Judiciary and tolerance

Published April 21, 2014

Chief Justice Tassaduq Jillani implored recently that, “we have to protect the constitutional values of democracy, or religious tolerance, of human dignity and providing inexpensive and expeditious justice.”

Who can deny that our allegiance to these foundational values, upon which is founded our claim of being a civilised society, is faltering? While reforming society falls beyond the judiciary’s province, more power to CJ Jillani if making our court system an emblem of tolerance figures on top of his agenda for judicial reform.

The causes of our growing intolerance are many. But most relevant to the justice system are two. One, if there is lack of faith in the ability of the formal legal process to deliver justice — those subjected to injustice resort to self-help. And thus revenge and violence fill the space to be occupied by justice. Two, if there is no certainty of punishment and the justice system is no deterrent, those who believe in enforcing their views and beliefs through use of force are emboldened.

The manifestations of intolerance within our justice system include: composition of the judiciary; failure to evolve meaningful jurisprudence on the right to liberty; tolerance for intolerance manifested in court proceedings; self-righteousness or inability to distinguish between the law and personal morality; and failure to breath life into a moth-eaten justice system that offers no hope to ordinary Joes.

In a diverse society, faith in impartiality doesn’t grow because it is loudly proclaimed. The perception of impartiality is linked to the representative character of institutions. Other diverse societies have relied on affirmative action to ensure representation of minority and marginalised groups within administrative and judicial forms to buttress their legitimacy in the eyes of marginalised groups.

In the entire history of our Supreme Court we have had not more than a handful non-Muslim judges — Alvin Cornelius, Dorab Patel, Rustam Sidhwa and Rana Bhagwandas come to mind. Never has a woman served on the Supreme Court. More recently nominations of lawyers for the high court have been shot down because they are Ahmedi or even because they are suspected of enjoying the forbidden nectar. Shia judges serving even in the superior courts complain privately that they face faith-based prejudice.

Words alone might be insufficient to reassure minorities that our courts are impervious to the biases otherwise on full display within our society. And the responsibility for lack of representativeness of our superior judiciary rests with no one other than the judiciary itself. For our judiciary has aggressively guarded its turf to singlehandedly determine its composition, even by toying with the perilous idea of striking down the 18th Amendment.

Our courts have undoubtedly expanded the scope of fundamental rights over the years. We have seen evolution of citizens’ economic rights. We have seen the state’s arbitrary decisions struck down under Article 25 (right to equality). We have seen expansive interpretation of the right to life under Article 9, which holds that “no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law”. But what we haven’t seen is a meaningful interpretation or enforcement of the right to ‘liberty’ beyond its basic physical manifestation ie freedom from arbitrary arrest.

What is more problematic is the judiciary’s manifest tolerance for intolerance. Legal equality is fiction in a sense that it is meant to exist despite social and economic inequalities prevalent within the society. But if the function of courts is limited to endorsing and legitimising societal power relations instead of protecting the weak against them, are such courts chambers of justice or expediency?

Let’s turn to recent cases. Some zealot charged that a painting visible in a photo printed in a magazine published by the National College of Arts was blasphemous. The publication had to be discontinued as a means of resolving the dispute. Another zealot charged that a private school in Lahore teaching students the history of religions in a course entitled comparative religions was indulging in immorality. The school had to shelve the course to save its skin. The manner in which blasphemy suspects are convicted under mob pressure needs no repetition.

In 1996, Justice Arif Bhatti of the Lahore High Court was shot in his chambers after the release of an 11-year old charged with blasphemy. In 1998, the bishop of Faisalabad, Dr John Joseph, shot himself outside a courthouse, to protest the persecution of the Christians in the name of enforcing blasphemy laws. Pervez Ali Shah, the judge, who sentenced Mumtaz Qadri to death for killing Governor Salmaan Taseer, has been ‘exiled’ to Saudi Arabia to save his life.

We have also begun mixing law with personal morality. If unchecked this will oust legal certainty from the rule of law and replacing it with the whims of individual judges. Self-righteousness can take reason out of law and leave it at the mercy of the personal faith and moral preferences of adjudicators. Self-righteousness, if practised by someone in judicial robes doesn’t make it any less a manifestation of intolerance than that being practised by someone forcing his personal moral code on a fellow citizen by holding a gun to his head.

If courts can neither protect themselves nor citizens from social coercion and the lesson learnt (with the help of base survival instinct) is that it is better to appease the intolerant than to confront them, such courts might do more harm than good by hastening the transformation of a coercive social consensus into a conformist one.

The writer is a lawyer.

sattar@post.harvard.edu

Opinion

Editorial

Afghan turbulence
19 Mar, 2024

Afghan turbulence

RELATIONS between the newly formed government and Afghanistan’s de facto Taliban rulers have begun on an...
In disarray
19 Mar, 2024

In disarray

IT is clear that there is some bad blood within the PTI’s ranks. Ever since the PTI lost a key battle over ...
Festering wound
19 Mar, 2024

Festering wound

PROTESTS unfolded once more in Gwadar, this time against the alleged enforced disappearances of two young men, who...
Defining extremism
Updated 18 Mar, 2024

Defining extremism

Redefining extremism may well be the first step to clamping down on advocacy for Palestine.
Climate in focus
18 Mar, 2024

Climate in focus

IN a welcome order by the Supreme Court, the new government has been tasked with providing a report on actions taken...
Growing rabies concern
18 Mar, 2024

Growing rabies concern

DOG-BITE is an old problem in Pakistan. Amid a surfeit of public health challenges, rabies now seems poised to ...