IN a potentially far-reaching development, the Federal Shariat Court has declared either unconstitutional or un-Islamic parts of the Protection of Women Act, 2006, the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. With legal experts still digesting the FSC’s declaration, the precise implications of the judgment will take some time to become clear. However, early on there are at least two crucial aspects that need to be highlighted. The first is a procedural issue. In essence, the FSC appears to have declared that the Sharia side of the court system is the only side empowered to try matters relating to crimes under the Hudood laws and that rather than appeals lying to the high courts and the Supreme Court, appeals in such cases are to be decided by the FSC. This appears to be an attempt by the FSC to widen its jurisdictional sphere, something which is not only alarming but also appears to be at odds with other constitutional jurisprudence. According to legal experts, the issue of jurisdiction is something only the Supreme Court is ultimately empowered to decide. That would appear to be a sensible interpretation, as the power to decide which court or forum gets to adjudicate on which matters lies at the heart of an organised and coherent legal system. If any court or forum can arrogate to itself jurisdiction on whatever matter it sees fit, judicial chaos would ensue and the whole edifice of a constitutional judicial system would be undermined.

The second issue concerns the role of the FSC itself. As per Article 203D of the constitution, if there is anything the FSC is constitutionally empowered to decide it is whether any law is repugnant to the tenets of Islam. But matters are not so straightforward. The FSC is a creation of a military dictator with an explicit agenda of remaking Pakistani society to fit with a more conservative and literalist version of Islam. Ought an institution with such a tainted beginning to sit in judgment over what the people of Pakistan empower their elected representatives to do legislatively? And is a dual judicial system something any country can afford to have? If the ultimate aim is justice, then why cannot the regular court system in Pakistan ensure that laws are just and right?

There is a related point here. The PPP supposedly stands for secular and democratic principles, but the party’s latest stint in power has done nothing to even slow down the poison coursing through the veins of the Pakistani state. Cannot the government provide some vision and leadership on this front?