SC’s TLP verdict
The Supreme
Court (SC) has delivered a hard-hitting, critical detailed judgement regarding
the Tehreek-i-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) 20-day dharna
(sit-in) at Faizabad Chowk in November 2017 that disrupted life in Islamabad
and Rawalpindi. Addressing the government, the judgement says violent
protestors who infringe other citizens’ rights, including freedom of movement
and right to property, must be proceeded against and held accountable. To the
intelligence agencies, the court offers the following advice: do not ignore
promoters of violence, hate, extremism. Self-appointed fatwa (religious edict) peddlers who declare people liable to be
killed on spurious grounds amongst other negative consequences should be
prosecuted, says the SC. For the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) the
court says it should act against political parties violating the election laws
and failing to divulge the source of their funding. Media suppression through
overt/covert censorship, self-censorship ‘advice’, ‘directions’ as to who can
be hired/fired, cable operators stopping or interrupting broadcasts, preventing
distribution of newspapers have all been held patently illegal and unconstitutional.
While advising that laws should be enacted to clearly spell out the respective
mandates of the intelligence agencies, the SC requires the heads of the armed
forces to penalise any personnel under their command for indulging in political
activities. The verdict particularly refers to the cash handouts to the TLP
Faizabad protestors by uniformed men in the clear light of day as contributing
to the perception of the intelligence agencies being involved in such
activities. Justice Qazi Faez Isa, who authored the judgement, traced the ISI’s
history and argued that when institutions stay within their designated
constitutional boundaries and there exist effective checks and balances,
citizens remain safe and the state prospers. The trouble starts with
self-proclaimed saviours, the SC points out. The police and law enforcement
agencies are required to develop standard operating procedures and plans to
handle rallies, protests and sit-ins with sufficient flexibility to deal with
different situations. In maintenance of law and order, the SC says, every
effort must be made to avoid injury and deaths. The SC has ordered the
distribution of copies of the verdict to government, concerned ministries, the
armed forces, intelligence agencies, etc, i.e. all those to whom the judgement
speaks.
There can be no
denying the fact that the SC verdict delves into phenomena and their
consequences that have over the decades eroded the rule of law and rendered constitutional
provisions infructuous. It also names the institutions responsible, points out
their derelictions of duty and expanding their remit beyond what the law and
Constitution allows, and envisages accountability for those transgressions. As
to the right of peaceful protest permitted by the Constitution, the SC defines
the limit of such protest at the line where others’ fundamental rights are
violated. In a telling reference, the verdict cites the example of the May 12,
2007 massacre of citizens wanting to greet deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan
Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry at Karachi airport and the failure of holding to
account those responsible, which set a terrible example and emboldened others
to think that violence could help them achieve their goals. While the verdict
ranges over and virtually constitutes a stinging rebuke to the perpetrators of extremism,
violence, hatred and intimidation, it does not shrink from calling into
question state institutions’ transgressions above and beyond the law as well as
dereliction of duty in ensuring law and order and peace in the country.
While the SC
verdict delivers a body blow to many things that are wrong in our state and
society as reflected in the TLP Faizabad event, one could be forgiven for some
degree of cynicism regarding the impact on, and subsequent response of, the
institutions taken to task in the judgement. Given the present landscape, can the
SC follow up on its verdict to ensure its strictures are paid attention to and
orders implemented? An intriguing thought that flies in the face of our track
record.
No comments:
Post a Comment