Whatsapp

" ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACCESS TO JUSTICE   By   Dr. Faqir Hussain, Joint Secretary, Pakistan Law Commission   Introduction   Justice Abdul Majid Tiwana's judgment [l1 in the allotment of plots by the ex‑Prime Minister and Chief Minister (Punjab) unleashed a spate of adverse comments from certain legal quarters, as to the desirability of exercise of powers of judicial review and the jurisprudential basis of High Court jurisdiction. It is argued that relaxation of locus standi and suo motu exercise of powers by a High Court is ultra vires of the law and violative of the Constitution. [2] It is contended that the current common law notions of judicial neutrality, impartiality and adversarial system of litigation inhibit the Courts from playing an activist role as a social reformer. It is further argued that while performing their functions and exercising their powers and authority the Judges must limit their deliberations to the issues in hand and must never assume the role of an activist, seeking to eradicate social evils from the society; such a. role it is stated, does not belong to the judiciary, hence must not be assumed.   The controversy as to the role and functions of the judiciary stems from the on‑going debate as to the advisability as well as admissibility of entertaining public interest cases by the superior judiciary of Pakistan. This controversy centres around the notions of liberalised standing whereunder not just the `aggrieved party' but also a person with sufficient interest or a concerned citizen or a public spirited individual or social action group are given standing to bring claims on behalf of poor classes or economically or socially disadvantaged sections of society. The central issue in the controversy is the…