The judiciary is a key pillar of democracy and the rule of law, tasked with protecting human rights, enforcing contracts, resolving disputes and holding officials accountable. An effective judiciary is vital for a country’s economic and social progress, as well as its international reputation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, akin to other highest courts worldwide, is influenced by internal dynamics and factionalism that can shape its decision-making. These internal factions typically reflect wider ideological, legal, and sometimes political divides, impacting the court’s unity and the characteristics of its rulings.
Alas, not all nations are graced with a strong and independent judiciary. As per the World Justice Project (WJP), which annually evaluates the rule of law in 128 countries, Pakistan finds itself ranked 120th globally and 25th out of 30 nations within the Asia-Pacific region regarding its judicial system’s overall performance. The WJP’s assessment of the rule of law encompasses eight factors: constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice and criminal justice. Pakistan's judiciary fares poorly in all these areas, notably in civil justice and criminal justice, where it ranks 127th and 126th respectively.
One of the principal reasons for Pakistan’s judiciary's weakness and inefficacy lies in the legacy of senior judges and their mentorship of junior judges can engender intellectual lineages within the court. Judges who have clerked for or studied under eminent jurists often perpetuate their mentors' legal philosophies and approaches, leading to the formation of groupings within the court, with judges aligning themselves based on shared intellectual heritage and jurisprudential outlook. Consequently, the judiciary has forfeited its credibility, independence and impartiality in the eyes of the public. It has failed to uphold the nation's constitutional and legal framework and to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens. Furthermore, the judiciary has been incapable of delivering timely and effective justice, particularly to the impoverished, the marginalized and the vulnerable sections of society.
The judiciary is beleaguered by a paucity of adequate financial, human, and physical resources. According to the WJP report, Pakistan allocates a mere 0.2% of its GDP to the judiciary, one of the lowest proportions in the world. The judiciary also confronts a shortage of judges, lawyers, court staff and infrastructure. The ratio of judges to population stands at approximately 1.8 per 100,000, woefully below international standards. Additionally, the judiciary lacks modern technology, equipment, and facilities necessary for efficient and transparent case management and record-keeping.
The judiciary’s low ranking on the global stage is attributable to Pakistan’s historical and political milieu, structural and institutional weaknesses and the social and cultural impediments that afflict the country's judicial system. These factors have eroded the judiciary's credibility, independence, and effectiveness and have hindered access to and the quality of justice for the Pakistani people. It is incumbent upon the judiciary to uphold and enforce the constitutional and legal framework of the country and to resist any endeavours to undermine or violate it. The judiciary should also advocate for and support necessary constitutional and legal reforms to fortify the rule of law and human rights, including the separation of powers, devolution of authority and anti-corruption measures. The process of judicial appointments in Pakistan is oftentimes tainted by political considerations. Judges appointed during varying political regimes may harbour implicit or explicit affiliations to the ideologies of those regimes. This can lead to the formation of factions based on perceived or actual political inclinations, with judges aligning themselves according to differing political philosophies, thus reflecting the broader national political divides.
Furthermore, ethical and professional standards are frequently compromised, with issues of corruption, nepotism and partiality being rampant. The legal system is further hampered by inadequate mechanisms for accountability and oversight. Judicial decisions on appointments, reassignments, promotions, and disciplinary actions are often swayed by political and personal influences rather than merit-based evaluations. There also exists no efficient, independent process for addressing grievances raised by litigants or the public. Moreover, the judiciary’s workings lack transparency, denying the public insight into its operations, verdicts and records.
Many people in Pakistan, especially the poor, uneducated, women, minorities, and various ethnic groups, have little faith in the judiciary, seeing it as biased, corrupt and inefficient. They distrust the formal legal system for being complex, costly and out of touch with their cultural norms. As a result, they often rely on informal bodies like jirgas and panchayats, which sometimes violate human rights, particularly impacting women and children. Human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers and judges face a lack of protection from threats by extremist groups and intimidation by powerful entities benefiting from ongoing injustices.
Factionalism within the Pakistan Supreme Court mirrors broader ideological, personal and political dynamics. While internal groupings can enrich judicial discourse and ensure a multiplicity of perspectives, they also pose challenges to the court’s unity and the consistency of its decisions. A nuanced understanding of these internal dynamics is paramount for appreciating the complexities of judicial decision-making within Pakistan's highest court.
The judiciary must also enhance its resources, capabilities and accountability. This can be accomplished by augmenting its budget, personnel, and facilities; improving training, education, and certification standards; instituting a merit and performance-based system for appointments, reassignments, promotions, and disciplinary actions; and establishing an effective and independent mechanism for addressing complaints and grievances. To elevate awareness, trust, and security, the judiciary should undertake outreach and educational initiatives, uphold impartiality and transparency, ensure accessibility, provide affordable and quality legal aid, and protect judges, staff, and participants from violence by extremist factions and coercion by influential entities. By enacting these reforms, the judiciary can ascend in global rankings and, more significantly, fulfil its role and responsibility as the custodian of the rule of law and justice in Pakistan. Judicial reforms are not merely to be wished for; they are of paramount necessity.
