What kind of firewall does the judiciary require? Why is such a firewall imperative? Does the judiciary need protection solely from external influences, or does it also demand a comprehensive and holistic reform from within? Does our judiciary recognize its responsibility to deliver prompt and affordable justice to the people of Pakistan? Do our judicial officials realize that they are not a distinct breed, but merely functionaries tasked with the crucial assignment of dispensing justice to ordinary people?
The judiciary in Pakistan, ranging from tribunals and lower courts to some high courts, is often perceived to be grappling with widespread corruption.
Acknowledging these issues is critical, as they are compounded by other significant problems such as judicial incompetence, the absence of necessary digitization and digitalization, and inadequate logistical and infrastructural support, particularly at the district judiciary level. These deficiencies not only undermine the judiciary’s integrity but also make it more susceptible to external pressures. Such vulnerabilities can lead to increased accessibility of judges to influential individuals, further jeopardizing the fairness and independence of the judiciary.
It is imperative to question whether the judiciary fully acknowledges these challenges and what steps are being taken to address them to uphold rule of law and maintain public trust in the judicial system. In government institutions, particularly those linked to military forces, the judiciary, and the bureaucracy, a notable trait of institutional defensiveness often prioritizes maintaining the status quo over transparency and accountability. This defensiveness manifests in several ways, such as the metaphorical ‘circle the wagons’, where institutions form defensive barriers against external criticism, or the ‘resource scarcity gambit’, used to deflect responsibility and resist change. Similarly, a ‘siege mentality’ may develop, perceiving external criticism as unjust, leading to an ‘us against them’ dichotomy that blocks collaboration and reforms. The expression ‘opening a Pandora’s box’ highlights a fear that transparency invites further scrutiny and complications. It is concerning that various government departments and institutions become defensive and even hostile when faced with criticism. By creating barriers against such feedback, they hinder their ability to engage in self-reflection.
This defensiveness can lead to increased subjectivity and resistance to reform and transparency. It is crucial that all departments and institutions maintain objectivity and openness to criticism, as this fosters improvement and accountability. On March 26, 2024, six judges from the Islamabad High Court (IHC) wrote to the Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan, detailing instances of undue pressure, including the abduction and torture of relatives and surveillance, suggesting an ongoing policy of intimidation. Despite prior assurances from the IHC chief justice that any such contact with the judges would end, the interference persisted. In response, Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa convened a full court session, declaring that such executive interference in judiciary affairs would not be tolerated, which was followed by discussions with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif amid calls from the legal community for an independent investigation. On March 30, a proposal for an inquiry commission led by Justice (r) Tassaduq Hussain Jillani was put forward. However, this was challenged by the PTI which called for the resignations of both CJP Isa and Chief Justice IHC Aamer Farooq due to perceived inaction.
It would not be inappropriate to mention here that we do not have genuine political parties in Pakistan; they are merely personal, familial, or other vested interest groups. While allegations of corruption and mismanagement of resources are valid for all political parties that have held power, the PTI has been particularly detrimental to the political system. When given the opportunity, it failed to digitize and digitalize government systems, including the judiciary. They failed to implement the Right to Information (RTI) laws and to universalize education through cutting-edge technologies. They excel only in propaganda and maligning others.
As tensions escalated, over 300 lawyers implored the Supreme Court to initiate suo-motu proceedings, which led to the formation of a seven-member bench. Nonetheless, the PTI criticized the composition of the bench and demanded full court hearings and live broadcast. Subsequently, all eight IHC judges received threatening letters containing some ‘chemical powder’, triggering a government investigation and reinforcing the urgency for a judiciary free from external pressures. Amidst these developments, the former general secretary of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association lodged a reference against Justice Kayani, accusing him of conspiring against Pakistan’s forces, an accusation the Islamabad Bar Council dismissed as baseless. In an effort to protect judicial independence, the IHC took steps to curb intelligence interference, and the Supreme Court prepared to consolidate related petitions for an upcoming hearing.
A few days later, a malign social media campaign targeted IHC Justice Babar Sattar, one of the letter’s signatories, leading to vehement condemnations and calls for safeguarding judges’ confidentiality. This series of events underscores deep-seated concerns regarding the influence and pressure Pakistan’s judicial system faces and highlights the critical need for transparent oversight and legislative reforms to ensure the judiciary’s independence and uphold democratic principles.
Certainly, if members of any state agency or institution attempt to influence judicial judgments, they are not only engaging in an entirely unlawful act but are also acting as the gravest enemies of the people and the nation itself. More than just a firewall is necessary to guard against any form of harassment or undue influence, no matter how minor it may appear. Legislative measures must be enacted to criminalize such actions, and transparency must be instituted in such a way that it deters anyone from daring to repeat these offences.
It is the responsibility of all relevant government institutions to ensure that no one dares to send threatening envelopes or uses social media to malign judges. If they fail in this duty, it indicates that they are acting against the constitution, the people, and the country itself. They must recognize and fulfil their responsibilities. Pakistan has endured significant challenges over the last 76 years. As we move forward, particularly in this era of globalization driven by advanced generative artificial intelligence and other scientific and technological advancements, it is imperative that we uphold the integrity and safety of our judicial system to foster national progress and stability.
The writer is an advocate of the high court and a former civil servant.