Reforms or expediency?

The federal government’s Monday legislative marathon, marked by the passing of six bills aimed at judicial restructuring, appears on the surface to address pressing issues within Pakistan’s legal system. However, beneath the headline-grabbing numbers – such as the expansion of Supreme Court (SC) judges to 34 and the increase of Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges from nine to 12 – lie serious questions about what is driving these reforms, with concerns raised over tightening executive control over the judiciary. The legislation claims to address the perennial backlog of cases and, while it is true that delays plague the judiciary, the real burden lies not in the SC or IHC but in the lower courts, where the vast majority of cases stagnate. By focusing on the apex courts rather than where the bottleneck truly resides, the government’s reforms seem more like cosmetic tweaks than genuine attempts to fix a broken system. Indeed, by sidestepping the lower courts, these reforms suggest a selective approach more attuned to political expediency than to resolving the everyday delays faced by ordinary Pakistanis. One particular element of the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 amendment has sparked speculation that the changes are 'person-specific'. The alteration introduces a revised bench formation committee, now comprising the chief justice, the most senior SC judge, and the most senior judge from the constitutional benches. Some legal analysts contend that this adjustment is designed to sideline Justice Munib Akhtar. Information Minister Attaullah Tarar’s denial notwithstanding, the optics of such a move are troubling.

This situation is further complicated by the recent internal discord within the SC itself. In a somewhat extraordinary gesture, Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar penned a letter to Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, requesting a full court hearing for petitions challenging the 26th Amendment. This public correspondence hints at lingering factionalism within the judiciary, despite initial optimism that CJP Afridi’s tenure would restore unity. Rather than an end to internal conflicts, recent developments reveal a judiciary still grappling with internal power struggles, which threaten the very principles of judicial impartiality and independence. The judiciary’s credibility suffers each time political undercurrents pull it into public view.

At the heart of this issue is a growing distrust between the judiciary and the executive – both internally and externally. These two arms of government must work in tandem to preserve checks and balances, but when one encroaches upon the other’s independence, it only serves to deepen political fault lines. The PML-N-led government and its allies may see these reforms as necessary for maintaining stability, but without transparent intentions, the public and legal experts alike are left questioning the true purpose behind these hasty amendments. Judicial reforms are undoubtedly needed, but they must be substantive, focusing on clearing cases across all court levels and ensuring justice is accessible to everyone. With the current approach, however, the government appears to be setting a dangerous precedent of micromanaging the judiciary for political purposes. Should this continue, Pakistan risks seeing its courts not as temples of justice but as battlegrounds for executive and judicial egos. In the end, no nation can claim to uphold rule of law if its judicial system becomes merely an extension of its political one.