THE abrupt departure of a Supreme Court judge next in line to be chief justice — that too, in the midst of a period of unprecedented crisis — fills one with a deep sense of foreboding.

On Thursday, without warning, Justice Ijazul Ahsan tendered his resignation to the president, stating that he no longer wished to continue as a judge of the Supreme Court. A former judge and chief justice of the Lahore High Court, Justice Ahsan was slated to take over as top judge in October this year upon the retirement of the incumbent.

Instead, he chose to cut his career short just months earlier, in circumstances few seem to understand. His resignation followed the abrupt departure of another Supreme Court judge, the now-retired justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi; but though the latter’s resignation seemed logical given the circumstances, Justice Ahsan’s caught the legal community off-guard, with many describing it as a most unfortunate development.

There are those who believe that the departure of these two judges has finally purged the apex court of the influence of the so-called ‘like-minded group’. On the other hand, there are those who believe these two judges have been punished over their jurisprudential leanings.

Wherever one may stand on this debate, there is no denying that the country’s top forum for justice is experiencing an upheaval which may have direct consequences for the many crucial cases pending before it. In the interest of fairness, it must also be pointed out that it seems wrong to club Justices Ahsan and Naqvi together.

Justice Naqvi had been facing serious charges of misconduct and possible corruption at the time he chose to resign, while Justice Ahsan’s hands were still clean. And, while fingers were pointed at Justice Ahsan in the past, for example in the Grand Hyatt case, most people seem to agree that he was otherwise a ‘solid’ judge.

Justice Ahsan was obviously unhappy with the manner in which the Supreme Court had been conducting its affairs, as evidenced in his opposition to the bench which heard appeals against the military trials judgment, as well as his criticism of the SJC’s ‘hasty’ proceedings against Justice Naqvi. Considering he was part of the ‘group of three’ responsible for key decisions at the Supreme Court, efforts should have been made to convince him against resigning.

The turmoil within the court has the potential of making it a very controversial place. Many a chief justice has, in the past, played politics and/ or run the judiciary as an autocrat: making benches of their choice and sidelining judges who disagreed.

If the incumbent wants to stand apart from such antecedents, the Supreme Court should have an environment where different judges with different views feel equally welcome. A court which sidelines or silences dissent cannot be expected to do justice.

Published in Dawn, January 13th, 2024