Friday
March 29, 2024
21 C
Lahore
EditorialBrawl over suo motu powers

Brawl over suo motu powers

Regrettably, the Supreme Court justices have developed a distinct rift in response to Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s ruling on the court’s suo motu authority and Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial’s retaliatory move on Friday. The Supreme Court’s rulings by Justices Qazi Faez Isa and Aminuddin Khan, in which they requested that suo motu cases be delayed until the Supreme Court Rules of 1980, which govern the country’s top judge’s discretionary authority to establish benches, were amended, were “disregarded” by the CJP. The Supreme Court circular was issued only days after Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail urged reconsidering the CJP’s “one-man show” power, stating that the nation’s highest court should not “be dependent on the lone judgment of one man.”

The concept of “suo motu” powers of judges has been a topic of debate in Pakistan for many years. Suo motu refers to the power of a judge to take notice of a matter on his or her own without any formal request or petition. While some see this power as a necessary tool to ensure justice and protect fundamental rights, others view it as a threat to the principles of democracy and the separation of powers.

On the positive side, the suo motu powers of judges can be seen as a means to provide access to justice to those who may not have the means to approach the courts. The power enables judges to take cognizance of important issues such as human rights violations, corruption, and environmental degradation, and take action to address them. It also acts as a check and balance against the executive and legislative branches of government, ensuring accountability and transparency in decision-making processes.

However, critics of suo motu powers argue that it undermines the principle of separation of powers, as it allows judges to act as both the accuser and the judge, thus leading to potential abuse of power. They also argue that the use of this power can lead to a lack of consistency and predictability in the judicial system, as different judges may have varying interpretations of what constitutes an issue that warrants suo motu action.

Another major concern with suo motu powers is the lack of transparency and accountability. While judges are required to provide reasons for their actions, the process is often opaque, leading to allegations of bias and arbitrary decision-making.

It is safe to say the suo motu powers of judges can be seen as a necessary tool for providing access to justice and ensuring accountability, but there is a need for greater transparency and accountability in the exercise of this power. The judiciary must also be mindful of the potential for abuse and ensure that the principles of democracy and separation of powers are not undermined in the pursuit of justice. Ultimately, it is up to the judiciary to strike a balance between the need for judicial activism and the need for judicial restraint.

Subscribe Today

GET EXCLUSIVE FULL ACCESS TO PREMIUM CONTENT

SUPPORT NONPROFIT JOURNALISM

EXPERT ANALYSIS OF AND EMERGING TRENDS IN CHILD WELFARE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE

TOPICAL VIDEO WEBINARS

Get unlimited access to our EXCLUSIVE Content and our archive of subscriber stories.

Top News

More articles