Chief Justice Of Pakistan(CJP)
Saqib Nisar is going to retire in mid Of January 2019.But,his services as CJP
have been stupendous as we analyse.Though,there are also some reservations
considering it judicial activism but it is incorrect,and actually, it is
judicial outreach means exceeding theits powers.Judicial Outreach has a dire
consequences too,because institutes in such way cease their work with the fear
of an unwelcome scrutiny all the time.Indeed, there should be only judicial
objectivity.However, the political system and its actors did not found his
tenure as pleasant as the masses.Limits were violated by CJP according to
them.This emotion of populism just drag CJP in the dubious limelight.The real
problem is that the judiciary earlier was just moving with the status-quo
without any pro-active approach.Has judiciary taken up a morsel which can not be
chewed?
From a number of SouMoto to visiting hospitals all were appreciated by public
because they were feeling facilitative changes in their lives.
The members of the political class are mostly not well literate and competent
enough.When government is not doing his job as by settling prominent examples of
good governance.Then, masses look for some alternative ways.The explanation is
when distorted Judicial activism, an approach to the exercise of judicial
review, or a description of a particular judicial decision, in which a judge is
generally considered more willing to decide constitutional issues and to
invalidate legislative or executive actions. Although debates over the proper
role of the judiciary date to the founding of the American republic, the phrase
judicial activism appears to have been coined by the American historian Arthur
M. Schlesinger, Jr., in a 1947 article in Fortune. Although the term is used
quite frequently in describing a judicial decision or philosophy, its use can
cause confusion, because it can bear several meanings, and even if speakers
agree on which meaning is intended, they will frequently not agree on whether it
correctly describes a given decision.
The term activism is used in both political rhetoric and academic research. In
academic usage activism usually means only the willingness of a judge to strike
down the action of another branch of government or to overturn a judicial
precedent, with no implied judgment as to whether the activist decision is
correct or not. Activist judges enforce their own views of constitutional
requirements rather than deferring to the views of other government officials or
earlier courts. Defined in this way, activism is simply the antonym of
restraint. It is not pejorative, and studies suggest that it does not have a
consistent political valence. Both liberal and conservative judges may be
activist in this sense, though conservative judges have been more likely to
invalidate federal laws and liberals more likely to strike down those of the
states.
In political rhetoric activism is used as a pejorative. To describe judges as
activist in this sense is to argue that they decide cases on the basis of their
own policy preferences rather than a faithful interpretation of the law, thus
abandoning the impartial judicial role and “legislating from the bench.”The
primary determinant is probably where the courts stand politically with respect
to other government actors.
In the country like Pakistan, when the name of accountability is only linked
with political victimisation then how can the whole system can work well
together. Getting out of its judicial domain,is only cursed by the political
gurus with vested interests.The critique is also right to the extent of absence
of basic And compulsory reforms in judiciary with the changing time rattan
sticking to the law Of British Regime and with resolution of fifteen lac cases
pending in our courts.
The parliamentary system handles the riddle of governmental power quite
differently and, some insist, with more sophistication.It does not seek safety
in a mechanistic clash of separated forces. Rather it concentrates power for
effective action and holds that power closely and democratically accountable.
This largely eliminates what for us is a perennial quandary: which of several
shells hides the peas of power and responsibility? The result, one suggests, is
that parliamentary electorates have more confidence in, and understanding of the
governmental process than is customary in this country even in good times.
Perhaps in the long view we have relied too much on self-operating, external
mechanisms and too little on ourselves-enjoying as we have a wide margin for
error and inefficiency thanks to great natural wealth and, our protective ocean
moats. Expecting the public sector to take care of itself, participating little
more than nominally in the democratic process.
The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living
thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe,but under thetheory of
organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its
environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer
pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other
as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick
cooperation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence,
their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces;
it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our
modern day of specialisation but with a common task and purpose.Their
cooperation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful
governmentwithout leadership or without the intimate, almost instinctive,
coordination of the organs of life and action.The four pillars of the state have
to indulge in a dialogue instead of setting their own separate agendas.Every
individual should do his own work precisely.But, all the problems can not
resolve with mere sincerity but with competence,national consensus,capacity
building,selecting right person for the right job and with the accountability
across board.As once Clinton Rossiter said that It takes a united country to run
a divided government.