ON Sept 19, there were only a handful of lawyers protesting an order of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), in which two judges restrained a fellow judge of the same high court from performing his functions. The order was unprecedented. It was also clearly illegal, and otherwise improper, so much so that even the Supreme Court of the post 26th Amendment fame, did not consider it worthy to salvage the ex-parte interim decision.

But there are many other lawyers, some of them elected representatives, who wanted to present another side. For them, this was no big matter. What’s new, they asked, in judges falling out of favour?

Only those judges who manage to cultivate enduring relationships with the power centre can expect smooth sailing. Hasn’t this always been the case? The five judges, seeking institutional integrity of the IHC, are on a fool’s errand — ruffling feathers, at their own peril.

The two ideas clashed at the premises of the IHC, on Sept 19, not only figuratively, but also physically. One side of lawyers, few in number, continues to believe that the judges need to be able to decide cases without any influence from the executive, or, from any other powerful, influential segments of society. They probably understand that it is the weak, the oppressed, who need the protection of a neutral arbiter — a judge. When the state, for instance, uses its police powers in a way that tramples upon the dignity of an individual, there ought to be someone before whom that person can go and raise his voice. If a judge, however, only does what the state tells him to do, then, needless to say, the aggrieved person is out of luck.

The judiciary is not meant to operate as a platform for careerists.

Even where commercial interests are involved, for instance, in a dispute between two private persons with a claim to a property, a judge — the neutral arbiter — needs to be able to decide the case, not on the basis of a call received from this official or that, but on the basis of each party’s actual entitlement under the law and under the basic principles of fairness and justice.

In other words, the judiciary, as an institution, has not been envisioned to operate as a platform for careerists, playing second fiddle to the executive, and the powerful. It is envisioned to ensure that each and every individual is treated right, with fairness and dignity.

When a few lawyers raised their concerns that the IHC had been rendered hostage, with the 26th Amendment, the transfer of judges to the IHC, and the actions taken by those transferred judges, a so-called representative of the lawyers resorted to distorting the facts. A complaint was filed with the police. Iron-knuckles and guns were concocted into existence, when all there was to see were the hopes and aspirations of a few. A tale was spun of being violently attacked, even when multiple videos of the incident captured only the representative’s own belligerence.

The rhetoric of the fence-sitters, meanwhile, has been about their past grievances. There is, they say, another side to it all. When the lawyers had attacked the IHC building in 2021, on the demolition of their chambers in F-8, many lawyers had gotten roped into criminal proceedings, with inflated charges of terrorism. Quite a few innocents had been needlessly dragged through it all. The judges of the IHC, they say, did not provide them cover. Why should the lawyers, then, stand with the judges?

This tribalistic ‘us-versus-them’ argument, however, mis­ses the point. The principles of fairness and justice do not stem from the question ‘what is in it for me?’ Always seeking out one’s narrow self-interest — whether by being a careerist, or by pursuing the parochial interests of a tribe — does not square with the hi­­gher ideals that hu­­mans are capable of aspiring to.

And justice, as an ideal, is worthy of pursuit, even when the state would rather have its way at all costs. It is worthy of pursuit even when it irks individuals seated in positions of power, ever-willing to abuse their power to get what they want. It remains a worthy goal even when one sees no immediate benefit for oneself.

There may be instances where there are two sides, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But this is not always the case. How does one split the difference, for instance, when one side advocates for the judges to be able to decide cases without external intrusion, and the other side would prefer to misrepresent the facts to have those punished who would not trade away their idealism for self-interest?

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of his firm.

Published in Dawn, October 6th, 2025