Separation of judiciary
Parliament is supreme in the land for making law and it is the function of the courts and the Judiciary to interpret and apply such law. Judges can make some law (case law) in areas where there are no parliamentary statutes. A statute will supersede any case law and take its place and there can be no conflict. Claims of such conflict are mere exaggeration and like the proverbial storm in a teacup. Recently, many lawyers passed the opinion that giving 'cognisance' powers to executive magistrates will violate the principle of 'independence of the Judiciary' and will be against the previous SC ruling. It appears to be an unnecessary concern. No Judiciary can be fully independent, because it is financially dependent on the government (i.e. the Executive). So, obviously judicial independence has a restrictive meaning implying the independence of judicial recruitment, career structure etc of all judges and Justices, and the independence of the judicial procedure where judgment of any court whether high, medium, lower are carried out by members of the Judicial organ of the state and not by members of any other branch, especially the executive magistrates who had in the past such powers to judge, fine or imprison at the lowest rung of the judiciary with some overlap of judicial and executive powers. Such powers of judgment will not be restored to the executive magistrates by the Bill now in parliament but the executive magistrates will only have the power of cognisance of an offence and send the perpetrator for trial under a judicial magistrate. Such powers are essential to maintain law and order, especially in a hostile mob or demonstration scenario.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments