To be sure, people are supposed to accept judicial decisions, which in the present instance all parties to the case as well as various commentators/analysts have done. And as per established norms, once decisions are announced they are open to criticism.
Respect is something else that comes with trust, which in all situations is earned rather than commanded. The CJP appeared to be worried about this element as he went on to emphasize the need to end an atmosphere of "disappointment and distrust" while at a loss to grasp the reason for it. Sadly, there is a long history behind "disappointment and distrust."
The people, of course, have not forgotten how in the past at every critical juncture the judiciary, disregarding its role as the guardian of the Constitution, supreme law of the land, sided with every single usurper; and under civilian rule too gave favourable treatment to power elites. To refresh our memory, let's start with some of the major cases from the recent to the distant past. After General Pervez Musharraf staged a coup against an elected government, the apex court unanimously validated his illegal action and his Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO), also granting him the authority, for three years, to make amendments to the Constitution (to suit his purposes) - something the court itself has no authority to do. Two years later, reaffirming its approval of the PCO of 1999, the court resurrected the so-called 'doctrine of necessity' to endorse the referendum the military dictator organised to declare himself president. In 1977, after General Ziaul Haq deposed prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and imposed martial law holding the constitution in abeyance, his extra-legal action was validated employing the 'doctrine of necessity'. Subsequently, first the Lahore High Court pronounced death sentence against the PM in a dubious murder case, and then the SC upheld the sentence in a split decision, helping the dictator get rid of the PM by sending him to the gallows. To date, the verdict is regarded as 'judicial murder' never to be used as a judicial precedent; while the dissenting judges are remembered with great respect. In 1969, abrogating his own '62 constitution, the then military dictator, General Ayub Khan, after resigning under public pressure, handed over power to another military man, General Yahiya Khan, and the court lent the action its support. And of course when General Iskandar Mirza abrogated the 1962 constitution and imposed martial law, he received endorsement, though he was deposed within days by General Ayub Khan, and upon the latter's assumption of executive power his martial law regime too got the apex court's stamp of approval. There are several other examples where the judiciary went along with the wishes of the civilian rulers in protecting their interests or dealing with political opponents.
If all of this damaged the judiciary's reputation in the eyes of the people, that should be explicable. They yearn for the rule of law, powerfully expressed when the then chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry took a stand in the face of General Musharraf's military dictatorship. Not only did the legal community come out in full support, the civil society also joined in an historic struggle for judicial independence. Success came at a huge cost in lives lost - the May massacre in Karachi and the bombing at Justice Chaudhry's rally in Rawalpindi - raising expectations. As Justice Saqib Nisar noted the citizens now look towards the (independent) judiciary (to fulfil the demands of justice) because they trust the institution; some old suspicions linger on, however, causing the prevailing "air of distrust".
And the CJP is worried about the way the judgment is being discussed by the parties concerned as well as various opinion leaders. It should not be so difficult to understand why the conversation is so intense. First of all, the key respondent in this suspected mega corruption case is not some Tom, Dick or Harry but the Prime Minister of this country. People naturally are interested in it, and want to make sense of the verdict, especially because it has been left hanging in the air with the formation of a JIT. Second of all, the dissenting minority opinion affirms what most people believe is closer to truth - all the more so considering that the majority decision, based on legal technicalities, in essence is not very different from that of the bench members who wrote dissenting notes. The conversation, in fact, is not focused on the minority opinion but includes that of the majority as well. With due respect to the CJ, one must point out that such high profile cases are the subject of exhaustive debate and discussion in functioning democracies "around the world". It should neither astonish nor annoy the honourable judges. They are expected only to deliver justice, and let the people make whatever they want to make of it. What should matter, as the aphorism goes, is that 'justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.'
[email protected]