`How dreadful it is when the right judge, judges wrong.` Sophocles A JUDICIAL boycott by the major political parties forming the government of a Supreme Court bench, headed by the chief justice of Pakistan, hearing a case of national importance, is an extraordinary judicial event by any historical standard.

The last time such a thing happened on a much smaller scale was when, in 2002, the Supreme Court Bar Association withdrew a review petition from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, on the explicit ground that the judiciary had ceased to be independent. The issue is not whether the ruling of the deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly was legally correct or not but something much more fundamental: major political parties have lost f aith in the judicial process which produces these decisions. Is this judicial crisis merely a result of sore losers or something else? Unusual short order: The Supreme Court through a short order dated July 26, 2022, declared the ruling of the deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly as erroneous and Chaudhry Parvez Elahi as the duly elected chief minister of Punjab. But this is an unusual short order, because unlike usual short orders, which hardly contain reasons, this one also contains partial reasons. The primary reason given is that the understanding and implementation of the Supreme Court short order dated May 17, 2022, on the presidential reference concerning Article 63-A of the Constitution, as well as of this particular Article itself, by the deputy Speaker was incorrect and erroneous.

In other words, this case was viewed as a simple and uncomplicated issue of `misunderstanding and implementation`, instead of a case involving complicated constitutional questions. But the main thrust of the short order is to justif y why the finding that the `decision of the party as to how to vote has been conferred upon the party head`, given by Justice Azmat Saeed, on behalf of the majority member judgement of the Supreme Court in the `District Bar Association case` (PLD 2015 SC 401), was not binding on this smaller bench of three members.

This issue was at the heart of the controversy: if the parliamentary party could legally issue directions regarding a vote of confidence motion, ParvezElahi won, but if the party head, Chaudhry Shujaat, could only issue such directions, Hamza Shehbaz won. In the presence of this explicit finding by a larger Supreme Court bench in favour of the party head, the short order declares that this larger Supreme Court judgement is not binding on it for the following reasons. Firstly, this finding was supported allegedly only by eight judges out of a full court of 17 judges and for a judgement to be binding precedent, it should have the support of nine judges out of 17 judges.

Secondly, these findings conferring the power to issue directions on the party head are in conflict with the express provisions of Article 63-A, which states that the parliamentary party will issue suchdirections. In short, these findings by Justice Azmat Saeed are unconstitutional.

Thirdly, these are not really findings but are merely `passing remarks` because this case only involved the question as to the unconstitutionality of Article 63-A and not as to who will issue such directions under Article 63-A.

Lastly, the current chief justice, Umar Bandial, who had also signed and supported the lead majority judgement of Justice Azmat Saeed, in 2015, did not give any finding on Article 63-A. In short, Justice Umar Bandial did not support these findings of Justice Azmat Saeed on Article 63-A.

Erroneous reasoning: The reasoning in the short order is erroneous, self-contradictory and itself provides grounds that only a larger bench of the Supreme Court should have heard this case. Firstly, the very fact that three and half pages have been written in the short order to justify why the major-ity judgement of Justice Azmat Saeed is not binding itself proves that this matter apparently involves complicated precedents and only a larger bench of at least nine Supreme Court judges could resolve thisissue.

Secondly, if the reasoning of Justice Azmat Saeed that under Article 63-A, the party head is to issue directions regarding voting in a confidence motion is in conflict with the express words of Article 63-A(1)(b) which uses the term `parliamentary party` then by the same logic, the majority short order dated May 17, 2022, of these same three Supreme Court judges on the interpretation of Article 63-A is also in conflict with the Constitution because the condition of not counting the votes has been read into Article 63-A, which is just not present in the constitutional text. In other words, inconsistent approaches to constitutional interpretation have been adopted.

Thirdly, in para 1 of the judgement of Justice Umar Bandial in the case of the `District Bar Association case`, Justice Bandial has fully supported all the findings of Justice Azmat Saeed, in the following categorical terms that `with respect, I agree with the appreciation of relevant facts and the grounds and reasons sustaining the findings given on all the points addressed in the aforementioned opinion` (ie `all` means all). Surely, if a judge now wants to take a different legal interpretation, this itself shows the complicated nature of this constitutional case. In short, this case should not have been heard by a smaller three bench but rather by a larger bench of at least nine of the senior-most Supreme Court members as this was not a simple issue of mere `understanding and implementation` but rather a complicated case of constitutional interpretation, involving allegedly erroneous binding precedents and a case which will have f ar-reaching constitutional and political implications.

It is irrelevant whether the conclusions reached through the short order are correct or not. A losing party will only accept a judicial decision against them if it is perceived to be the result of a fair, just and legally correct process. Sadly, the root cause of this judicial crisis lies in the erroneous judicial choice where the quick conclusion of this case was preferred over the fairness of the judicial process.• The wifter is a lawyer.

Read more

After two and half years of successfully evading Covid-19, the virus eventually caught on to us. It is not important how we caught the virus, but the more critical part of the story is how we kept the virus at bay for so long? Another important question is that: is there a benefit in still trying to avoid infections or reinfections?

The reason why I was able to avoid Covid-19 for so long was because my family followed strict precautions, since my late father was at home. From the start we knew that older age groups are most vulnerable. We were also aware of the importance of ventilation, so whenever someone visited, all windows would stay open and everyone would be asked to wear masks. However, most social meetings were managed in outdoor settings. We kept the children at home and relied on online teaching until vaccination was available for them. With time, the intensity of these precautions became softer but we never stopped. Shopping was done mostly from shops with an open-door policy. In case I had to go to any office with bad ventilation, I would try to get out in the shortest possible time. Wearing a KN95 mask was a must in all public interactions as we also knew that surgical masks have very limited value. Kids started to go back to school but were fully vaccinated and classes with open windows and doors helped them stay safe. My father left us for his heavenly abode last year but he was Covid-19 free until the very end.

In 2022, most experts I follow on twitter started falling prey to this virus. I knew that we were part of a rare breed who managed to stay free of Covid-19 for so long — a group that publicly started shrinking as new variants became more infectious. My friends were not happy when, even this summer, I insisted on having outdoor gatherings, but this eventually helped us all. Following a dinner, we were informed that a dear friend, a visiting class fellow, tested positive for Covid-19. Many thanked me for insisting on having the dinner outdoors. But then, later on, I seemed to be the only one wearing a mask or trying to encourage others to follow SOPs, all while being ridiculed. Slowly, I too started to soften my insistence and stopped attending gatherings.

The virus came to our house through our children who got it from their summer academy. The summer academy uses air-conditioned rooms without properly enforcing the mask policy. It was an ideal place for transmission. Once the virus entered our house, even our attempts to isolate and ventilate went in vain. I recently tested positive for the first time. I believe the reason for our failure to stop in-house transmission was in the ability of the virus to transmit to others while a person is still seemingly symptom free. Thankfully, my family was fully vaccinated so we recovered within a week. But even on the tenth day, we still feel that we are not hundred percent perfect. The virus is so bad that even with a mild episode I noticed splinter hemorrhages in my fingernails. Just think of the havoc it could play with your blood vessels.

Covid-19 is a multisystem disease and many organs of the body could be affected every time we get an infection. Therefore, it is still wise to stay protected. Avoid new infection or re-infection as there is no guarantee that the second episode will be a milder one. In later infections, symptoms are sometimes worse than before. You could still stay protected by using ventilation as your biggest asset, wearing masks and getting the required vaccinations. The war is not over yet, so keep fighting.

Read more