Azam Ali, an Ahmadi Moslem
Chapter 10 – JUDGE
In-nul-laa-ha-yau-mo-ro-koom-un-to-wud-dool-aa-maa-naa-tay-ela-ah-lay-haa Wa-ezaa-ha-kum-toom-bai-nun-naa-say-un-tah-ko-moo-bil-ud-lay — Soor-ra-toon Naiy-saa-aa, Chapter 4, Verse 59
— Translation — Certainly Allah orders you that you turn over the trusts to those deserving And when you decide among people that you decide with justice — 004:059
Father was a Judge who carried out his obligation according to the law of the land because that was his professional duty to which he was sworn in while carrying out all divine mandates also.
Father judged the civil cases according to the applicable law and rules. But if asked at the Bar to follow a superior court’s judgment that he considered wrong he dissented with solid reasons.
I heard him several times tell of a case by Privy Council that had been decided wrongly.
- Apparently the Privy Council in England had failed to distinguish Auolaaday Dookhtari from Auolaaday Dookhtar in a case that arose from India — their foreign colony..
- Both terms Auolaaday Dookhtari arnd Auolaaday Dookhtar are of Persian language in which the Holy Qor-aan was translated the earliest (Translations From Other Translations).
- Auolaaday Dookhtari provision of Moslem Law means that the heirs of a decedent are only daughters. One daughter gets 1/2. Several daughters share in the 2/3 of an estate (004:012).
- Auolaaday Dookhtar means the children of a daughter and these words are not the same as the Auolaaday Dookhtari provision of Moslem Law even though they spell very similar.
- The Privy Council in applying Moslem Law of Inheritance failed to see what the Auolaaday Dookhtari meant but let similarly worded Auolaaday Dookhtar govern the case it had.
- Civil Judge as the court of first instance was Father who decided that the Privy Council (the supreme judiciary authority of British India) had wrongly interpreted the Moslem Law.
- The District Judge who was a British on appeal remanded the case back to my Father’s court and directed him to decide the case by following the Privy Council precedent.
- In the remanded proceedings Father reiterated his previous stance that disregarding the provision of Auolaaday Dookhtari by following the Privy Council would be wrong.
- The District Judge on the 2nd appeal referred the case to the High Court and pointed out that the reasoning by the Civil Judge required examination by a higher judicial body than him.
- The High Court Judge referred the case to its Full Court to decide whether the Civil Judge had correctly interpreted the Moslem Law in deciding the case before him.
- The Full Court of the Lahore High Court upheld my father’s judgment that the Auolaaday Dookhtari provision of Moslem Law was not the closely worded Auolaaday Dookhtar.
Father applied the rules to the whole and not just on a part of the evidence before him in every case. He judged criminal cases according to the laws of crimes codified in Penal Codes. He investigated thoroughly and settled all material issues in every cases before him.
Father adjudged cases not as under the Adversarial System of the American law where the role of judge was that of a referee who watched the Attorneys play the game of representing their clients like the boxers in a rink and blew a judging whistle only when one of them committed a foul.
Father applied the codified laws that were carried on from the British India to Pakistan after the Partition in August 1947. Thereafter he felt more at home in resolving controversies by following the Moslem law and jurisprudence which clearly distinguishes the Futwaa (based upon what the litigating parties present before a judge) from the Tuqwaa (as the righteousness dictates).
Father intended justice in all cases he decided. He took his spiritual duty as a Moslem Judge diligently. He decided material issues in all cases procedurally, factually and thoroughly examining all evidence on file. He put into practice what God Almighty had commanded. He did justice.
I learnt on May 10, 1995 when after the Eid-ul-Udhaa sermon in the Willingboro Mosque (USA) a gentleman came up to me. After complimenting me for what and how I said in the sermon he asked my name and then my Father’s name. “Was that the Chaudhry Azam Ali who was the District and Sessions Judge in Multan in 1950’s?” he asked. Upon my confirmation his face lit up.
He said his name was Chaudhry Nazir Ahmad. Excitedly he told how he remembered meeting my father. He told of his memory of my father that had stayed in his mind although they had met only once and that too forty-two (42) years earlier in the 1950’s.
- He took train Chenab Express from Karachi to Rabwah to attend the Ahmadiyya Annual Convention. The train-stop in Multan brought in new passengers in the compartment he sat.
- The train traveled nearly 8 hours to reach Rabwah. The passengers’ chit-chat soon revealed that the plainly dressed and inconspicuously sitting among them was the Ahmadi District and Sessions Judge of Multan.
- Someone asked my father how he ever was sure that an accused murderer he sentenced to death was really guilty and not an innocent person falsely implicated as was quite common.
- Father told that he strictly followed the law, extensively prayed to the Almighty God for the divine guidance to lead him to the right decision, and in capital sentence cases continually watched the legal proceedings right to the end until the convict was acquitted or executed.
- Father told them that his tasks was to watch for the final outcome of the case to take judicial notice if there was a last minute reprieve or clemency granted by the Government, or claim of innocence or confession of guilt expressed by the convict.
- I knew that a death sentence by a Sessions Judge was not an end to the case. The High Court in further proceedings called Murder Reference evaluated in appeal all issues of fact and law. The Supreme Court Pakistan could next hear a The President was next in line through a Clemency Petition. It was like several filters Father’s judgment had to pass. I recall Father commenting that his decisions were rarely if ever overruled by the High Court.
- Father sought guidance from the All-Knowing Allah and made every effort to arrive at a just and fair conclusion. He did his utmost to avoid sending an innocent person to the gallows.
- The chance meeting of the two travelling together for about 8 hours, the hearing from a fellow Ahmadi who used the medium of prayers for Divine Help in doing his worldly job better, and the inspiration he had on hearing of a heavy reliance of a Judge on his prayers for guidance to do justice had cumulatively created the lasting impression on narrator’s mind.
- His memory must have remained fresh crystal clear that on seeing his son, me, for the first time in his life, he instantly recalled so vividly the occasion, the incident and the inspiration that had experienced 42 years earlier. Thank God I met Chaudhry Nazir Ahmed of the Rizwan Agency in Karachi who provided me such a vivid account and permitted me to quote him by name as an eyewitness to the episode.
In 1957 when studying for my law degree I stayed with my Father for a few days in the Montgomery Government Rest House where held the court as the Sessions Judge for a murder trial. His towering voice and total silence besides drew me to his court. I saw and heard him speak clearly, candidly, concisely and without mincing words.
- Firstly he talked to the accused defendants who all were in chains, handcuffs and ankle-irons and told them that parts of the file convinced him that they had committed the murder and that was the worst thing a man could do to his fellow beings.
- Next he addressed the prosecution witnesses who having been won over by the defense had obviously lied and favored the murderers.
- Next he passed severe strictures against the prosecutorial misconduct that had bungled up the process, system and justice designed to punish the criminals.
- Next as if he consoled the victim family he informed everyone that the circumstances had rendered him helpless and forced him to entrust the matter to God.
- Then he turned to the accused defendants again saying that they had committed multiple crimes by first murdering human beings and then suborning witnesses against them. He warned them that even in getting freed from his court that day, they still had one day to account for their wrongdoings to the One from whom nothing was hidden and Who won’t ever be helpless like him as a judge in this life.
- Then suddenly, almost abruptly, he ordered the police to immediately remove the chains, handcuffs and leg-irons of the accused because he had no alternative but to acquit them.
- That 10/15-minute talk in court would ring in my ears about the feelings of a judge when I as an Attorney found a fair Judge helplessly surrender to the rule of law in open court.
- Father’s exemplary conduct as a brilliant man of law shined like a lighthouse that helped me for over half century navigate through the terrible, turbulent waters of litigation..
Father condemned in open court when any party in a case before him conveyed to him some lure, temptation, concession, threat or even insult. He sternly disallowed any one pulling wool over his eyes. He defied all wills, whims or wishes that would obstruct a Judge from doing his job.
Wa-laa-yuj-ray-mun-na-koom-sha-na-aa-no-qao-min-alaa-ul-laa-tau-day-loo Aiy-day-loo-ho-wa-uq-ra-bo-lit-tuq-waa — Soor-ra-tool Maa-aiy-dah, Chapter 5, Verse 9
— Translation — And let not the hostility against some people incite you to be unjust. Do justice. It is very close to the Righteousness — 005:009
Father processed matrimonial cases by going an extra mile to help the spouses to reconcile so much so that parties who wanted a peaceful settlement strove hard to have their cases brought to his court while those who definitely desired divorces did all they could to keep away from there.
Father exercised his discretion more leniently in matters involving orphans and widows so much so that any fair-minded person would — and often even the losing side did — confirm that his decisions really were the most equitable and really fair in the totality of the circumstances.
Father was Just in court in every case before him. He was Just in all community affairs he happened to be whether in a village he visited or city where he was posted or religious controversy he had to resolve. He was Just at home among his children. He tried being Just wherever life took.
One Rule of Universal Application stated in the Holy Qor-aan is a clear-cut.
In-nul-laa-ha-yo-hib-bool-mooq-say-tee-n — Soor-ra-tool Maa-aiy-dah, Chapter 5, Verse 43
— Translation — Surely Allah loves the Just — 005:043
Whenever I read this Rule of Universal Application (or hear it recited by Qari Abdul-Baasit or sung by Michael Jackson) what comes in mind is my Father as a Just Judge among others Just Judges I came across over the years.
I have worked for over one-half of a century in the judicial systems. In Pakistan I appeared before dozens of Supreme Court and High Court Judges, hundreds of other judges and magistrates, and worked with great many police officers from the highest to the lowest ranks. In USA I appeared before Federal Courts Judges, argued before State Court of Appeals, sought reliefs from dozens of Immigration Judges and worked with the staff of many jails in more than one States. So even if I say it myself I am a pretty good to judge what a Just Judge should be.
It would be a remiss if I don’t (and have nothing to gain or lose if I do) remember the names of some of the Just Judges before whom I appeared or argued cases, some several times. Justices Cornelius and Hamood-ur-Rahmaan of the Pakistan Supreme Court. Justices Anwar-ul-Haq, Aslam Riaz Hussain, Ataullah Sajjad, J Ortchison, M Afzal Cheema, Malik Abdul Hameed, Mirza Ghulam Mujiddid, Mushtaq Hussain, Sardar M Iqbal, Shafi-or-Rahman, Sheikh Bashir Ahmad and Sheikh Shaaukat Ali of the Lahore High Court. District & Sessions Judges Chaudhry Aziz Ahmad Bajwa and Mahr Sher Muhammad Sial. Immigration Judge Charles Honeymann in New York and later in Philadelphia.
