Judicial matters

The recent goings-on at the Supreme Court show that the government had perhaps underestimated when it pushed for the passage of the 26th Amendment. If there was any belief that the amendment, coupled with a new chief justice and a restructured constitutional bench, would resolve the confusion surrounding judicial powers, recent events have proven otherwise. The SC’s decision to remove Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas for a serious lapse in case management has laid bare the deeper challenges the judicial system faces in the wake of these reforms. The issue that triggered the registrar’s removal – misallocation of cases supposed to be heard by the constitutional bench but instead placed before the regular bench – points to a broader problem. Such administrative errors, especially in an institution of the SC’s stature, should not be overlooked, but the repercussions are more troubling when viewed in the context of recent judicial developments. The fact that these cases had to be withdrawn from one bench and redirected to another is in itself an issue which needs to be resolved once and for all – especially in light of recent concerns cited by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah. In a letter to Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and the head of the constitutional bench, Justice Shah and his colleagues questioned whether it was appropriate for committees to withdraw cases from judicial benches – a move that, according to them, could undermine the integrity of the judiciary.

The SC has over the past few years been seen as a fractured institution. Former CJP Justice Faez Isa’s tenure was marked by sharp confrontations between the judiciary and the executive. Then came the 26th Amendment, a highly contentious piece of legislation that altered the power dynamics within the apex court. It also changed the process for appointing the chief justice of Pakistan, leading to the unexpected rise of Justice Yahya Afridi over Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who was originally in line for the position. The changes to the constitutional bench and the manner in which cases are assigned to it have clearly become a source of contention. As predicted, the reorganisation of the court and the reshuffling of powers have not led to a smooth transition; the recent controversy is a case in point: the reallocation of cases, the withdrawal of cases from judicial benches and questions about the motivations behind these decisions point to deeper unresolved issues.

Justice Shah’s comments, questioning whether some judicial decisions might be withdrawn if they potentially go against the government, also point to growing concerns about the encroachment of political interests into judicial matters. As such, it would be wise for the SC to address these internal issues head-on. If these problems are not resolved swiftly, they will only provide more ammunition for those who would argue that judicial independence is under threat. Not only that, the government may seize on such disarray to push through further legislation that could alter the judicial landscape even more ala the 26th Amendment. If the judicial system is to function effectively and maintain its legitimacy in the eyes of the public, it must show that it can handle its internal challenges without the need for external intervention. The alternative – a judiciary plagued by division and inefficiency – will only erode public trust.