Editorial
Was justice served?
What are we to make of the CJ's stay order and the vandalism later
We think the most telling comment on the Chief Justice's (CJ) stay order on the writ petitions challenging the legality of the President taking over as the Chief Adviser, just minutes before the order was to be passed, was made by the former Chief Justice Mustafa Kamal. He said in his 40-year legal career he has never seen any chief justice exercising his power in this manner. This we think sums up the basis of the question in the public mind. Why did the CJ prevent his two colleagues from carrying out their judicial duties, and why did he intervene minutes before the order was to be issued? Has he intervened to serve justice or was it to prevent justice from being served? To raise questions like the above against a sitting Chief Justice is itself making a statement. But not to make it after what happened at the High Court premises yesterday would be letting down the public's right to know. Given the sensitive nature of the case it is possible that the Chief Justice may have had some reservations about it and could have wanted it to be heard by the full bench. That is perfectly within the norms of his function. But the time to take such a decision was at the very outset when the case started or after the ruling is issued. Under no circumstances should it come while the case is being heard, and even less when the ruling is minutes away from being delivered. It is the timing that has raised the maximum suspicion of political influence in issuing the stay order. There is also the question of the way the order was served to the court, and the CJ's absence from his chamber when he could have explained his concern to the senior members of the Bar and concluded the affair with the dignity that it deserved. We deeply regret that justice has been very badly served by its highest symbol. We have a far deeper regret for vandalism and act of arson that took place in the premises of the High Court following the Chief Justice's stay order. Nothing can justify breaking into the CJ's chamber and destroying his office. A similar attempt was made on the office of the Attorney General. We know justifications would be made that the outrage was spontaneous and the vandalism was the result of the spur of the moment outburst. We would have accepted this argument had we seen condemnation of it in the press briefings of the lawyers of aggrieved parties. We could have far more vigorously condemned the CJ's intervention but for the fact that lawyers and some outsiders inflicted a great insult upon the highest judicial body. Thus today we stand a few notches lower as a land of rule of law due to the actions both of the chief justice and of a section of the lawyers.
| 
