Independent Judiciary, dependent judges.

This is the piece that I wrote after getting a detailed account of present situation of judiciary (one of the four pillars of state) from my father. It actually reflects point of view of lawyers and judges who are there to ensure provision of justice as well as follow orders that come 'uper se'.

Independence of Judiciary- appealing as it may sound, but like everything else there has to be a limit to this independence. The question is- who would decide where to draw the line?

Independence can be defined as: A state of perfect irresponsibility to any superior.

The same definition goes for each field and each walk of life that one has to be free of all external influences in order to be called an independent individual. This applies to different professions as well, including law. It implies that all the judges must be free to work and abide by their responsibilities in their own way, with a comfortable time period.

Take recent orders of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudary for instance. He has ordered the lower court magistrate to speed up the judicial process and has given clear instructions as to how much time should be allotted to each case, what should be the time limit of adjournment, how many cases must be dealt with the limit time and some other similar instructions. These instructions might sound like steps towards speedy justice and fair trail, as it is said that Justice delayed is Justice denied, however let’s look at the other side of the picture. Such instructions are in fact an infringement on the rights of lower court judges, who hold the privilege to decide matters according to schedules decided by themselves, giving time limits not only disturbs the normal procedures but also prevents allotment of considerate time for each matter, or matters that actually need some time more then the usual ones. Such orders can clearly be seen as accumulation of all the powers in one hand, depriving of all the others even of their basic rights.

The Supreme Court, instead of limiting itself to thing it is responsible for, is now interfering into other matters that hamper justice instead of promoting it.

Now the question arises: is this independence secure only for the higher judges of Supreme Court and the rest are just there to do as the superiors say? Is the right to be independent reserved with the higher judges only? The answer is certainly negative. Everyone in the hierarchy has the right to enjoy freedom (within limits of course).

If the performance of judicial magistrates is to be improved and regulated, it should be checked using different parameters like performance records and remarks from higher judges- that are widely used standards for evaluating one’s performance. This would not only allow a constant check on the judicial performance but would also prove to be a helpful parameter in allotting promotions.

As far as provision of speedy justice is concerned, limiting the time period allotted for resolution of cases just deprives each case form the amount of time it requires and the attention it deserves. Instead, the number of judges should be increased on each post.

This would not only allow timely resolution of cases but would also allow all of them to be done properly, bringing about ‘justice’, not just ‘resolution of cases’.

It is just about the outlook and methods adopted to solve a problem. Matter of cases being delayed for ages has been addressed after all, that is an appreciable act, but the method employed to do so must also be considered. If matters are forced onto judges, not only their dedication and attention would be lost, also the actual matter, provision of justice, would remain unresolved, as goes the saying: Justice hurried is Justice buried.