Sheikh Riaz Ahmad

Infobox Officeholder
name = Sheikh Riaz Ahmad
شیخ ریاض احمد


caption =
nationality = flagicon|Pakistan Pakistani
order = 18th Chief Justice of Pakistan
term_start = February 1,2002
term_end = December 31,2003
predecessor = Bashir Jehangiri
successor = Nazim Hussain Siddiqui
birth_date =
birth_place = flagicon|Pakistan Pakistan
dead = Alive

Sheikh Riaz Ahmad (Urdu: شیخ ریاض احمد) was a Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan from February 1, 2002 to December 31, 2003.

Overview

Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad was elevated to the Supreme Court of Pakistan on February 1, 2002. Prior to this elevation, he served as a Judge Supreme Court of Pakistan (1997-2002), Chief Justice of Lahore High Court (1997)and Judge Lahore High Court, Punjab - the largest province of Pakistan (1984-1997). Justice Ahmad worked as the Advocate General of the Punjab Province from 1980-84; and as Assistant Advocate General Punjab (1973-80). He was called to bar in 1959 and was a practicing criminal lawyer as well as a lecturer at the Punjab University Law College.

Justice Ahmad also served as the Member Election Commission of Pakistan from 1990-93 and later he was appointed as the Federal Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs under the second Government of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Among the important public inquiries that he conducted include early 1980s riots on alleged blasphemy against Muhammad; and the General Zia ul Haq's plane crash inquiry conducted in the late eighties. Justice Ahmed was a member of the inquiry tribunal that investigated into the reasons for the plane crash.

During Justice Ahmed's tenure as Chief Justice of Pakistan, due to the standoff between the Government and the Bars on the one hand, and bench-bar on the other, Pakistan witnessed unprecedented events in the court rooms. The troubled judicial history of Pakistan re-played itself due to the superior judiciary's legitimating of the military coup of General Musharraf by invoking the infamous ‘doctrine of necessity’ which states that the integrity of the state is of paramount importance such that when a constitutional government is overthrown, the usurping authority must be recognized so as to avoid anarchy.

The Supreme Court validated General Musharraf's 1999 coup in 2000 and ordered elections within 3 years of the military takeover. However, the bench-bar schism deepened during in later years as the apex court was viewed by sections of the bar as cooperative to the Executive. The senior Judiciary however held and publicly announced at several fora that their decisions to uphold military takeover was meant to facilitate the return of constitutional rule and democracy in the country. In 2002, elections, albeit controversial, were held and the Constitution of Pakistan was restored with amendments introduced by the military Government. This was not a new development in Pakistan as a similar trajectory was followed in 1985 when General Zia held party less polls and restored constitutional order with a package of amendments known as the Eight Amendment.

Thus the larger political climate had its usual impact on the perceptions of the judiciary and its leadership even in the years 2002 and beyond.

During his tenure as a judge of the High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, he authored several important judgments that are now used as case law in Pakistani courts. Justice Ahmad in July 2003 took suo motto notice of the gang rape of Mukhtaran Mai in a remote village of southern Punjab province of Pakistan and ordered an inquiry.

Reaction to Punjab rape

In July 2003 he stated that he was shocked by the rape on June 22 in the Punjab village of Meerwala, 610 kilometres south-west of the capital, Islamabad. "It was a shocking incident in the 21st century and a blatant violation of human rights as well as human dignity," he said in an announcement that was reported on state radio and television.

Mukhtaran Mai a rural woman, gang-raped on the orders of a village jury in a Punjab village and dragged naked was an atrocious violation of the legal and moral codes of Pakistani society. The country's apex court headed by Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad summoned the provincial police chief and local police officials to explain the incident after newspaper reports that a crowd of villagers, too scared to protest against the jury's ruling, watched four men take turns to rape Mai inside a farmhouse and force her to walk home naked. "It is unbelievable that the IG (Inspector-General of Police), being the head of the police, came to know about the facts of case so late," remarked the Chief Justice during a brief hearing in Lahore. Mai's father Ghulam Farid Gujjar said about the incident that happened on June 22, but was registered as a complaint by police only about a week later. Police stated in July that they had arrested one of the four alleged rapists and were hunting for three others as the Supreme Court heard the provincial police chief saying he was unaware of the incident even a week after it had happened. [http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/06/top5.htm]

Landmark judgment

In June 2004, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Ahmed set aside an earlier Court judgment in which the apex Court had directed the government to eliminate Riba from economy by June 30, 2002. The bench remanded the case back to the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) for a fresh decision. This decision has given a new life to the modern banking system of the country which was declared un-Islamic in the previous judgment. The Court held: “We are of the considered view that the issues involved in these cases require to be determined after thorough and elaborate research and comparative study of the financial systems which are prevalent in the contemporary Muslim countries of the world.” “It would be in the fitness of things if the matter is remanded to the Federal Shariat Court which under the Constitution is enjoined upon to give a definite finding on all the issues falling within its jurisdiction. The court noted the government’s argument that the FSC judgment was biased as the author of the judgment, Justice Dr Tanzilur Rehman, the then chief justice of the FSC, had delivered the judgment with a “pre-determined mind”. The Supreme Court required the FSC that besides the arguments of the parties, it should also keep these points in view:

a) That the loans should be indexed, meaning thereby that the debtor must pay an additional amount equal to the increase in the rate of inflation during the period of borrowing.

b) That the loans should be tied up with gold, and it should be presumed that the one who has loaned Rs1,000 has actually loaned as much gold as could be purchased on that date for Rs1,000, and must repay as much rupees as are sufficient to purchase that much of gold.

c) That the loans should be tied up by a hard currency like dollar.

d) That the loss of the value of money should be shared by both creditors and lender in equal proportion. If the value of money has declined at a ratio of 5 per cent, 2.5pc should be paid by the debtor and the rest should be borne by the creditor, because the inflation is a phenomenon beyond the control of either of them. Being a common suffering, both should share it.

In December 2002, the National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC) presided over by Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmed held the practice of “Vani” (exchange of female as consideration for compounding disputes/offences) against the injunctions of Islam. NJPMC had taken notice of the increasing instances of the tradition of Vani and held that no marriage could be solemnized without the free consent of the parties. NJPMC also resolved that the chief justices of high courts would issue instructions to all the trial courts as well as appellate courts to strictly follow the provisions of the law and ensure that under no circumstances a female was given as Badal-i-Sulh. Further, this meeting also stressed the need for an effective enforcement of the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929, that prohibited marriage of minors and prescribes punishments for those who organize, solemnize or promote such marriages.

Political Controversies settled in the Courts

General Musharraf's holding of referendum in 2002: The nine-member Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad after conducting six day’s consecutive hearing in April 2002 held that Referendum Order was issued under the powers given to President Pervez Musharraf on May 12, 2000 by the Supreme Court. However, the Court held that: “We would not like to go into these questions at this stage and leave the same to be determined at proper forum at the appropriate time. In November 2002, the Chief Justice also gave oath to President Musharraf before the parliament met to elect him as the President. The deepening of the bench-bar conflict climaxed when the President of Supreme Court Bar Association appeared before the apex court in the review petition relating to the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and filed a “statement at the bar on behalf of the Supreme Court Bar Association holding that the Bar had no confidence in the independence of the Supreme Court. The review petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court for non-prosecution and “on merit”. In a judgment by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the court opined that the contents of the application constituted gross contempt of court by using disparaging remarks about the judiciary. Two paragraphs of the application were deemed “scandalous, malicious and irrelevant” and the court ordered those paragraphs to be deleted. However, the Court concluded that it would have “proceeded to take action in the matter but exercised restraint.”

An astute commentary on such state of affairs appeared in a Pakistani daily

"The legal fraternity also needs to realize that the judiciary does not exist in a vacuum and wholly outside the political system. When there is haze all around, how can one institution remain insulated from its darkening effect. Just as a flower does not bloom in a desert, the judiciary cannot continue to glow amidst the shadows of authoritarianism. The legal fraternity cannot choose to vindicate its position on any given issue by attacking the very institution which, despite all darkness, has still been a source of much enlightenment during the last three years. Had the judges not been vigilant during this period, much more would have been lost. Rather than assailing the institution of the judiciary, they should assail Bonapartism which weakens the role and independence of the judiciary. The legal fraternity should also be prepared to make personal sacrifices. How many members of the Bar Associations who passed the resolution expressing lack of confidence in the apex court have refused to accept briefs in private cases before that very court on the ground that they have no confidence in the court in its present composition? The lack of confidence cannot be selective and pitched to vary with the personal interests of the members of the Bar. The Bench and the Bar are indispensable for the successful administration of justice. One cannot exist without the other. An independent judiciary is anathema to most governments be they elected or military. The judiciary is the most effective and reliable check on the arbitrary exercise of power by governments. From a wider perspective, it is part and parcel of the democratic process. When all other institutions of the state fail the judiciary remains." (Khalid Jawed Khan, Daily DAWN, November 2002 available online here [http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/07/op.htm] "

The former Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad had banned entry of press photographers in premises of building of the apex court when the controversy between the judiciary and lawyers community was on the rise on the issue of extension in the age of judges of superior courts under "Legal Framework Order".Since then no press or other form of media is allowed on the premises of the Supreme Court.

ee also

* Chief Justices of Pakistan