Judgments of Supreme Court, Judgment, Importance of judiciary in a State, Legal state in Pakistan.

It was held in a case 2015 SCMR 1550 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] titled as Messrs MFMY INDUSTRIES LTD. and others---Appellants Vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Commerce and others---Respondents, Civil Appeals Nos. 1646 and 2000 of 2006 and Civil Petition No.782-K of 2009, decided on 21st April, 2015. (Against the judgment dated 18-2-2009, 10-8-2006 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.P. No.D-2659 of 1994, C.P. No.34-D of 1995) that how judiciary is important in a State. State constituted three foundational organs i.e. Legislature, Executive and Judicature. In ordinary parlance, these (organs) were also known to be the three pillars of the State. Entire structure of the State was founded, built upon, and secured only on account of the said pillars. Due to lack/absence or imbalance in respect of any of these organs/pillars, the very concept of State was periled and its existence was put at risk. Main objects and functions of the legislative branch of the State was to make laws, which (laws) obviously defined and prescribed the rights and obligations of the citizens/persons and the duties of the State; these laws ordained the functions which the State could and had to perform vide various organs. Legislative limb also enabled a broader mechanism for State governance by drawing policies and issuing and passing resolutions on numerous important aspects expedient for the effective functioning of the State. Legislature may also provide for machinery through which laws and directives etc. were or should be implemented and enforced. Legislature formulated and constituted the positive law of the State. Object of executive was not only to carry out and run the affairs of the State in accordance with the laws made by the legislature and any policy/direction given to it, but also to comply with laws, follow the established rules, norms and standards expedient and necessary for the due administration of the State. Thus, executive was responsible for the governance of the State and for carrying out its affairs in consonance with the rule of law. According to the constitutional set up of Pakistan, executive primarily emanated out of the legislative branch of the State i.e. out of the chosen representatives of the people, therefore, there remained no strict separation of power between the legislature and the executive. Rather practically there was considerable harmony and also collaboration between these two branches of the State. These branches at times supported and bolstered each other and while they did so, the possibility that either of the two branches exceeded its jurisdiction and empowerment or misused the same could not be ruled out. Where the legislature or the executive branch had erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction and was responsible for any abuse, excessive use of power, arbitrary exercise of power, whimsical, non-transparent, unfair and unreasonable action(s) including the violation of fundamental rights, an affected person for the purposes of seeking redressal of his grievance against such wrong and/or for enforcing his rights under the law, including his fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution, came forth to the judicature by knocking at its door. This was the last resort for a beleaguered and aggrieved person. It is thus that the judicature was conceived, perceived and was meant to act as the final arbiter not only vis-a-vis the interpretation of the Constitution, the statutory law(s), but also to ensure that rule of law was adhered to and the rights of the citizens/persons approaching the courts were determined and enforced against the might of the State. Courts were the guardians of the Constitution and were responsible for preserving and securing the rights of the aggrieved citizens/persons as against the State. Adherence to and enforcement of the rule of law could only be achieved through an independent and capable judiciary, which was beyond the reach, control and influence of other branches of the State---Judicature had to act as a neutral umpire who kept a check on the exercise of power by other organs of the State so as to ensure that the rights of citizens/persons were not affected and trampled contrarily to law. Judiciary which lacked courage to do justice without fear and favour, was biased, or suffered from the vice of self-interest, or was tardy, indolent and incompetent and had no urge, will, passion and ability to decide the cases/disputes before it expeditiously, or fell in the romance of aggrandizement and populism was a danger to the State and the society---Great virtue of a judicial functionary was that he applied the rules of balancing and proportionality while performing his functions and discharging his duties. Courts must, thus, exercise all the authority conferred upon them to prevent any delays which were being caused at any level by any person whosoever---Procedural and legal aspects of any litigation were equally important, which must be followed in letter and spirit, however, barring such time that was consumed for adherence with such legal and procedural aspects, the courts were bound to decide the matter as promptly as possible especially once the trial and the hearing of the case(s) were complete, and in appeals, revisions and constitutional matters, once the hearing of the matter (when arguments were concluded) had taken place and it had been concluded---Where there was an inordinate delay in pronouncement of judgment after hearing of the matter, especially on account of lapse of considerable and reasonable time (such as six months and beyond), the judges shall not be in a position to exactly recall and record with precision and exactitude as to what propositions of law and facts were argued before them---Such delay shall have reflection upon the rule of audi alteram partem, which was a fundamental and salutary rule of justice and postulated that if someone had been denied appropriate opportunity of hearing in a case, any verdict/decision given against such person/party shall not be laudable---Any judgment rendered with inordinate delay after hearing of the matter may be questioned as not being meaningful, purposive and rather illusionary---Such a verdict shall neither fit in the concept, object and purpose of a judgment nor shall it meet the rule of proper dispensation of justice. Judgment should supply adequate reasons for the conclusion reached and arrived at and should be reflective of application of proper judicial mind by the judge and it should not be a mechanical and non-speaking judgment. Where a judge/court did not pronounce a judgment for resolving the legal and factual issues involved in a dispute before it at all, the very purpose of the judicial branch of the State would be frustrated and eroded---Where there was no judgment in terms of law, the entire judicial set up shall be rendered farce and illusionary, which obviously shall in turn disturb the equilibrium between the pillars of the State upon which it rested, resulting into serious impairment of the functioning of the State. Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court after hearing of a matter---Reasonable time period for pronouncing judgment---Scope---Cases/matters before the Supreme Court were heard in benches---Usual cases were heard by a three members' bench, though two members' benches also heard matters---Reasonable time period of 90 days for the pronouncement of judgments should ordinarily extend to those (cases) heard by two member benches of Supreme Court and if the matter was not decided within such time, the case should be fixed for rehearing---For cases that were heard by a larger Bench particularly a Bench of three and above, the rule of 90 days should not be attracted because the Supreme Court, being the apex Court of the country had to enunciate law on very important legal and constitutional propositions, which law was binding on all the courts and other organs of the State---For laying down the law, a lot of effort, research, deliberations and confabulations were required---Supreme Court was the final court of the country which was saddled with the duty of laying down the correct law therefore more responsibility was cast on the Court and utmost care was required to pursue the law which was free from any flaw(s)---Supreme Court settled the jurisprudence of the country and the development and true interpretation of law---Judgments of Supreme Court, thus, were sometimes shelved for a while after being drafted, for further thinking, rethinking about its implication, the effect and impact on the State, society, culture, pending cases and the system of governance, the rights of the citizens etc.---Numbers of drafts were therefore prepared for discussion and input, different opinions were recorded in the same judgment on different points of law by the Judges of the Bench, and there were dissents recorded---Supreme Court observed that it was, thus, left to the Judge(s) of Supreme Court to decide for themselves as to what minimum time frame shall be needed for composing and pronouncing the judgment as the judges of the superior courts could not be said to be unaware or unmindful about their responsibility of providing speedy justice and the expediency of dispensation of the justice.