Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience


‘Battle of wills’

Updated August 09, 2013

A VERY frank and objective view expressed in your editorial ‘Battle of wills’ (Aug 3). Also, it should be taken by all concerned in the right spirit instead of being treated like ‘Hubris as justice?’ (July 30), the article by Babar Sattar that was one of the most authentic accounts in recent times about current state of affairs in the Supreme Court.

During the contempt of court proceedings, the Chief Justice also stated that the remarks made by Imran Khan prima facie constituting contempt of court could not be directed even against the subordinate judiciary.

We all know how this tier of the judiciary is treated by lawyers. It has been left at the mercy of lawyers with no one to look after them. They remain under threat from lawyers in the form of abuses, having things thrown on their faces, court premises being locked and even in many cases they had been physically assaulted.

But to date the offending lawyers have not been issued any notice by the Supreme Court or any high court. Are these judges children of lesser god or lawyers more powerful than the Supreme Court?

A wrong impression that it was lawyers who restored the superior court judges may have something to do with this double standard. But the fact is that without the role played by the political parties, restoration of the judges would not have been possible.

Even if it was only the lawyers, even then under the constitution and law they don’t enjoy any immunity in this regard. If the Supreme Court continues to look the other way in taking action against lawyers, the charge of selective justice against it will stand strengthened.

Your advice that the temptation to cap off a historic chief justiceship with judicial fireworks of even greater intensity should be heeded to salvage the declining credibility of the Supreme Court and to avoid burdening the new incumbent with a distasteful baggage.