After the disqualification of Pakistan’s former premier Yousuf Raza Gilani, the National Assembly drafted and passed the contempt of court bill. Amongst many other clauses, the bill stated that “A true averment made in good faith and temperate language for initiation of action or in the course of disciplinary proceedings against a judge, before the chief justices of the Supreme Court and high courts, the Supreme Judicial Council and the federal or provincial governments, shall not amount to contempt of court.”
The proposed contempt of court act 2012 provided immunity to all the important office holders including the president and prime minister.
Opposition leaders filed petitions against the law calling it a move against the constitution of Pakistan. The petitions were accepted by the Supreme Court and notices were issued to the federation and Attorney General to file their responses against the newly passed law.
After a week of arguments and counter-arguments, that involved honourable judges and the Attorney General, the court struck down the law declaring it illegal and unconstitutional.
The verdict restored the power of judiciary but was the move in the best interest of democracy or another attempt to manoeuvre the country into judicial dictatorships?
Was the contempt of court act 2012 passed to safeguard the rights of the few powerful officer bearers?
Is the tussle between judiciary and federation of Pakistan in the best interest of the nation or has it become another egotistical fight between the two institutions?