The Supreme Court’s ongoing review of its May 2022 judgment on Article 63A, a petition brought forth by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), is the latest trigger adding to a rather contentious debate over judicial conduct, constitutional interpretation, and politicization of the judiciary. The original ruling, which barred dissident members of a parliamentary party from voting against their party’s directives, was widely criticized by legal experts as overstepping judicial boundaries and essentially rewriting the constitution. Now, over two years later, the review is being heard. Unfortunately, this is taking place not in a calm and measured atmosphere, but amid open discord within the judiciary and the broader political establishment. The open spat between senior judges will only further fuel public scepticism. Leaked discussions, internal disputes, and allegations of judicial conspiracies have led many to wonder whether the judiciary’s code of conduct is still being followed. For a country whose political and legal history is littered with judicial overreach and manipulation by external forces, this public breakdown in decorum is deeply troubling.
At the heart of this controversy lies the ‘constitutional package’ proposed by the federal government. The government’s push to reform judicial appointments through this package has created a fault line within the judiciary itself. It doesn’t help that the government has kept the details of the constitutional package largely shrouded in mystery, creating an environment ripe for speculation, distrust, and factionalism within the judiciary. PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari has been one of the most vocal advocates for the judicial reforms. His call for a constitutional court with equal representation of all provinces is not new, but his reiteration of it has been met with resistance, especially in light of the ongoing judicial squabbles. Dismissing this proposal out of hand due to its ‘timing’ is short-sighted. The merits and demerits of a constitutional court deserve a robust public debate. It is also critical to acknowledge the unfortunate reality of Pakistan’s judicial history, in which judges have been used as instruments of the establishment to undermine civilian governments and target political leaders. This long and troubling legacy casts a shadow over any attempt at reform, making it imperative that transparency and balance remain at the forefront of any discussion on judicial reforms.
It is important to note though that it is not just the judiciary that deserves criticism for the current situation. The government’s opaque handling of the constitutional package, and the political capital being spent on it, has only added fuel to the fire. The sheer secrecy surrounding the proposed reforms has led to a “knives out” atmosphere, with both sides digging in their heels. Ultimately, both the judiciary and the government need to step back and reflect on the damage being done to their institutions. The judiciary must rise above petty infighting and political polarization, remembering that its primary role is to uphold rule of law, not engage in factional battles. The government, for its part, needs to bring transparency to its judicial reforms and engage all relevant stakeholders -- bar councils, civil society, parliament, and the judiciary -- in an open and honest debate. Reform should never be about undermining the independence of the judiciary, but about strengthening its transparency and credibility. Otherwise, the ongoing feud will only serve to further erode public trust in both the judiciary and the government -- trust that is already perilously thin.