Ethics – Experiences of a Lifetime

Introduction

I am forced to write this on account of news appearing on BBC Urdu Website with the title “Larkana judge resigns” (later amended and clarified here). I have always hated the expression “surprise inspection of a court”. I have been always given reasons for it. A court howsoever low can never be inspected, it can only be observed. Even a Chief Justice when he enters the lowest court he ceases to be Chief Justice. He enters not as Chief justice but only as an observer under full authority and discipline of the court functioning. If the so-called superior judges don’t understand this basic duty of theirs then some members of the Bar will pounce on the judges on being dissatisfied (as it happened in Multan). Continue reading “6 A Court is a Court”

I may be excused for incorporating in this part some portions of over thirty-five-year-old report of the Eradication of Corruption Commission

Along with another judge, we attended an International Conference on Copyright and Patents in the neighboring country. One of the speakers there said that some doctors prescribe fake medicines. I asked why they should risk their careers. The reply was, for easy money, for more money, and for quick money.

Supreme Court Performs

Case No.3A Page 119 Report of the Commission on Eradication of Corruption submitted to the Government on 2^nd October 1979.

A student obtained admission in a medical college by representing that he had obtained 643 marks. Initially, the marks so disclosed stood the test of verification also. Subsequent inquiries of the Board showed that he had obtained 533 marks. It quashed the result, disqualified the student from appearing at seven examinations of the Board. The Medical College expelled the student. On his writ petition, the Supreme Court maintained the decision of the Medical College. The Supreme Court then did the most unusual thing. It quashed the Boards decision on the supposed ground that “it could have been the result of a mistake”. On his representation to Government, the Principal of Medical College strongly opposed his readmission to Medical College. The Secretary of the Department wrote, “Supreme Court left the decision of his readmission at the discretion of college authorities and the student has already spent three precious years of his life in a medical institution, his case may be sympathetically considered by the Governor”. The Minister commented that the student was the son of a doctor and nephew of a War Hero. The Governor allowed him on the April 1973 to complete his course. Continue reading “3 Judiciary Leads in Diluting its Own Ethics”