Justice (rtd) Shaukat Siddiqui’s restoration followed a paroxysm of revelations, debunking the state of affairs crystallising in the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

Six honourable judges of the said court indited a joint letter, representing a colloid of events engulfing them from the last two years. The letter addressed the nasty brushes: the judges had with non-state actors.

The joint letter was treated to a solemn attention. The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Qazi Faez Isa held two full-court meetings coupled with meeting the PM.

Meanwhile, consensus between executive and judiciary congealed and an inquiry commission instituted as a corollary.

However, the head of inquiry commission recused himself. And, another event of court maneuvering seeped in, with the delivery of threatening letters to different judges across the country. Much as the Supreme Court , by crossing the Rubicon, has taken suo moto , the way ahead, too, surfeits eggshells. In the light of above discussion, following questions arise:

Q1: Whom has to probe the issue?

Ans: Although, the Supreme Court has been the cynosure in the past, indiscriminate in exercising its authority, the present slot of judges is about adhering to the book. However, the executive emerges as the authority empowered to probe the issue. The court may pass strict guidelines with respect to the terms of reference TORs.

Q2: Whether the court may succeed in identifying the culprits?

Ans: The court is, in every case scenario, dependent upon the executive bodies. Moreover, the intimidating events, though, involve the highhandedness on the part of the executive. The judicial dependence notwithstanding, the court may elicit truth by supervising the probe strictly. However, Pakistan’s checkered history speaks otherwise.

Q3: Whether the complainant judges may pay the piper in the wake of allegations going unproved?

Ans: The allegations if go unproved, the judges may also be unscathed given the independent mannerism of the present judicial establishment. The judges of IHC are improbable to be shafted as Justice (R) Siddiqui was.

Worth noting, too, is the political front amidst present fiasco. All the parties pursue personal politicking, trading their stock slogans: independent judiciary is cardinal and the issue be probed transparently. Also, one objects to the constitution of the jury, while the other buttresses the same to secure political mileage. Inauspiciously, none raises the issue in the legislature, considering nothing holds much power – in democracy – than the legislature. None feels that the rules be formed to strengthen the judiciary in their independent functioning. Are they unaware of the powers vested in them? Not at all. They suffer from misplaced priorities. They themselves ignore democratic norms, inviting non-state actors to have a play. At last, the court must take the matter to the logical end, enmeshing instead in the legal intricacies. The rules of conduct governing the judges must be amended: guiding judges how to conduct themselves while being approached and forming legal moat around themselves when such issues confront them.

(Abdul Moiz Dar has authored this opinion. The writer pursues his bachelor’s in Law, based in Gujranwala. He can be reached at: abdulmoiz1219@icloud.com)