Reading the article 'Judicial imperialism?' by Babar Sattar, one feels he is a firm believer in form rather than the substance of things. And this view gets strengthened by his choice of the Imrana Tiwana case and reproduction of the text “the court will not declare a statute unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the spirit of the constitution unless it also violates the letter of the constitution”.
Now, preference of 'letter' over 'spirit' in our case could be even more unfortunate because English is not our mother tongue and even those in the legal profession may lack mastery over it, as displayed clearly by the use of term 'on the ground' which, in this instance, could mean entirely different thing from 'on the grounds', which should have been used here.
Moreover, I believe that Constitutions and laws are not things of art, to be appreciated and enjoyed for the beauty of their own and that they must serve a useful purpose. With this in mind, whenever the acts of governments or their operatives are reviewed, this must be done in the light of the basic and indisputable definition of democracy 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' which emphasis centrality of the masses.
However, in the long article, while mentioning the interests of masses in the passing, the writer nowhere lays particular emphasis on it. Perhaps he believes that 'democracy' is a matter just between our corrupt and inept politicians and the lawyers who get fat fees for defending their selfish interests.