ISLAMABAD: Judicial activism, which was at its peak during the tenure of former chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, not only invited criticism on the judiciary but also encouraged filing of unnecessary petitions. The trend, which is still visible in the constitutional courts, is one of the reasons for delayed justice.

According to an estimate, pending cases in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) have swelled to over 13,500 with more than 31,000 cases under adjudication in its subordinate judiciary.

Despite such a huge pendency in the courts dealing with cases related to the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) only, lawyers continue filing petitions on unnecessary or petty matters perhaps for the sake of self-projection.

However, since the judges take a lenient view of frivolous petitions filed by lawyers, the number of pending cases has been on the rise.

One lawyer filed 53 petitions in IHC within the last few months on issues which were, in fact, the domain of the executive

Though IHC judges, including Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and Justice Athar Minallah, imposed fines on lawyers for filing frivolous petitions a couple of years ago, the black coats managed to get the fine amount waived with the help of their representative bodies.

Frivolous litigation, legal experts believe, not only overburdens the courts and disrupts their scheduling but also causes unnecessary delays in the dispensation of justice to those with genuine grievances.

A lawyer, Mohammad Yasir Chaudhry, filed 53 petitions in the IHC within the last a few months about issues which were, in fact, the domain of the executive.

His petitions were about issues such as the water crisis in the capital, seeking a ban on liquor sale on permits, car parking on footpaths and against government officials working in international organisations.

Interestingly, the court after hearing the matter in most of the petitions asked the lawyer to approach the relevant departments of the government.

Talking to Dawn, the lawyer conceded that he filed petitions on subjects which were related to the executive. He, however, said when the executive could not deliver a citizen can enforce the fundamental rights through the courts.

But he did not respond when asked if there was any constitutional provision which a litigant can invoke for the early disposal of a decade-long suit.

Senate Chairman Mian Raza Rabbani in his recent speech lamented that institutions were not adhering to the concept behind trichotmy of powers. He said the executive attacks parliament and interferes in the working of judiciary while the judiciary tries to overcome parliament and the executive.

Another lawyer, Raees Abdul Wahid, also filed several ‘public interest’ petitions in the IHC.

Recently, he filed a petition against PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari for adding “Bhutto” to his name. After the assassination of his mother Benazir Bhutto in December 2007, Bilawal’s father Asif Ali Zardari changed his name from Bilawal Zardari to Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

In the petition, Mr Wahid contended that such a change was not allowed in the law and, therefore, the court should issue an appropriate order against Mr Bilawal.

In another petition, the same lawyer requested the court to place Nawaz Sharif and his family on the exit control list (ECL). He filed another petition seeking the disqualification of Mr Sharif to run the affairs of his party.

A petition he filed on Saturday seeks the registration of a treason case against the owner of a private media house.

When contacted by Dawn, the lawyer insisted that since the Supreme Court had entertained petitions against politicians, the IHC can also hear such matters.

According to Raja Shafqat Khan Abbasi, a former judge of the Lahore High Court, the court should impose a fine on frivolous petitioners to discourage unnecessary petitions.

He said genuine litigants could not get a chance of hearing while frivolous petitioners wasted the time of the court.

Mohammad Shuaib Shaheen, member of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), told Dawn that the courts had powers to discourage frivolous petitions.

He said because the courts showed restraint in exercising powers, filing of such petitions was on the rise. As a consequence, the genuine litigant is to suffering the most.

Published in Dawn, August 6th, 2017