SSGPA1
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,632
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
DAYS after being restored as the chief justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, heading a three-member bench of the Supreme Court, remarked in court, The people are distressed and the courts are compelled to do the work of the government organisations. The bench was looking into the governments pricing of petroleum products and gas. On Wednesday, the SC bench directed the government to reduce the price of petroleum products within a week to a reasonable level otherwise the court would issue an appropriate order. The case has laid a clear marker of the judicial philosophy of the present Supreme Court: it is interventionist and the court will not shy away from encroaching on the executives space to govern. From the point of view of institutional stability and growth within a democratic system of checks and balances, this is an unwelcome development.
Chief Justice Chaudhry is clearly aware that his court may be stepping outside its constitutional role as the final interpreter of the law for he remarked on Wednesday, It [looking into the pricing issue] is also not our job to indulge in such an activity. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court set aside its own doubts about doing the work of the government and has ploughed ahead into setting policy rather than merely determining its legality. What is at issue in the pricing controversy needs to be clearly stated. For every litre of petroleum products sold in the country, the government earns a slice of the revenue from two streams: the general sales tax and a petroleum development levy. The governments contention is that it needs this revenue to plug the budget deficit, which under Pakistans deal with the IMF must stay within an agreed limit. The Supreme Court, however, has chided the government for not abiding by its pledge to peg the price of petroleum products in the local market to the international market and for keeping prices at an unreasonable level.
But what is important to understand from the legal point of view is that the government is following a policy it has determined to be necessary under the prevailing economic circumstances; it is not breaking a legal or constitutional duty. The latter is the only thing the Supreme Court ought to be concerned about i.e. determining what the law is and whether the government is acting within the confines of the law or not. Policymaking within the confines of the law ought to be the remit of the executive, that is what the constitution intended and what is best from the point of view of relative institutional expertise. If a governments policies are legal but unpopular, the final arbiter ought to be the electorate. Democracy works best when state institutions respect each others mandates the executives is policymaking, the judiciarys is determining legality.
DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Policy vs legality
Chief Justice Chaudhry is clearly aware that his court may be stepping outside its constitutional role as the final interpreter of the law for he remarked on Wednesday, It [looking into the pricing issue] is also not our job to indulge in such an activity. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court set aside its own doubts about doing the work of the government and has ploughed ahead into setting policy rather than merely determining its legality. What is at issue in the pricing controversy needs to be clearly stated. For every litre of petroleum products sold in the country, the government earns a slice of the revenue from two streams: the general sales tax and a petroleum development levy. The governments contention is that it needs this revenue to plug the budget deficit, which under Pakistans deal with the IMF must stay within an agreed limit. The Supreme Court, however, has chided the government for not abiding by its pledge to peg the price of petroleum products in the local market to the international market and for keeping prices at an unreasonable level.
But what is important to understand from the legal point of view is that the government is following a policy it has determined to be necessary under the prevailing economic circumstances; it is not breaking a legal or constitutional duty. The latter is the only thing the Supreme Court ought to be concerned about i.e. determining what the law is and whether the government is acting within the confines of the law or not. Policymaking within the confines of the law ought to be the remit of the executive, that is what the constitution intended and what is best from the point of view of relative institutional expertise. If a governments policies are legal but unpopular, the final arbiter ought to be the electorate. Democracy works best when state institutions respect each others mandates the executives is policymaking, the judiciarys is determining legality.
DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Policy vs legality
