1.
Introduction
The judiciary is one of the most
important pillars of the state. According to the Constitution of Pakistan 1973,
the judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution, the protector of fundamental
rights, and the final authority to decide disputes. Article 4 guarantees
that every person shall be treated in accordance with the law. Article 9
protects the right to life and liberty, while Article 25 ensures
equality before the law. Moreover, Article 175 establishes the independence
of the judiciary.
Despite these guarantees, the
judiciary in Pakistan has often failed to meet the expectations of the people.
Delays, corruption, political interference, and weak enforcement of laws have
created a system where ordinary citizens struggle for years to get justice. As
the famous saying goes, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
This article discusses the major causes of the failure of the judiciary in Pakistan, supported by relevant constitutional provisions and landmark judgments.
2.
Political Interference in the Judiciary
One of the biggest reasons for
judicial failure in Pakistan is political interference. Time and again, the
judiciary has validated unconstitutional actions of dictators by applying the “Doctrine
of Necessity.” This doctrine allowed military rulers to overthrow elected
governments and still gain judicial approval.
- Case Law:
In State v. Dosso (PLD 1958 SC 533), the Supreme Court validated
General Ayub Khan’s martial law.
- In Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of Army Staff (PLD
1977 SC 657), the court legitimized General Zia-ul-Haq’s coup.
- In Zafar Ali Shah v. General Pervez Musharraf (PLD
2000 SC 869), the Supreme Court validated Musharraf’s takeover.
These judgments directly violated Article
6 of the Constitution, which declares abrogation of the Constitution as high
treason. The judiciary’s role in legitimizing such acts damaged its
independence and credibility.
Later, the judiciary itself admitted its mistakes. In Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation (PLD 2009 SC 879), the Supreme Court declared Musharraf’s emergency unconstitutional and rejected the doctrine of necessity. However, by then, the damage had already been done.
3.
Corruption in the Judicial System
Corruption in the judiciary has
further weakened public trust. Judges, court officials, and sometimes even
lawyers are accused of bribery, favoritism, and misuse of power.
The Constitution provides a
mechanism for accountability of judges under Article 209, through the
Supreme Judicial Council. However, this mechanism has been weak and rarely used
effectively.
- In Asif Ali Zardari v. State (PLD 2001 SC 568),
the court acknowledged that the judicial process was misused for political
victimization.
- In the Panama Papers Case – Imran Khan v. Nawaz
Sharif (PLD 2017 SC 265), the Supreme Court disqualified a sitting
Prime Minister. While the case was a landmark in accountability, many
critics argued that it reflected selective justice, targeting one leader
while ignoring others.
Such examples create the impression that accountability is not impartial, but rather influenced by politics.
4.
Delay in Justice
The backlog of cases is another
serious cause of judicial failure. Millions of cases remain pending in courts,
and it often takes years or even decades for final decisions.
Article 37(d) of the Constitution directs the state to provide
“inexpensive and expeditious justice.” However, outdated procedures under the Civil
Procedure Code 1908 and Criminal Procedure Code 1898 cause endless
adjournments and technical delays.
In Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693), the Supreme Court expanded the meaning of the right to life under Article 9, ruling that it includes living in a healthy environment. But despite progressive interpretations like this, ordinary citizens continue to face decades-long struggles in civil and criminal cases.
5.
Shortage of Judges and Courts
Pakistan has a very low
judge-to-population ratio. With over 2 million cases pending, the
existing number of judges is not enough to deal with the workload.
Appointments of judges are made under Article 175A through the Judicial Commission and the Parliamentary Committee. However, disputes over appointments and a lack of merit-based selections have weakened the system.
6.
Weak Accountability of Judges
The independence of the judiciary is
essential, but it cannot mean that judges are above the law. The Supreme
Judicial Council under Article 209 is supposed to deal with cases of
misconduct, but its record has been disappointing.
- In Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. President of Pakistan (PLD
2021 SC 1), the Supreme Court quashed a presidential reference against
a sitting judge, ruling that it was based on mala fide intentions. While
this judgment protected judicial independence, it also showed how
accountability processes are misused for political purposes.
This selective use of accountability has left the judiciary vulnerable to both corruption and political pressure.
7.
Complex and Outdated Laws
Many of Pakistan’s laws are
inherited from colonial times, such as the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Criminal
Procedure Code 1898. These laws were designed for colonial control, not for
speedy justice in a democratic state.
Loopholes in these laws are often
exploited by lawyers to delay cases.
- In Benazir Bhutto v. Federation (PLD 1988 SC 416), the Supreme Court stressed that equality before law and fundamental rights must be protected. But such principles often remain unimplemented due to outdated procedures.
8.
Weak Investigation and Prosecution
Even the best courts cannot deliver
justice if the investigation and prosecution are weak. Police investigations in
Pakistan often rely on torture, forced confessions, and political influence.
This violates Article 14,
which protects the dignity of man.
- In the Karachi Law and Order Case (2010 Suo Motu),
the Supreme Court observed that political interference in police work had
destroyed the system of justice.
As a result, many criminals are acquitted due to “lack of evidence,” not because they are innocent, but because the investigation was poorly conducted.
9.
Influence of Elites and Powerful Groups
Justice in Pakistan often favors the
rich and powerful, while the poor wait for years. This is against Article 25,
which guarantees equality before the law.
- In the Missing Persons Case (PLD 2013 SC 279),
the Supreme Court repeatedly ordered the recovery of disappeared persons.
However, powerful institutions ignored the orders, and the court was
unable to enforce them effectively.
This shows how justice is selective: powerful groups can avoid compliance, while ordinary citizens suffer.
10.
Lack of Legal Awareness
A large portion of Pakistan’s
population is illiterate and unaware of their legal rights. Article 37(d)
calls for free legal aid to those who cannot afford it, but this is rarely
implemented.
As a result, many people are unable to approach courts or are easily misled by lawyers and court officials.
11.
Poor Infrastructure and Resources
Most courts in Pakistan still rely
on manual record-keeping. Case files are often lost or delayed. Although the Supreme
Court ordered the use of video-link technology in 2019 to make proceedings
faster, implementation is still very slow.
Without digital reforms, the system remains inefficient.
12.
Weak Enforcement of Court Decisions
Even when courts give decisions,
they are not always implemented. Article 190 of the Constitution
requires all authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court. However, in
practice, judgments are often ignored.
For example, in the Missing Persons Cases, the Supreme Court issued several orders, but state institutions failed to comply, showing the judiciary’s weakness in enforcement.
13.
Bar Politics and Lawyer Misconduct
Lawyers and bar councils also play a
negative role in weakening the judiciary. Strikes, mob behavior, and political
influence often disrupt the judicial process.
The Legal Practitioners and Bar
Councils Act, 1973, governs lawyers’ conduct, but it is rarely enforced.
A notorious example was the Punjab Institute of Cardiology Attack (2019), where lawyers stormed a hospital, causing the deaths of patients. Such incidents lower public respect for the legal community and judiciary.
14.
Declining Public Trust
Due to all these factors, public
trust in the judiciary has declined. Many people prefer informal systems like
jirgas and panchayats, despite their unfair and often illegal decisions.
- In Asma Jilani v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1972 SC 139), the court declared General Yahya Khan’s martial law illegal. This restored some public confidence, but unfortunately, such strong decisions remain rare.
15.
Conclusion
The judiciary in Pakistan has failed
to live up to its constitutional role as the guardian of law and protector of
rights. Political interference, corruption, delays, outdated laws, poor
investigation, bar politics, and weak enforcement of decisions are the main
causes of this failure.
The Constitution provides strong
guarantees in Articles 4, 6, 9, 14, 25, 37(d), 175, 190, and 209, but
these provisions are often ignored in practice.
Reforms Needed:
1.
End political interference and
ensure true independence of the judiciary.
2.
Strengthen the accountability of judges
under Article 209.
3.
Modernize outdated laws and
procedures.
4.
Improve police investigation and
prosecution.
5.
Introduce digital courts and reduce
backlog.
6.
Provide free legal aid and awareness
programs.
7.
Enforce strict discipline on bar
councils and lawyers.
8.
Ensure enforcement of court
judgments by all state institutions.
Justice is the foundation of peace
and progress. If Pakistan wants stability and prosperity, its judiciary must be
reformed and strengthened so that every citizen can have confidence in the rule
of law.