Session 9:Our legal dilemma?

The primary function of the Parliament is Legislation. The Parliament makes laws, while the courts interpret those laws and the executive implements those laws. A recent debate about the extent of the parliament’s ability to enact laws has started in Pakistan after the enactment of the 21^st amendment.

It has posed a question on the supremacy of the parliament to amend the constitution, and to make the matter event more complex the courts have decided to rule on the matter. The courts will use the ‘basic structure doctrine’, which states that the salient features of the constitution, which refer to the Islamic injunctions, federalism, independence of judiciary etc. cannot be altered or amended by the parliament, to strike down this amendment.

This is a very dangerous line of reasoning, as the Parliament should have the unrestricted right of amending any law it sees fit, even if it is the supreme law; The Constitution. The courts should only be responsible for the interpretation of the law. If the courts exercise the basic structure doctrine and strike down this amendment than they will not only interpret the constitution but will also lay down the dangerous precedence of controlling its text.

It is in Pakistan’s national interest that the judiciary should not touch the 21^st amendment. They should not try to cover for their shortcomings by hiding behind the cloud of the Basic structure doctrine. The parliament has the unabashed right to bring about appropriate legislation, and the only way that legislation should be challenged is through the political process and not through judicial activism. By politicizing the courts we would be doing Pakistan a great disservice.