Judiciary has authority to stop institutions from transgressing fundamental rights: Justice Isa – Pakistan

Supreme Court Judge Qazi Faez Isa highlighted on Saturday the duty and responsibility of the judiciary within a democratic system and said he "has the authority to detain an individual or institution in case he transgresses fundamental rights."

His comments came during a conference at the Institute of Business Administration (IBA) in Karachi, where he was invited to talk about "Law, judicial interventions and social change: with a special focus on labor law."

Judge Isa currently has a presidential reference against him pending before the Supreme Judicial Council. He has filed a petition challenging the reference, which will be heard on September 24 by a bank of 10 members of the Supreme Court.

The reference had been instituted in May of this year, accusing him of hiding his property in the United Kingdom, allegedly on behalf of his wife and children.

Judge Isa believes he is being targeted by factions within the state for his open opinions. He also believes that the charges filed against him constitute an attack on the independence of the judiciary.

"The basis of the Constitution of Pakistan is based on three pillars. The first is the parliament responsible for the legislation. The second is the government or administration that promulgates the legislation. The third is the judiciary that interprets the Constitution and the law and guarantees that each individual and institution operates within the scope of its authority, "he said.

Judge Isa continued by saying that democratic principles must be fulfilled if a country wishes to stand firm.

"History is witness to the fact that every time the institutions have crossed the limits of their authority, not only the fundamental rights of the people are violated, the country is weakened and can also be broken," he said.

"We ensure the independence of a region based on two provinces: East Pakistan and West Pakistan.

"When the dictatorship of a man was imposed and martial law was instituted, first in the time of General Ayub Khan and then in the mandate of General Yahya Khan, the democratic rule of law was left out and, consequently, we were robbed of half of Pakistan. "

"When the democratic system weakens within a country and the voice of one man drowns the voices of others, the enemy takes advantage of this. And this is what happened in 1971. Thousands of soldiers and military officers could not do anything. to save the country from breaking up. The resolution of objectives (the preface to the Constitution) had rightly emphasized democracy two decades earlier for the same reason, "Judge Isa emphasized.

"Now we call Pakistan what West Pakistan was at that time, but in truth, this is half of Pakistan."

He wondered if we had learned our history lesson.

Speaking of the famous report prepared by Judge Hamoodur Rehman on Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's instructions to discover the reasons behind such loss, he said: "It is regrettable that today, even after the passage of more than 47 years, this report has not been published and people did not realize the reasons that led to this incident. "

"Institutions and countries are strengthened only when they learn from their mistakes and do not repeat them. Those who divert their gaze from transgressions committed or hide the truth, neither learn from their mistakes nor lead the institutions to a position of strength.", said the judge of the Supreme Court.

He also made it clear that it is also up to the judiciary not to cross its own scope of authority.

"Before raising my finger in any particular institution, I will talk about mine and give some examples to clarify what I am saying.

"The federation and the governments of the four provinces applied a tax on mobile phones. The federation imposed an additional income tax and a special tax, while the provinces charged a sales tax for services.

"On the basis of a written and anonymous complaint, the Supreme Court suspended six different taxes invoking Article 184 (3). But when the final ruling was issued, he said that the order was not justified for the placement of such restrictions because the taxes they are not part of the fundamental rights and, therefore, their collection or not cannot be deliberated by the Supreme Court. "

He said that in the period when taxes were suspended through the prohibition order of the Supreme Court, the national treasury witnessed a loss of Rs100bn, an amount that cannot be recovered now.

"The courts must exercise sentences in accordance with the Constitution; those decisions that ignore the Constitution and the law are never lasting despite appearing to agree with the wishes of the people."