Comment: The CJP's delicate balancing act

In the UK, the lord chief justice traditionally engages with the ruling party on legal reforms and, in a less formal capacity, meets opposition leaders during parliamentary events or consultations.

In Canada, the chief justice of the Supreme Court interacts with the prime minister during swearing-in ceremonies and judicial appointments and has occasionally briefed opposition leaders.

In Australia, the chief justice of the high court meets with the ruling party on judicial administration matters and participates in public legal forums where opposition figures are also present. In India, the chief justice customarily consults the prime minister on judicial appointments and engages with opposition leaders during legal disputes.

In Sweden, the president of the Supreme Court interacts with the ruling coalition on judicial policy and takes part in public forums where opposition parties are represented.

In the UK, judicial independence is paramount, yet cross-party dialogue has historically played a role. While no strict protocol governs these interactions, informal precedent supports them.

Canada maintains a tradition of judicial-executive-parliamentary engagement, balancing independence with communication. In Australia, such interactions are customary rather than codified.

In India, judicial-executive-parliamentary exchanges are informal but deeply embedded in the country’s democratic practice.

Sweden’s consensus-driven system and tradition of judicial openness make these engagements low-profile but routine.

On February 19, Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi met with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, followed by a meeting with a delegation from the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on February 21. Notably, the CJP has a declared judicial reform agenda. These engagements, aligned with his reform initiatives, can be justified as both legally sound and strategically prudent.

Legally, the CJP isn’t just a judge but the administrative head of the judiciary under Article 175 of Pakistan’s constitution, tasked with ensuring justice delivery. The chief justice’s meetings align with this role by consulting key stakeholders -- the executive (PM) and opposition (PTI) -- to shape the National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC) agenda, set for late February.

The CJP seeks bipartisan input on reforms like case backlog reduction (over 2.6 million cases pending) and tax case delays. This surely isn’t politicking -- it’s fulfilling his mandate to strengthen the judicial system collaboratively, a precedent seen in past NJPMC consultations.

Is this judicial overreach? No, it is not. In fact, the CJP has reinforced judicial independence by being transparent about his approach. Recall that on February 11, he told an IMF delegation, “I’ve taken an oath of independence,” and refrained from sharing excessive details, signaling clear boundaries.

Is this subservience? Hardly. By meeting both ruling and opposition leaders publicly, he has demonstrated impartiality, not deference. Moreover, by openly soliciting written suggestions, he has created a paper trail -- both insulating himself from allegations of bias and affirming that the judiciary is not an isolated institution detached from democratic discourse.

Historically, Pakistan’s judiciary has faced reform critique -- case pendency more than doubled from 1.1 million in 2010 to 2.6 million. The CJP’s recent move is a bold shift: inviting bipartisan input and briefing PTI sets a new norm. The CJP is countering with data -- judges now handle 30–40 cases daily, up from 12. This isn’t just legal housekeeping; it’s a democratic signal that justice reform isn’t a top-down fiat but a national project.

Is CJP Yahya Afridi blurring judicial-executive lines? No, he is not. Article 175(3) demands separation, not isolation -- coordination on administration isn’t adjudication. The CJP’s refusal to delay judge appointments despite the PTI’s undue pressure shows he’s not caving, but balancing reform with resolve.

The CJP must prioritise measurable reform metrics. He must set and publicise specific, time-bound targets: eg, cutting case pendency by 10 per cent by December 2025, or resolving 30 per cent of tax delays within six months.

Consistency in terms of formalising consultations ensures transparency and stakeholder buy-in, credibility in terms of measurable goals demonstrates tangible progress and accountability, and boosting trust by reinforcing independence strengthens public confidence in an impartial judiciary.

So far, Chief Justice Afridi has done well. So far, he seems legally anchored. So far, he’s been transparent, pragmatic, and forward-thinking. So far, he’s not playing favourites.