A wake-up call.

IT is nothing less than a strong critique of the chief justice by his fellow judges as the long-simmering friction within the top judiciary finally comes out into the open. The dissenting judges have challenged what they call 'the solitary decision of one man' and they want the 'unbridled power enjoyed by the chief justice' to be restrained.

It may not be unusual for judges to have differences of opinion, but the remarks made by Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail in their detailed dissenting note on the court's ruling on elections for the KP and Punjab assemblies go beyond the norm. They have not only disputed the validity of the ruling but have also questioned the chief justice's discretion to reconstitute the bench.

According to them, last month's proceedings, following the suo motu notice taken by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on the delay in elections, stood rejected by a majority of 4-3, contrary to the 3-2 judgement announced by the reconstituted five-member bench.

The release of the detailed dissenting note on the eve of the hearing of the petition against the postponement of polls by the ECP, in violation of court orders, has turned the entire case upside down, worsening the existing state of anarchy.

Many legal experts may not concur with the two judges - that the suo motu action was rejected by the majority - but questions about the chief justice's power to constitute benches at will appear valid. What is also being debated is the validity of his decision to take suo motu notice on the election issue.

The dissenting note also brings into question the exercise of absolute power by the CJ.

The controversy started after Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Athar Minallah were not included in the reconstituted bench following their objections over the notice. The ruling itself did not come as a surprise, as the reconstituted bench changed the balance of opinion. Given that two other judges had recused themselves, the argument that four out of the remaining seven judges had rejected the suo motu action has some rationale.

Notwithstanding the validity of the majority ruling by the reconstituted five-member bench, the chief justice's decision not to go for a full court on critical constitutional issues has created doubts in the minds of many over the impartiality of the top judge and widened the cleavage within the institution.

It is not for the first time that the process of the formation of benches and the...