LAHORE: Law Minister Rana Sanaullah Khan said on Tuesday the parliament and provincial assemblies would merely “discuss” the maligning of politicians, collapse of administration and erosion of government’s writ as a result of the wording of judgments or judges’ remarks, without showing any disrespect to the judiciary.

“We highly respect the judiciary as it is the basis of a democratic society, but this respect has a constitutional limit. The remarks by judges and wording of the judgments have broken down administration and portrayed us (as) thieves and villains. There are counter remarks and the exchange from both the sides should be stopped through discussion in the parliament,” he said.

“Others respect is also inviolable and this should be kept in mind. The judiciary is independent, but legislature too is an institution. There would be no balance in the working of the state if one institution intervenes in the affairs of every other institution,” he said.

The minister was talking to the media outside the Punjab Assembly, defending Monday’s decision by the prime minister to take the issue of the judges’ remarks and the wordings of judgements to the parliament.

No plans to change law, Constitution

“The prime minister did not intend disrespect to the judiciary,” he said.

He said adjournment and privilege motions would be moved in the assemblies to agitate the issue, and these would not be against anyone. Everything would be done in full respect to the judiciary, he added. Any decision, if taken on any motion, would be brought to the notice of the chief justice of Pakistan, he said.

Disagreeing with a reporter, the law minister said there was no plan to have the practice of “remarks or the wording,” stopped through an amendment in the Constitution or the law.

“We will discuss how the practice could be stopped without any amendment. Its better the remarks and the counter-remarks are stopped through discussion in the assembly,” he said.

He said such remarks and the wordings were undermining authority of the parliament. Removing judges through means other than prescribed by the Constitution would affect independence of the judiciary, he added.

Similarly, he said, removing a prime minister through a “technical method” different from the procedure defined in the Constitution would also erode authority of the office. A prime minister who was to run the country should not be removed through a technical method, he stressed.

The law minister said administrative officers in Punjab were being “maltreated” in front of their subordinates and complainants, resulting in erosion of their authority. The authority of the judiciary should back other authorities in a country for effective administration, he added.

Complaining of, what he termed, intervention in administrative matters, he said work on Lahore’s Orange Line train project kept suspended for 22 months (because of litigation). It was an election project but it would not be completed before the next polls because of the delay, he regretted, adding that the court’s suo motu powers were also hurting the government.

Replying to a question relating to the murder of two lawyers in Lahore, he said the incident too was a result of the “interventions” that had eroded authority of the government.

He said Punjab police had not confirmed that former “encounter expert” Abid Boxer was brought to Lahore. “I cannot say anything if he (Abid) has been brought here by any other force,” he said.

Published in Dawn, February 21st, 2018