THIS is with reference to the editorial “CJP’s remarks” (Feb 3). I am a senior citizen, about quarter of a century older than the average age of a normal Supreme Court Bench, have no political affiliations and have observed the conduct of the superior judiciary from chief justice Sir Abdul Rashid onwards. The said editorial, to me, sounded one-sided.

Sir Abdul Rashid had declined a cup of tea with prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan on finding out that certain federal government cases were coming up before him. Under what judicial propriety have subsequent judges been attending all sorts of social functions, which, rightly or wrongly, create a public perception of incurring obligations subsequently?

In Pakistan, historically speaking, government decisions are often challenged in the courts, and stay orders are common.

How a government is expected to deliver efficiently if it cannot promote competent persons and retire the incompetent ones? People, for instance, complain about poor service by the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), but a few years ago when the management retired some members of the cabin crew, the judiciary at the time reinstated the sacked.

Further, since almost all judges come from Bar, I wonder if it is proper for them to attend official and social functions organised by their former colleagues who are likely to appear before them in one case or the other.

The current chief justice has rightly stated that judgments can be criticised, but there should be no personal criticism of the judges.

One would hope that same criterion would be followed by members of the higher judiciary as well. Derogatory remarks about constitutional office-holders or constitutional institutions in open courts can easily be avoided.

I don’t have enough wisdom to suggest a way forward on my own, but a social debate having no emotional strings may lead to some recommendations to act as guide on this issue of national interest.

Ahmad Tasnim
Islamabad

Published in Dawn, February 8th, 2022