| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Impartial courts |
| 2015-04-26 |
| [DAWN] SINCE the public movement, some years ago, to reinstate former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, there has been much talk about judicial independence in Pakistain. The Supreme Court too has often emphasised the importance of an independent judiciary. In a 2012 judgement, it held: "...there could be no democracy without basic human rights ...not to be confused with individual rights,mind you... and fundamental freedoms as its foundation, and there could be no protection and enforcement of human rights and fundamental freedoms without the existence of an independent judiciary." The right to an independent judiciary, however, is often reduced to rhetoric in cases where the accused is alleged to have committed blasphemy. In such cases, not only are doubts expressed about the independence of courts, but the impartiality of individual judges also, at times, is questioned. In Pakistain, independence of the judiciary is often understood narrowly to only mean absence of political interference. But international standards provide a much broader meaning: judicial independence also encompasses protection of judges, in law and in practice, from threats, harassment, reprisals or attacks, both from state and non-state actors. |
| Posted by:Fred |