Thursday, February 14, 2013

Daily Times Editorial Feb 15, 2013

Qadri stumped Allama Tahirul Qadri’s song and dance seems all but over. The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed his petition calling for the dissolution and reconstitution of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). In a short order, the SC delineated briefly the grounds for the dismissal. The order stated that Qadri had failed to establish the case for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of the court under Article 184(3) of the constitution. Nor was the petitioner able to satisfy the court which, if any, of his fundamental rights had been violated by the setting up of the ECP last year, rights that were neither listed in the petition nor established by the arguments during the hearings, despite the insistence of the three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry to do so. Mercifully for the polity anticipating a historic democratic transition through the ballot for the first time, Qadri came a cropper before the SC. Qadri’s complaint that the court had not even allowed him to read one word of his petition misses the point. First and foremost, the court wanted to be satisfied whether the petition should be heard per se. On the touchstone of violation of his fundamental rights and locus standi, Qadri failed to persuade the court. Qadri’s complaint about being grilled vis-à-vis his dual nationality was not, as he railed at the bench as well as afterwards to the media, any insult to the millions of dual nationals of Pakistani origin. The grilling was aimed at establishing the locus standi and intent of the petitioner exclusively, and did not touch upon the undeniable rights dual nationals enjoy, barring running for elective office. Qadri’s brazen arrogance in the face of the dismissal of his petition was grossly on display when he could not have his way. Like a petulant child denied a lollipop, he railed against the CJP, trying to bring his respect and dignity into ridicule by displaying in court in the face of the bench as well as before the media (where his supporters had already been spreading literature, etc, against the CJP) a picture dating from 2005 when the CJP took oath from General Musharraf. Qadri may be deluded into thinking that the Pakistani public’s memory is short, but no one in their right mind in this country is unaware of how much water has flowed down the rivers since that time. While it is permissible and possible to disagree with some or even all of the verdicts of the SC, nowhere is it permissible to malign and attempt to drag through the mud the person and conduct of the members of the superior judiciary. Were that to be permitted, what would remain of the standing of the SC? Would that not be an invitation to anarchy in an already troubled society? Qadri’s mala fide intent has been proved beyond doubt but his behaviour after the verdict, where, instead of accepting defeat with good grace, he has chosen to malign the judiciary, is unacceptable in any civilised society. The only surprise is the ‘restraint’ exercised by the court when it has stated in unequivocal terms in the short order that Qadri’s actions are tantamount to contempt of court. Such a blatant display of contempt has been spared whereas lesser misdemeanours have attracted the strict and harsh penalties laid down in the law. This inconsistency is incomprehensible. Qadri should have been hauled over the coals. When the bench’s order says it is exercising restraint since the contempt powers should be used sparingly and on a case by case basis, one cannot but feel a tinge of sympathy for a former prime minister convicted of contempt and debarred from politics for five years as a result, and some others over whose heads the sword of contempt is dangling (e.g. the NAB Chairman). While the dismissal of Qadri’s petition is to be welcomed and indeed has been welcomed by the main political parties and the Chief Election Commissioner, the court is advised to exercise similar restraint in other cases of contempt charges. The respect and dignity of the judiciary would be enhanced thereby, not diminished.

No comments:

Post a Comment