ON Sept 19, there were only a handful of lawyers protesting an order of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), in which two judges restrained a fellow judge of the same high court from performing his functions. The order was unprecedented. It was also clearly illegal, and otherwise improper, so much so that even the Supreme Court of the post 26th Amendment fame, did not consider it worthy to salvage the ex-parte interim decision.

But there are many other lawyers, some of them elected representatives, who wanted to present another side. For them, this was no big matter. What’s new, they asked, in judges falling out of favour?

Only those judges who manage to cultivate enduring relationships with the power centre can expect smooth sailing. Hasn’t this always been the case? The five judges, seeking institutional integrity of the IHC, are on a fool’s errand — ruffling feathers, at their own peril.

The two ideas clashed at the premises of the IHC, on Sept 19, not only figuratively, but also physically. One side of lawyers, few in number, continues to believe that the judges need to be able to decide cases without any influence from the executive, or, from any other powerful,........

© Dawn