Regulating sou motu.

Byline: Zahid Hussain Borhani - Karachi

THIS is apropos the article 'Regulating sou motu and chief justice's power' by Salahuddin Ahmad (April 16). The quote of a 17th century British lawyer in the context of our judiciary is malignant.

In view of subsequent rulings and a plethora of case law on the point, it no more has a legal basis to stand on. The writer should have shown some respect for judges who stand retired but who did yeomen service by initiating sou moto proceedings where there was no remedy for seeking justice.

Be that as it may equity (meaning fairness) has been in the field for centuries. It continues to play its robust role, along with the new genre 'sou moto' (meaning on its own motion). Both have become part of what is called 'judicial activism'. It was in a 1947 Fortune magazine article that Arthur Schlesinger Jr coined the word 'judicial activism'.

The exact history of judicial activism is unclear, but it is believed that the concept has been around for centuries. In short, it means a stark deviation from the constitution and other laws as well as political consequences with emphasis on social and moral welfare of society and individuals at large. Islam enforces this concept.

One of the first deviations based on this genre came from the US Supreme Court when in the 1954 case of Brown vs Board of Education it declared unconstitutional a state law which had created a segregation of white and African-American citizens in trains, schools, etc. Though not a sou moto case its implications were far reaching. The legal doctrine of stare decisis at nonquieta, meaning 'to stand by the decisions and not to disturb settled points'...