Shock exit

Editorial Published January 13, 2024

THE abrupt departure of a Supreme Court judge next in line to be chief justice — that too, in the midst of
a period of unprecedented crisis — fills one with a deep sense of foreboding.

On Thursday, without warning, Justice Ijazul Ahsan tendered his resignation to the president, stating that
he no longer wished to continue as a judge of the Supreme Court. A former judge and chief justice of the
Lahore High Court, Justice Ahsan was slated to take over as top judge in October this year upon the
retirement of the incumbent.

Instead, he chose to cut his career short just months earlier, in circumstances few seem to understand.
His resignation followed the abrupt departure of another Supreme Court judge, the now-retired justice
Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi; but though the latter’s resignation seemed logical given the circumstances,
Justice Ahsan’s caught the legal community off-guard, with many describing it as a most unfortunate
development.

There are those who believe that the departure of these two judges has finally purged the apex court of
the influence of the so-called ‘like-minded group’. On the other hand, there are those who believe these
two judges have been punished over their jurisprudential leanings.

Wherever one may stand on this debate, there is no denying that the country’s top forum for justice is
experiencing an upheaval which may have direct consequences for the many crucial cases pending
before it. In the interest of fairness, it must also be pointed out that it seems wrong to club Justices
Ahsan and Naqvi together.

Justice Naqvi had been facing serious charges of misconduct and possible corruption at the time he
chose to resign, while Justice Ahsan’s hands were still clean. And, while fingers were pointed at Justice
Ahsan in the past, for example in the Grand Hyatt case, most people seem to agree that he was
otherwise a ‘solid’ judge.

Justice Ahsan was obviously unhappy with the manner in which the Supreme Court had been conducting
its affairs, as evidenced in his opposition to the bench which heard appeals against the military trials
judgment, as well as his criticism of the SJC’s ‘hasty’ proceedings against Justice Naqvi. Considering he
was part of the ‘group of three’ responsible for key decisions at the Supreme Court, efforts should have
been made to convince him against resigning.
The turmoil within the court has the potential of making it a very controversial place. Many a chief
justice has, in the past, played politics and/ or run the judiciary as an autocrat: making benches of their
choice and sidelining judges who disagreed.

If the incumbent wants to stand apart from such antecedents, the Supreme Court should have an
environment where different judges with different views feel equally welcome. A court which sidelines
or silences dissent cannot be expected to do justice.

 Foreboding - A feeling that something bad will happen; fraught with fear or apprehension.
 Incumbent - A person who is currently holding a particular position.
 Purged - Removed or gotten rid of something or someone unwanted.
 Jurisprudential - Relating to the theory or philosophy of law.
 Upheaval - A strong or violent change or disturbance, often in a political, social, or geographical
context.
 Antecedents - A person's ancestors or past events, particularly those which influence a current
situation or individual’s behavior.