THE sudden demise of Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, a judge of the Supreme Court, chief justice of the Sindh High Court, a tireless human rights lawyer with a sharp intellect, an exceptionally humane and humble person, is an irreparable loss.

While many join the legal profession for a successful career, he did so to use the law for advancing the cause of justice and helping the poor and underprivileged. Rather than corporate bosses and rich bankers, labourers, students, inmates and dismissed employees had a conspicuous presence among his clients.

Nothing could disturb him more than the misuse of power. He treated public power as a trust and its repositories as trustees. All public power had to be used honestly for the advancement of the rule of law. Any arbitrary, whimsical or discriminatory use of public power amounted to a breach of trust and warranted immediate rectification by the law.

Nothing could excite him more than a new proposition of the law. Starting from the basic principles, he would engage in arguments for hours getting to the heart of the matter. He could switch over from one area of law to another, connecting them with unbelievable ease and clarity. His ability to think on the spur of the moment and respond to the opposite contention with overwhelming logic was remarkable. However, he argued not to persuade others of his arguments but to elicit their response to move further up. He could also yield to better arguments from the other side and accept and adopt them.

Through his work, Justice Sabih continues to enrich our understanding of jurisprudence. It is said that good judges speak through their judgments. If this is the case, Justice Sabih will continue to speak to us for many generations to come.

His numerous judgments reflect the principles of law which he developed and honed as a lawyer and human rights activist. As a lawyer he defended hundreds of labourers, students and political activists detained due to political reasons. He was left disturbed not by the illegality of the detentions and the violation of fundamental rights but the slavish adherence of public servants to superior illegal orders. He was pleased that the detainees were released because of the intervention of the courts but remained dissatisfied that the perpetrators would go scot-free. He pleaded that those guilty of misconduct should bear the costs but the courts were not ready for such a leap.

Finally an opportunity arose in the case of Mazharuddin vs The State 1998 P Cr. LJ 1035. No longer a mere pleader, Sabihuddin Ahmed, now a judge, seized the moment and delivered a landmark judgment and awarded costs which were to be recoverable from the perpetrator of the crime. Though soft in nature, he dealt sternly with public servants who violated the law.

While Justice Sabih was always deferential to precedents his dynamic approach to the law never allowed him to remain shackled to the past. For him, precedent alone was insufficient to stall the development of the law. While interpreting the legal terminology of the legal character used in Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, in the case of Arif Majeed Malik vs BOG, Karachi Grammar School 2004 CLC 1029, he observed that “...when the Act, 1877, was enacted the concept of rights which could be enforced through courts was largely confined to status as understood in a feudal social context or rights pertaining to property in laissez-faire economy.

“With the development of jurisprudence over more than a century a large number of other rights which did not, strictly speaking, relate to the status of an individual or deal with tangible property came to be recognised by law and some of them in the form of guaranteed fundamental rights. The right to privacy, to carry on the business of one's choice, access to public information and large body of social and cultural rights neither relate to status in the traditional sense nor tangible property. Keeping in view ... that whenever there is right there must always be a remedy to enforce persuaded the courts not to remain bound within the technicalities ... for the purpose of granting relief.”

In the case of Muhammad Daud vs Federation of Pakistan 2007 SBLR Sindh 495, Justice Sabih discarded the antiquated doctrine of master and servant in cases of employees of public corporations and opened the doors of the courts for such employees. His dynamic approach was at its best when he broadened the concept of violation of the law warranting the reinstatement of employees in such cases.

In Suleman vs Manager SBLR 2003 Sindh 1189, Justice Sabih widened the scope of the writ jurisdiction under the constitution and extended it to non-governmental violators of fundamental rights. Through his numerous judgments he reigned in unscrupulous builders and developers.

On March 9, 2007, Gen Musharraf filed a reference against Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry before the Supreme Judicial Council. While the government wanted a summary trial and ouster of the chief justice, Justice Sabih, a member of the council, thwarted this objective. He insisted on a full and fair opportunity for the chief justice. Later, he led the judges of the Sindh High Court and welcomed the deposed chief justice at Hyderabad causing great annoyance to the dictator. On May 12, 2007, when the high court was besieged and lawyers at the city courts were surrounded by armed gangs in Karachi, Chief Justice Sabih came down hard on the administration and ensured an end to the siege and the release of lawyers.

Gen Musharraf imposed his second martial law on Nov 3, 2007 and deposed and detained most of the judges including Justice Sabih. During this period he was deeply tormented. Yet he never displayed personal bitterness against his tormentors. He was a guiding light to his colleagues during these difficult times.

Eventually in 2008 Justice Sabih was elevated to the Supreme Court but his tenure was cut short due to his untimely death. He had five more years at the Supreme Court. In his five years at the apex court he would surely have transformed the law. Of this there is no doubt but the Almighty had his own plans.

Paul Johnson, in the conclusion of his biography of Napoleon wrote, “We have to learn again the central lesson of history that all forms of greatness ... are nothing — indeed are perilous in the extreme —without a humble and contrite heart.” By that standard Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed was indeed a great man.