Institutions, like human beings, do not have roles set in stone. Both evolve over time. Both change in tune with the changing times in which they exist. When an institution gets inexorably linked to a human being, or vice versa, any evolution or change in one reflects itself in the other – and immediately. This is exactly the case of outgoing Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and the Supreme Court of Pakistan under him.


Quotes from the court


I will term the chief justice's tenure as a journey from 'subjugated to independent' judiciary. In his pre removal era he formed part of a compliant judiciary which was unwilling to take the executive head on even in their transgression of authority and constitutional violations. The chief justice was part of the team which endorsed the October 12th takeover by General Musharraf and also put a seal of approval on a judgment validating holding of 'two offices as chief of army staff and president of Pakistan' simultaneously.

March 9, 2007 was a defining moment in Pakistan's history when General Musharraf asked for the CJ's resignation on his being paranoid about his own eligibility in the upcoming elections. His [CJ] refusal to resign and subsequent removal/suspension from his position sparked a nationwide movement by lawyers, intellectuals, the civil society and political activists which finally led to his reinstatement.

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry shall be remembered as someone who changed the direction of the judiciary towards its ultimate destination of independence. We witnessed a completely dormant judiciary transformed into a pro-active one, taking stock of matters such as corruption, sugar and wheat prices and many other issues which are perceived to be falling within the domain of the executive.

There are leading cases picked up in original jurisdiction some of which I found myself in disagreement including cases of the Ogra chairman, SECP chairman and Asghar Khan versus General Mirza Aslam Beg's case.

If you wish to sum up the era of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry then it is an era of 'transition' which was most naturally rife with turbulence however this turbulence is an inherent part of every transition which is part of 'such a transition journey' rather than a destination. In this case the destination is an independent judiciary and the process must be continued for years and decades to come, like any where in the world.

I respect and salute Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry who played his innings very well. It is important to keep in mind that when you are playing test cricket there are chances of a few balls slipping out of your hands but he [CJ] remains 'the man of the match'.

There is no doubt that he [Chief Justice] has created history. What concerns me though is that despite all the p-0 work he put in during the last five years, especially after his restoration, I believe he could have given more attention to matters regarding discipline. It was important to have laid a clear rule under article 184(3), commonly know as suo motu jurisdiction.

There is no denying that he [CJ] took up some serious issues on corruption but the general perception is that the CJ exercised this jurisdiction [suo motu] very liberally which resulted in some cases encroaching into [the jurisdiction of] other organs.

As a result the country's bureaucracy was sandwiched, having on one hand to fulfil instruction by the government and being made to answer to the Supreme Court on the other. The manner in which bureaucrats and parliamentarians were consistently summoned to court was not appropriate.

Another example is the NRO case, which was declared void but all cases were remanded to the High Court. The PPP-led government did not prosecute in those cases they way they were supposed to. As president, Mr Zardari had immunity but the co-accused in the cases were acquitted. Obviously, now when he [Zardari] can be prosecuted the same evidence will be presented as they were in the cases of the co-accused. If they were not convicted then how will Zardari be?

Considering that he worked very long hours sometimes 18 to 20 hours a day, I think there was a great deal more he could have achieved but what is done is done and now part of history.

Prior to his removal Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was not a popular judge rather a crony of the executives. Everyone knew of his close links to the military and to General Musharraf and how he was elevated to the position of Chief Justice. However, after his restoration he distanced himself from the executive but he went on a vengeance which overtakes one's sense of good judgment and justice. Matters went to the extent that he made contempt of court a weapon for protecting the judiciary even from legitimate criticism.

As a human right activist this [exercising contempt of court] is a severe curb on people's freedom of expression. Especially after his son's case he [CJ] lost all moral authority to sit on the chair and claim that he was the cleanest and mightiest person in Pakistan. The incident with his son raises questions as to how cases were selected and taken to a height with no real conclusion. In fact case management is at its worst in the Supreme Court.

His interference extended to matters of the bar council as well disregarding the bar leadership, which is why as he leaves his position there have barely been any farewells held in his honour. All the lawyers want is that suo motu cases should not be selective.

Speaking of the selection of newly appointed judges as well suffice to say that many of them have not been made on merit. Lawyers with p-0ly any experience of court practice are elevated and some with serious allegations of wrong doings have also made it to the bench.

Populist judges take their cue from the media that sets a very dangerous trend. Where will people go for protection then? That said, I do appreciate his initiative and judgment on some cases such as Khwaja Sera, rape victims and missing persons. But largely I think he is leaving behind a jurisprudence that is becoming more like a Jirga and will have to be corrected.

As he retires today, eight years after he assumed the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, no state institution – not even the military, which for most part of Pakistan’s history has been the ultimate arbiter of national politics — dominates the national scene as completely as does the Supreme Court. So does Justice Chaudhry. He has lectured all and sundry on public morality, issues stern warnings almost daily to errant officials, has peddled a populist nationalism on issues of economy and national security and has never tired of reminding anyone within earshot that he has been adjudicating in the name of, and for, the common man.

From the security of the state (suo motu notice of the memo which allegedly threatened the very existence of the country) to the safety of the citizens (hearings on law and order in Quetta and Karachi), from prices of onions to the privatisation of the Steel Mill, from corruption in government departments to questions about the legitimacy, as well as the ability, of an incumbent administration — his has been an all encompassing domain. Except that anyone harping on all these themes day in and day out should sound like an opposition politician rather than an exalted custodian of the law and justice. (Does Justice Chaudhry plan to enter politics once constitutional restrictions against that are no longer valid is a question many of his friends and foes are already asking.)

Justice Chaudhry, however, has done more than just what an opposition politician would or could. He has wielded complete authority, unrestrained by any checks and balances, to set everything right in the image of his own, decidedly populist, ideals. In sound bites and headlines, he has provided self-declared solutions for every single problem that Pakistan is facing. Each of these remedies, though, has had one main ingredient: judicial authority and oversight over everything else. The government can freely go about doing its business as long as it does not annoy the court always quick to take offence. A prime minister can appoint and transfer officials at will as long as the honourable lordships allow him to do so. The Parliament has the power to enact any laws as long as the Supreme Court approves of them. Occupiers of the high offices can work with complete autonomy with the only condition that they will serve at the pleasure of the superior judiciary. (Once they lose that mandate, the Supreme Court will ask their subordinates to lodge cases against them and launch probes against them.) It is entirely another matter that all these pronouncements have done little to achieve their declared objectives of improving governance, putting the economy back on track, providing relief to the people struggling to cope with inflation and raising the quality and the capability of the legislature. If anything, they have won Justice Chaudhry innumerable brownie points and a massive amount of media coverage.

In this he has been helped by a great advantage he enjoyed over prime ministers, their cabinets, the Parliament and other functionaries of the state. He has had all the power; others have had all the responsibility. It is, indeed, a great constitutional and democratic ideal achieved though in a perverse way: Functions are now divided neatly among the institutions of the state. That this division has resulted in a massive gain for Justice Chaudhry and the Supreme Court he has lorded over is not for him to be bothered about.

As he has been reminding all of us in his farewell speeches that he has turned the Supreme Court into the saviour of last resort for the poor and the needy, Justice Chaudhry, indeed, has been on a one man mission to rid the country of all its social, economic and political ills – that is, by his own claim. Whether people have actually benefited from his stint as the head of the superior judiciary as far as removing multiple inequalities in the state and the society is concerned is definitely a matter of serious debate. His critics and detractors would go to the extent of arguing that the courts, over the last few years, have actually failed to perform their basic function – of delivering justice and adjudicating on litigation involving common people. They have instead been all focused heavily on politically significant cases. These critics cite how, under Justice Chaudhry’s watch, cases have been piling up at all levels of the judiciary; they also point out rampant corruption among junior judges and other court officials and lament the absence of any initiative for carrying out some reform of the dowdy, creaking and overburdened legal and judicial system. Some bar associations and their office-bearers have, in fact, gone a step ahead and blamed the superior judiciary of turning a bad situation worse. They allege that many have been appointed as high court judges not on merit but because of their links with a certain group of lawyers close to Justice Chaudhry.

All this has been made possible by a single factor: Justice Chaudhry and the Supreme Court have been above any accountability, since at least 2009. When the Supreme Court decided in mid-2007 against hearing a presidential reference against Justice Chaudhry, he – and by extension, the Supreme Court — has made it clear that nobody has the authority to hold him, and the Supreme Court, accountable no matter what. When the case against his son came up for hearing in 2012, judicial norms and procedures were easily set aside and no one dared challenge or change that. Those who protested against the apex court’s real and perceived “excesses” were promptly served with contempt of court notices. The registrar of the Supreme Court never allowed the Auditor General of Pakistan to carry out an audit of the court’s funds. While the Supreme Court under Justice Chaudhry passed a judgment against extending the tenures of government employees beyond their retirements, he did extend the tenure of one fellow judge at least once (and wanted to extend it for a second time too) and helped the Supreme Court registrar to stay in his job even though he has long passed the age of superannuation. Again, no serious questions allowed on both counts.

Such predominance of one institution, indeed of one man, above all else has resulted in a steep price for our fledgling democracy to pay. The executive stands shriveled and the parliament has been rendered irrelevant. Is all this worth what the country has got in exchange?

The sum total of achievements of Justice Chaudhry and the Supreme Court during his tenure as the Chief Justice of Pakistan has been nominal, though screeching headlines and rambunctious talk shows would have you believe otherwise. The disqualification of many elected representatives over fake degrees, dual nationality and other electoral procedural laws has not tilted the electoral field even by a narrow margin in the favour of the pious and the truthful patriots; all the multiple headline grabbing corruption cases have not resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of any political big shots; few, if any, missing persons have been set free from the detention of the intelligence and security agencies which Justice Chaudhry, on his second last day in office, declared illegal (no official, however, has so far been charged, let alone convicted, for keeping people in illegal detention); law and order in Karachi and Quetta has followed political, ethnic and sectarian dynamics in the two cities despite all the eloquence on the reasons thereof emanating from the superior judiciary; and the taxes declared illegal by the court have ended up burdening the economy with more budget deficit and consequently more debt and more inflation — both indirect taxes for all intents and purposes. Above all, the huge hoopla over the Supreme Court’s verdict against the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) has resulted in no serious proceedings against any of the ordinance’s 8000 or so beneficiaries. Let us not even talk about the possibility of resumption of the Swiss cases against former president Asif Ali Zardari.

Much has been made of the Supreme Court’s verdict against judges who took oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order issued by Pervez Musharraf in November 2007 and another verdict which binds all judges to not cooperate with any military or non-military dictator in the future. Whether the two decisions serve as a genuine impediment to a military takeover of power in the years and the decades to come will only be decided when these judgments face their real test. History, however, suggests that the superior courts and their learned judges have always found ingenuous ways to bypass previous judgments and judicial precedents when it comes to justifying and legitimising a dictatorial takeover of power. Will they behave differently next time they are told by a dictator to take an ultra-constitutional oath? My guess is as good (or bad) as anyone else’s.

That brings us back to the relationship between the individual and the institution. When Justice Chaudhry first became the Chief Justice of Pakistan in 2005, the superior judiciary was as pliant as it always has been under the dictators and Justice Chaudhry was as obliging as many of his predecessors have been during military regimes. Then, the situation took a dramatic turn in 2007.

Since then the legitimacy, independence and power of the Supreme Court have risen and fallen in tandem with the waning and waxing fortunes of Justice Chaudhry. The legitimacy of the Supreme Court became a function of his legitimacy (remember how the court under Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar enjoyed p-0ly any popular legitimacy); independence of the judiciary became synonymous with his independence (other deposed judges would refuse to resume their jobs unless he was restored to his post) and all judicial powers came to be vested in his person (there has been never — yes, never — a dissenting note in any of the high profile Supreme Court judgments delivered since his restoration in March 2009).

For the Supreme Court, therefore, Justice Chaudhry’s stint as the Chief Justice of Pakistan has been an unprecedented run in the institution’s history so far. Today, however, it comes to an end. Once Justice Chaudhry is gone, he will take all the legitimacy, independence and power he has bestowed on the Supreme Court with him. His successors will have to earn all of that all over again, albeit depending strongly on what kind of political times are there in the offing for Pakistan.

The writer is the editor of the Herald magazine.


Timeline of major events


IT is ungracious to take pot shots at someone walking into the sunset. But to refuse to take stock of the performance of a public office holder as remarkable as Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and draw lessons for the future is also undesirable.

In measuring up Chaudhry’s tenure as chief justice there are five broad areas that invite comment: judicial independence; suo motu powers; judicial appointments; judicial reform; and Arsalan Iftikhar.

CJ Chaudhry’s lasting contribution to Pakistan is that no one dare mistake the judiciary for being an extension of the executive anymore. Judges no longer fear falling out of favour with the ruler of the day and we are better off for it. CJ Chaudhry might be retiring and the pendulum of activism might swing back a notch causing desirable correction, but the Supreme Court will remain a powerhouse.

It doesn’t matter that in fighting for the constitutional protection afforded to judges, CJ Chaudhry was in fact fighting for his job. Had he chosen to resign and go home on March 9, 2007, judicial independence would still be in its infancy. His decision to defy the might of the state wasn’t without grave personal consequences. His standing up created a window of opportunity that has strengthened the rule of law.

There is no question that we need a strong independent judiciary to act as an effective check on abuse of power by the executive. What CJ Chaudhry’s reign has done is highlight that we also need an effective system of internal checks to ensure that the judiciary doesn’t commit the misdeeds it is meant to check in others.

Freedom from external interference is one dimension of judicial independence. The other is the ability of the individual judge to discharge functions without interference from peers. This dimension, fettered historically by the misconceived notion of pater familias, has suffered further under CJ Chaudhry who ran a tight ship.

In the initial run after restoration, judges shared the desire to stick together and fight their fights against the PCO judges and the NRO government. This is when we saw large benches and unanimous decisions. The bonhomie probably ended with the challenge to the 18th Amendment.

As some judges refused to become party to striking down a constitutional amendment, the matter had to be sent back to parliament for reconsideration as a compromise.

Internal differences grew with the Memogate controversy and the trigger-happy use of suo motu by CJ Chaudhry. And we saw in the last year excessive reliance on administrative powers to constitute smaller benches, pack off independent-minded judges to other cities along with inconsequential cases and reserve suo motus and other populist matters for Court One.

Both in relation to suo motu and the authority to nominate judges we saw CJ Chaudhry monopolise the collective power of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission, respectively. First he managed to get himself granted the exclusive right to make judicial nominations. And then in exercise of judicial power the court diminished the parliamentary committee’s role in scrutinising judicial appointments. While the Supreme Court has rightly ruled that appointments and promotions within the executive must be the product of an open, rigorous and purposive process, if the same principles are applied to judicial appointments under CJ Chaudhry, many of the appointments might not pass muster.

The use of suo motu by CJ Chaudhry has been problematic. Since its use rests on the will of one man, its exercise is random and inconsistent by design. For example, there is no way to understand suo motus over increase in sugar prices or recovery of two bottles of wine from someone’s luggage except as whimsical populism. Media’s role in suo motu incitement also cultivated its raunchy relationship with the CJ office that is not in accord with the judicial code of conduct.

By laying down no clear judicial tests for ‘public importance’ and ‘fundamental rights’ for Article 184(3) purposes or clarifying the nature of relief the court ought to grant, suo motu has become a source of legal uncertainty. The manner of its use denied the accused the presumption of innocence, curbed the right to appeal, and raised doubts about the court ability to act as an impartial arbiter of the law.

The use of suo motu might have cultivated in public mind the image of the chief justice as a saviour. But it has done so at the expense of our ordinary judicial system as everyone now wishes to be heard directly by our highest court. It is true that the need for suo motu arises due to a malfunctioning governance system. But it is equally the failure of ordinary judicial processes that create a need for fire brigade operations fulfilled in turn by Supreme Court’s suo motus.

CJ Chaudhry’s biggest failing is that since June 2005 he has allowed a moribund court system to limp along under his watch. Instead of throwing his weight behind rebuilding and strengthening sustainable judicial processes, he relied on suo motus to create the perception of a functional judicial system, which is nothing more than a top heavy structure suspended in mid air with moth-eaten foundations incapable of serving the judicial needs of all aggrieved Pakistanis.

The moment of utter shame for CJ Chaudhry (and the entire court) was the Arsalan Iftikhar saga. Loud protestations of innocence did not prevent the court’s fall from grace in the pubic eye. If there was a time when CJ Chaudhry ought to have resigned to save his honour instead of showing up for work with the Holy Book in hand, it was when his son was caught red-handed.

CJ Chaudhry’s legacy is a mixed bag. He will be remembered as the politician judge who resurrected an independent judiciary, but driven by power, went too far pushing personal agendas and wading into the business of other vital state institutions. None of this should however prevent the Supreme Court Bar Association from preserving tradition and hosting a farewell dinner for the outgoing chief justice even if not for the man.

The writer is a lawyer.

sattar@post.harvard.edu

Twitter: @babar_sattar

BEFORE Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry came along, the one resurrection known to mankind had been deemed a miracle. But Pakistan’s chief justice managed it twice — in 2007 and then in 2009. And since his second coming, what a rollercoaster ride the inhabitants of the big white building on Constitution Avenue have been on. From the NRO to the prime minister’s appointments to missing people, nothing proved too small or too controversial.

Some of it, it is alleged, was driven by the CJ’s love of publicity. It’s plausible — on the first day of his restoration, he walked up the stairs to his office on the top floor of the building. The clever move provided visuals to the 24/7 news channels as each one of them showed the climb. It was a moment that captured the CJ and his era. For individuals — however larger than life they may be — are a product of their times and the CJ is no different. He captured the imagination of a nation that was tiring of a dictator and learning to shape its destiny as the news camera stood witness.

General (retd) Musharraf provided a focal point for those opposing him when he sacked the CJ. The political parties, the lawyers, the same middle class that Musharraf was said to have mid-wifed. And of course the television cameras turned this into the stuff of legends — the 26-hour journey to Lahore from Islamabad, the May 2007 visit to Karachi and even the final Long March in 2009.

The dictator slayer understood this. He returned after a revolution that had been televised and he ensured that the cameras didn’t stop rolling.

He thundered against corruption, chastised bureaucrats and police officials, treating them with the contempt ordinary people wished they could exercise. He personified the aam aadmi when he reminded the politician that his job was to serve the people.

A lawyer who does not want to be named says: “The CJ needs to be seen in his two roles — his historic defiance to Musharraf, which no one can ever deny him, and then as an ordinary judge where he faulted again and again.”

His courtroom proceeded to provide fodder to the 24/7 ticker monster with a voracious appetite.

In an age of experience where politicians were bound by economic constraints and could no longer promise roti, kapra aur makaan, the CJ became the medieval king whose darbar was open to all those who could send in a petition or get a journalist to report their story.

At the same time, the traditional saviour of the people, the army, was also busy patching its uniform that had seen considerable wear and tear during the Musharraf era.

Within this context, Chaudhry made all the right sounds, especially for the burgeoning middle class that wanted not just employment and food hand-outs from its elected representatives but also merit and honesty.

He promised to check sugar prices, corruption, appointments made on the basis of nepotism and shady contracts that were finalised after alleged kickbacks. Cartel owners, investors and prime ministers were dragged to the courts.

Bureaucrats were kept so busy that they complained they had little time left for their work.

And most were treated with disdain. For instance, Adnan Khawaja, whom then prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani appointed as the head of OGDCL, was berated for his young age when he appeared in the court. Few managed to give as good as they got, such as former attorney general Irfan Qadir whose verbal sparring in Courtroom One was relished by many.

The Swiss cases proved such an obsession that the Supreme Court sent home an elected prime minister despite warnings that it would derail a fledgling democracy.

Perhaps, someone remembered that the middle classes in most developing countries have always prioritised honesty over democracy.

Be as it may, this was not the only time Iftikhar Chaudhry’s court was accused of judicial over-reach. The International Commission of Jurists’ latest report on the SC provides an excellent and comprehensive analysis of the court’s activities.

Ahmer Bilal Soofi, who is a Supreme Court advocate as well as a former federal minister, advocated for strategic judicial restraint in the future, adding that “each time there is a violation of a rule or an audit objection, corruption cannot be assumed and a criminal case registered. The courts and NAB have to have proof of corruption before proceeding”.

He said the government, its bureaucrats and entrepreneurs should be given a chance to take quick decisions and turn the wheel of economy.

His views were seconded by a former government official who said that the SC had hampered decision making in the executive.

By this time, his earlier supporters had distanced themselves from him — the gutsy lawyers who had led the initial onslaught against Musharraf in support of Chaudhry (Asma Jahangir, Aitzaz Ahsan and Ali Ahmed Kurd, to name a few); political parties such as the PPP and the ANP that shed blood for his restoration became his biggest critics and even within the bars there were whispers. And then came the harshest blow — his son’s alleged corruption that left a dark stain on his reputation. It’s a stain that has not faded with time.

But the final blow came just recently when protesting lawyers outside his Court House were attacked by the police. The incident brought home his isolation from his support base.

But perhaps more importantly, Chaudhry’s justice was of the medieval variety — akin to the caring rulers who roamed the streets to check on the welfare of their subjects. This individualised approach to justice remains just that — popular folklore that does not impress those who record history.

Sugar prices remained unchanged while the real estate juggernaut Bahria Town too ploughs ahead and McDonalds still continues to sell its burgers from the corner of the F-9 park in Islamabad; judgments cannot change market forces nor institutional working.

As an observer pointed out, “he never strengthened the judicial system, especially its lower tiers”.

The most famous political cases drag on unresolved — soap operas in which the audiences have lost interest. The NRO implementation case; ‘Memogate’; Bahria Town’s land cases — none has come to a clean end with a judgment that offers the flawed polity a new beginning or a new direction. The detailed judgment on the 18th amendment is also awaited.

Even with the missing people’s case, where the CJ’s harshest detractors have praised him, the court has simply had the Angelina Jolie effect. The high-profile hearings have given it national prominence. But beyond that, the disappearances continue, the mutilated bodies are still dumped and the relatives’ search has not ended. (A lawyer described the order passed on Tuesday as ‘an eyewash’.) In other words, at the end the CJ proved that while judges can aspire to be charismatic figures who speak “populese” instead of “legalese”, governance tasks are best left to those who accept the responsibility and the authority to rule.

His tenure reminds us that justice at the end of the day is not bigger than the system that ensures it. In most cases he had to turn to the very executive that he berated and held in contempt and asked it to investigate; establish facts or make laws. This is why perhaps all Chaudhry could do decisively was to overturn the NRO — that Musharraf had bulldozed in his last days and which enjoyed little to no support. So when the court asked parliament to ratify it, everyone backed off and Chaudhry’s supporters chalked it down as a victory.

That is all the revolutionary judge will leave behind when he exits the big white building on Dec 11. Even the television cameras, his steadfast allies, will remain behind. He will walk away, aware that Musharraf will define Chaudhry’s legacy as much as Chaudhry defines Musharraf’s. The legal aspect will always remain secondary.

As journalist and analyst Nusrat Javed puts it: “The chief justice is leaving as a strong man without a legacy.”

The writer is Dawn’s Resident Editor, Islamabad

Comments (21) Closed
karamba
Dec 12, 2013 01:32am
A well written article. In short, the man was all talk but no walk.
Recommend 0
imranrahbar
Dec 12, 2013 09:35am
good or bad whatever way you gauge the legacy, one thing is for sure this guy had nerves of steel and every politician and person on a decision making post in Pakistan should emulate him at least in this regards!!!Sir!enjoy a well worked retirement!
Recommend 0
Waseem
Dec 12, 2013 09:49am
very sober piece of analysis.
Recommend 0
Qasim
Dec 12, 2013 02:55pm
Brilliant summation of **the good, bad and ugly**
Recommend 0
Shabbir
Dec 12, 2013 02:56pm
Case Dismissed? Is Arsalan Iftikhar case also dismissed or still it is going on? Whatever good things CJ has done, his own son's case and the CJ's inaction remains a dark spot on the justice cloak.
Recommend 0
MURTHYINDIA
Dec 12, 2013 06:53pm
HE IS A GREAT MAN OF THE SUB CONTINENT.
Recommend 0
Tariq mehmood
Dec 12, 2013 07:08pm
In country like pakistan anyone who gets popularity for any reason think or make to think this way,so time would decied.
Recommend 0
Shahzad
Dec 12, 2013 07:27pm
Good analysis. I wish the author had put some more emphasis on his corrupt son and how CJ contributed to his successes!
Recommend 0
Salman Ali
Dec 12, 2013 07:50pm
Excellent analysis. Very objective. I am a fan of retired Chief Justice but also agree that he could have done more to strengthen Judiciary.
Recommend 0
Iqbal khan
Dec 12, 2013 08:55pm
Interesting to note all those anchors who used to praise him left right and centre are criticizing him openly about various things which they dare talking when he was CJ.
Recommend 0
bkt
Dec 13, 2013 12:02am
Despite his many, many, many failings, all I can say is that in the end, thank goodness he was there. Democracy with its checks and balances was never functioning well in Pakistan. It was always a one man show under the CJ showed up. The one man show of Musharraf was first challenged and then the one man show Zardari was challenged. That was whta we needed the most. Someone to remind these one man show dictators (whether military or elected) that there really were checks to their power. Thank you CJ sahib for being there for us
Recommend 0
S Chaudhury
Dec 13, 2013 05:30am
This man has done more damage than good to Pakistan. He is partly responsible since 2007 the economic difficulties face Pakistan today.
Recommend 0
Syed Ahmed
Dec 13, 2013 08:25am
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry started twisting Zardari's tail, the later twisted his tail badly by setting Malik Riaz after his son, Arsalan Ifthikar. Malik Riaz cunningly tamed him to put a blot on Ifthikar Chaudris reputation.
Recommend 0
Aftab Ahmed shah
Dec 13, 2013 03:53pm
Chief Justice (R) has done his part now it is for his successors to preserve his legacy. He was an outstanding judge.
Recommend 0
Hamid hassan
Dec 13, 2013 06:32pm
the most politicised CJ ever who hasn't punished any terrorist in his all tenure, taken full perks and availed all the leaves but always focused on big projects and power politics. He always saw problems on the other side but when his kid was found doing bad, the case vanished from the court files as it was never there before
Recommend 0
siraj abbasi
Dec 13, 2013 07:02pm
A Govt Servant in his oath emphasize that he may not indulge in to politics and will do his job efficiently and effectively. That is why they are getting high salaries. If he did good so this was his job. If he did bad he was a corrupt officer. During all season Arsalan would remain a good question on his efficiency.
Recommend 0
Laeeq
Dec 13, 2013 09:48pm
@S Chaudhury: Please elaborate...
Recommend 0
Humayun Habib
Dec 14, 2013 05:33am
I would like to hear CJ's verison and look forward to his biography and memoirs. On a general note, I apprecaite his courage and respect his bold decisions
Recommend 0
Humayun Habib
Dec 14, 2013 05:36am
I do not want to sound biased but wondering way too heavy hopes pinned from an individual while rest of the systems, lawyer associations, and government office holders do not deliver. I appreciatee the courage of CJ Iftikhar and respect his bold clear decisions.
Recommend 0
usher
Dec 14, 2013 05:13pm
He was the "Sultan Rahi" of Pakistan's judiciary system, hence been very famous in Punjab
Recommend 0
Javed Agha
Dec 14, 2013 05:22pm
Very biased article. At least he highlighted a lot of cases for the good of Pakistan.
Recommend 0