The judiciary is often regarded as the bedrock upon which the edifice of democracy stands, a noble custodian of the constitution and a vigilant protector of the rights of the citizenry. Yet, the tenures of Justice Saqib Nisar and Justice Umar Ata Bandial as Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have ignited considerable discourse and controversy regarding the role, actions, and reach of the judiciary.
Justice Saqib Nisar’s period upon the bench was distinguished by an extraordinary degree of judicial activism, the likes of which had rarely been witnessed before. The Supreme Court, under his stewardship, assumed a most assertive stance on matters that were traditionally within the dominion of the executive and legislative branches. His habit of using suo motu powers on issues like healthcare and the environment blurred the line between law interpretation and governance, questioning the separation of powers essential to democracy. This raised doubts about whether Justice Nisar was taking on a governing role instead of just interpreting the law.
Among the most contentious actions was his involvement in the campaign to fundraise for the Diamer-Bhasha and Mohmand Dams. In a manner most unusual for a Chief Justice, he championed this cause with fervour, personally soliciting contributions from the citizenry. This, many argued, was an act not befitting the judiciary's mantle, leading to questions regarding the propriety and transparency of such endeavours. Was it, they pondered, a departure from the path of judicial rectitude?
Justice Umar Ata Bandial’s tenure, which followed, did not steer the judiciary away from the turbulent waters of controversy but rather saw a continuation of similar trends. Justice Bandial's involvement in politically charged cases, including those concerning to a particular political party, only served to heighten suspicions regarding the impartiality of the judiciary. His decisions were perceived by many as being influenced by political considerations, thus raising doubts about the Court’s neutrality. The internal discord among judges during his tenure further exacerbated the perception of an institution struggling to maintain unity and coherence, which in turn diminished public confidence.
Justice Bandial found himself under considerable scrutiny for his approach to judicial appointments, which many critics perceived as bereft of the necessary transparency and fairness befitting such an esteemed office. These appointments were frequently regarded as being influenced by personal predilections rather than grounded in merit, thereby casting a shadow over the judiciary's credibility and fostering concerns about the institution's independence and impartiality.
Though not as frequent as his predecessor, Justice Bandial's invocation of suo motu powers was perceived as inconsistent and selective, particularly in matters with political implications. Observers and critics contended that such actions indicated a propensity to intervene in cases that aligned with certain interests, thereby casting doubt upon the judiciary’s impartiality and tarnishing its reputation for unbiased adjudication.
The assertive actions undertaken by the Supreme Court during these periods by intervening in matters of a political and executive nature, the judiciary has risked being perceived as a partisan entity rather than upholding its revered position as a neutral arbiter of justice. Such a perception has undeniably been detrimental to the public’s confidence, not only in the Supreme Court but also in the integrity of the broader judicial system. This erosion of trust challenges the very foundations upon which the judiciary's legitimacy and authority are built, thereby threatening the pillars of justice and democracy that the institution is meant to safeguard. Reports and opinions from esteemed legal experts suggest that the judiciary’s perceived alignment with political interests has fostered an impression of susceptibility to external influences, thereby casting a shadow over the judiciary's independence.
The rule of law, being a foundational principle of democracy, demands that all individuals and institutions, including the judiciary, be held accountable and operate within their prescribed boundaries. However, when the judiciary is seen as overstepping its mandate, it not only diminishes its own authority but also erodes the public's trust in the judicial system. By extending their reach into realms beyond their judicial mandate, the Supreme Court's actions have, on occasion, been perceived as undermining the legitimate authority of the executive and legislative branches. This overreach has disrupted the delicate balance of power, creating a precarious situation where the judiciary appears to encroach upon areas outside its jurisdiction, rather than serving as a steadfast guardian against governmental excesses. Such an imbalance poses a significant threat to the democratic structure, as it challenges the checks and balances essential for the healthy functioning of a democratic state.
The periods of both Justice Saqib Nisar and Justice Umar Ata Bandial have thus indubitably left an indelible mark upon the judicial history of Pakistan. Their actions, while occasionally yielding positive outcomes, have undoubtedly contributed to a perception that the Supreme Court has ventured beyond its rightful mandate, and in doing so, has inadvertently jeopardized the very principles of independence, impartiality, and justice upon which it must steadfastly stand. In this context, it becomes imperative for the judiciary to reclaim its revered status by adhering to its constitutional role, refraining from entangling itself in the affairs of the executive and legislative branches. Only then can the Supreme Court of Pakistan rise to its true purpose, that of an unassailable guardian of the constitution and the unwavering protector of the rights and liberties of the people, in the spirit of justice and democracy. One must indeed pose the question: Should those who have served in the judiciary continue to enjoy the benefits of public tax money in the form of pensions and perks, or should there be a reconsideration of these privileges by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, particularly if inquiries reveal evidence of misconduct or abuse of power?
In essence, while the judiciary should be respected and supported, any evidence of wrongdoing should prompt a review of the benefits enjoyed by its members, reinforcing accountability and maintaining public trust in the judicial system.
