The doctrine of necessity will probably be abandoned in this case. As far as the political setup is concerned, the doctrine of necessity always remains an option however, an introduction of the said doctrine to go after judges of the superior judiciary will be disastrous for the institution, almost suicidal for the future judges.
As I opined in an earlier column, the Justice Isa case is the real test for the judiciary as opposed to any other branch of the state. It is for them to steer the course going forward which will govern the functioning of the judiciary in the future. There is no hiding from the widely believed notion of the Faizabad judgement being the prick in the functioning of other branches of the state. A decision against Mr Justice Isa would give rise to even wilder allegations of judicial manipulation, the sort from which it would be difficult for the judiciary to turn away from. The allegations are already in place. What matters is how the Supreme Court tackles them.
Observations tilting in favour of Justice Isa may paint a picture for what is about to be the conclusion. Even the remarks stating that a mere discrepancy in tax returns does not suffice to constitute misconduct is very important and has far reaching implications. It reflects the mindset being harbored at the moment. In spite of all these remarks and observations, the crux of the matter remains focused on the ultimate decision that is being rendered and the way the Supreme Court deals with different aspects of the case, treading upon the fine lines of targeting judges and judicial accountability. A toe across either side would have huge detractors.
Hopefully, the case will be concluded before the start of the summer vacations however, it is unlikely that any short order will be announced and it may well be months before we see the actual judgement being delivered. The ball is in the actual court now. It is for these robed gentlemen to decide the course of the judicial ship going forward. Will they affirm the deliverance of independent verdicts or else, condone muffling of dissent at its inception?
