Judge disputes World Justice Project report on Pak judiciary

ISLAMABAD: A judge has challenged the perception created by an international ranking that placed Pakistan’s justice system near the bottom of the list.

According to his argument, the Pakistani judiciary performs significantly better than courts in the South Asian region, including India, and in Muslim-majority countries such as Turkey. Two years ago, the World Justice Project ranked Pakistan 130th out of 142 countries in terms of the rule of law. However, this ranking reflects the overall rule of law and is not limited to the judiciary, writes Qasim Javaid Chaudhry, an Additional Sessions Judge, in an article published in the Federal Judicial Academy’s journal. “Of the eight factors considered in the ranking, only two — civil justice and criminal justice — are directly related to the judiciary,” he clarifies.

Even within these two categories, he argues, many sub-factors are unrelated to the judiciary, and those have positioned Pakistan’s courts in a comparatively favorable light. For instance, within the criminal justice system, the judiciary’s domain — criminal adjudication — is ranked 83rd, placing it ahead of Thailand (87th), Turkey (108th), India (112th), Sri Lanka (113th), and Brazil (133rd).

Similarly, in civil justice, Pakistan is ranked 111th, which is not an encouraging sign. However, it still fares better than Egypt (117th), Turkey (129th), India (136th), and Bangladesh (139th).

Another critical factor examined was government influence over the criminal justice system. In this regard, Pakistan’s ranking at 67th is concerning, but when viewed in a global context, more than half of the countries surveyed face even graver issues. Egypt and Bangladesh, for example, are both ranked 105th, while Turkey stands at 139th.

The independence of the judiciary in checking governmental powers was also assessed, with Pakistan securing the 83rd position. However, since this perception-based ranking predates the 26th Constitutional Amendment, it remains unclear how a fresh survey would reflect the judiciary’s position.

While acknowledging that the judiciary is not flawless, the judge argues that this ranking reflects perception rather than reality. He emphasises that the report is based on surveys of only 1,000 individuals from Lahore, Karachi, and Islamabad, raising questions about its representativeness. Notably, the same organisation’s 2017 survey labeled the judiciary as “the most trusted institution” in Pakistan.

To illustrate his point, he references Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” in which prisoners, shackled in a cave, perceive shadows on the wall as their entire reality, never having witnessed the world outside. This, he suggests, is akin to how perception-based rankings can distort the actual performance of the judiciary.