IT is certainly an instructive lesson that is taught in the play A Man For All Seasons, when Sir Thomas More’s daughter urges him to take the oath of allegiance to a king who wants to wield power over another institution of the state — the Church.

More’s daughter pleads with him to just say the words and close his eyes to what was really at play.

To More, that was plain hypocrisy. He reminds us, “What is an oath then, but words we say to God? Listen, Meg. When a man takes an oath, he’s holding his own self in his own hands like water. And if he opens his fingers then, he needn’t hope to find himself again.” For More this was intellectual and moral injustice to your own soul. One cannot lie to one’s own self.

More’s daughter then tries another argument. Use your office to do good. Remain in the system as they say nowadays. As if a bug from within can gnaw at the wires and undo the mechanisations of power. She says that it is not More’s fault that the state is “three quarters bad”.

The oath of a judge is more than a contractual signing off.

More, however, insists on standing on what he deems to be the right. He says, “Since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice, and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little, even at the risk of being heroes.”

This risk is a big one. It is a risk that involves a person’s family, their lives work, their principles and moral compass, and ultimately their conscience. This is why, when pressed, More states that this is not a matter for the mind but “[F]inally, it’s a matter of love”.

One is reminded of the dichotomy between the intellect and the heart in Iqbal’s verse. As Iqbal says “Be-khatar kood para aatish-i-Namrood mein ishq/Aqal hai mehv-i-tamasha-i-lab-i-baam abhi” [“Love fearlessly jumped into the fire of Namrud/ Intellect is absorbed in the spectacle from the rooftop still”].

To hold true to an oath that one has taken is to hold true to one’s own self. It is to remind one’s own self of their own conscience. It is to hold true to love. It is to act in love fearlessly.

The resignation of Supreme Court justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah was an act of love. One that was fearless and true to themselves. It was fundamentally about doing justice to their own oaths — constitutional oaths.

Their resignation letters were letters of love to the country they served, the justice they meted out — as humans not angels; to the Constitution they upheld; and were in keeping with the oath they took for a constitutional role. Such an oath is a direct reflection of one’s inner self.

A failure to respond honestly to oaths could lead to an individual not even knowing what he or she believes anymore, which is a scary thought. Do that and you will be shifting your beliefs whichever way the wind blows. The late Tony Benn MP once said that politicians are of two types — either weathercocks or signposts. That may be applied to judges in Pakistan.

With a new wind blowing down the direction of a new ‘supreme’ court — housed in the Islamabad High Court building — created by the 27th Amendment, the question then is where does that leave the oath of a judge who took on the responsibility to serve under that old Constitution?

The oath of a judge is more than a contractual signing off. There is a reason it is in the Constitution and not enacted through an act of parliament. It is for this reason that even in the US supreme court, the judges are administered two different oaths upon taking office.

One is an oath by statute; the other is a constitutional oath. That is an oath of protection of that very document — of its letter and spirit. It is to ensure that the constitutional duty that a judge undertakes is done so in the sight of God.

This is an oath of conscience of not only the judge but rather of the whole society which aims for justice as an end in itself.

A constitutional oath is an oath of a judge to not only work nine to five as an employee of a constitutional court but to be an ‘elder of the nation’ and guide it along its constitutional journey towards an ever-evolving, newer vision of society — of rights, freedom and harmony.

When that vision is not allowed to be dreamt of, and when two new courts — one housed in a modern building and the other retaining but the marble façade — are drawn up by the stroke of a pen, what could be more befitting of love to act than in letting go and refusing to take a new oath of a new court within a new system of legality?

The writer was judicial law clerk to the previous senior puisne judge.

Published in Dawn, December 2nd, 2025