Government of Pakistan

Under the Constitution, there are three primary branches of a government: the legislative, whose
powers are vested in a bicameral Parliament; the executive, consisting of the President, aided by
the Cabinet which is headed by the Prime Minister; and the judiciary, with the Supreme Court.[1]
Effecting the Westminster system for governing the state, the government is mainly composed of
the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, in which all powers are vested by the Constitution in
the Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court.[2] The powers and duties of these
branches are further defined by acts and amendments of the Parliament, including the creation of
executive institutions, departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.[2] By constitutional
powers, the President promulgates ordinances and passes bills.
The President acts as the ceremonial figurehead while the people-elected Prime Minister acts as
the Chief Executive (of the executive branch) and is responsible for running the federal government.
There is a bicameral Parliament with the National Assembly as a Lower house and the Senate as an
upper house. The most influential officials in the Government of Pakistan are considered to be
the Federal Secretaries, who are the highest ranking bureaucrats in the country and run cabinet-
level ministries and divisions. The judicial branch systematically contains an apex Supreme
Court, Federal Shariat Court, High courts of five provinces, district, anti-terrorism, and the green
courts; all inferior to the Supreme Court.[2]
The full name of the country is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. No other name appears in the
Constitution, and this is the name that appears on money, in treaties, and in legal cases. The
"Pakistan Government" or "Government of Pakistan" are often used in official documents
representing the federal government collectively.[2] Also, the terms "Federal" and "National" in
government institutions or program names generally indicate affiliation with the federal government.
As the seat of government is in Islamabad, "Islamabad" is commonly used as a metonym for the
federal government.[2][3][4] On 4 August 2020, the Government released a new political map [5][6] that
maintained the Pakistani claims on Junagadh, Manavadar, and Sir Creek. The map also showed the
Islands of Churna and Astola as part of Pakistan for the first time. [7][8][9]

Federal law and Constitution

The Constitution of Pakistan established and constituted the federal government of four provinces of
federation of nation-state, known as State of Pakistan. The Constitution reads as:
The Federal Government is Subject to the Constitution. The executive authority of the Federation
shall be exercised in the name of the President by the Federal Government, consisting of the Prime
Minister and the (Federal) Ministers, which shall act through the Prime Minister, who shall be the
chief executive of the Federation.
In the performance of his functions under the Constitution, the Prime Minister may act either directly
or through the (Federal) Ministers.

— Constitution of Pakistan: Part III: The Federation of Pakistan— Chapter 3: The Federal
Government, Article 196–197, source[10]

The basic civil and criminal laws governing the citizens of Pakistan are set down in major
parliamentary legislation (a term inherited from the United Kingdom), such as the Exit Control List,
the Pakistan Penal Code, and the Frontier Crimes Regulations. By the Article 246th and Article
247th to the constitution, the Islamic Jirga (or Panchayat) system has become an institution for local
governance.[11][12] The 1950s reforms in the government administration, the constitutional law and
jurisprudence in Pakistan have been greatly influenced by the United States Of America ' legal
system. Since the 1970s, the traditional jirga-based law has also been in place in a few areas, and
has influenced the country's judicial development. [13][14]

Branches of government
Legislative branch
Main article: Parliament of Pakistan

The legislative branch has two houses, which combined are known as the Parliament of Pakistan

 The National Assembly is the lower house and has 342 members. 272 are elected
directly by the people, while 60 seats are reserved for women and 10 seats for religious
minorities.
 The Senate is the upper house and has 104 senators elected indirectly by members of
provincial assemblies for six-year terms.
The Parliament enjoys parliamentary supremacy. All the Cabinet ministers as well as the Prime
Minister must be members of Parliament (MPs), according to the constitution. The Prime Minister
and the Cabinet Ministers are jointly accountable to the Parliament. If there is a policy failure or
lapse on the part of the government, all the members of the cabinet are jointly responsible. If a vote
of no confidence is passed against the government, then the government collapses and a new one
must be formed.

Executive branch
By general definition, the executive branch of government is the one that has
sole authority and responsibility for the daily administration of the state bureaucracy. The division of
power into separate branches of government is central to the republican idea of the separation of
powers. The separation of powers system is designed to distribute authority away from the executive
branch – an attempt to preserve individual liberty in response to tyrannical leadership throughout
history.
Prime Minister and Cabinet
The Prime Minister of Pakistan (Urdu: ‫ ;وزیراعظم‬lit: 'Wazir-e- Azam), is the executive head of
government of Pakistan, constitutionally designated as the Chief Executive (CE).[15] Popularly
elected by direct elections in the parliament, the Prime minister is responsible for appointing a
cabinet as well as running the government operations. [15]
The Prime Minister makes key appointments on various important positions, including;

 The federal secretaries as head of cabinet- level ministries

 The chief secretaries of the provinces
 Key administrative and military personnel in the Pakistan Armed Forces
 The chairmen of large public sector organisations and corporations such
as NHA, TCP, PIA, PNSC etc.
 The chairmen and other members of the federal commissions and public institutions
 Ambassadors and High Commissioners to other countries
The Cabinet can have a maximum of 11 percent (50 members including the Prime Minister) of the
total strength of the Parliament.[16] Each Cabinet member must be a member of Parliament (MP).
[17]
 The Cabinet Ministers chair the Cabinet and are further assisted by the Cabinet Secretary of
Pakistan, whose appointment comes from the Civil Services of Pakistan. Other Ministers
are Ministers of State, junior members who report directly to one of the Cabinet Ministers, often
overseeing a specific aspect of government.[17]
Once appointed by the Prime Minister, all Cabinet Ministers are officially confirmed to their
appointment offices by the President in a special oath of ceremony. [17][18]
The President of Pakistan, officially the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is the
ceremonial head of state of Pakistan and the commander-in-chief of the Pakistan Armed Forces.[19][20]
The office of president was created upon the proclamation of Islamic Republic on 23 March 1956.
The then serving governor-general, Major-General Iskander Mirza, assumed office as the first
president. Following the 1958 coup d'etat, the office of prime minister was abolished, leaving the
Presidency as the most powerful office in the country. This position was further strengthened when
the 1962 Constitution was adopted. It turned Pakistan into a Presidential Republic, giving all
executive powers to the president. In 1973, the new Constitution established Parliamentary
democracy and reduced president's role to a ceremonial one. Nevertheless, the military takeover in
1977 reversed the changes. The 8th Amendment turned Pakistan into a semi-presidential
republic and in the period between 1985 and 2010, the executive power was shared by president
and prime minister. The 18th Amendment in 2010 restored Parliamentary Democracy in the country,
and reduced presidency to a ceremonial position. [21]
The constitution prohibits the president from directly running the government. [22] Instead, the
executive power is exercised on his behalf by the prime minister who keeps him informed on all
matters of internal and foreign policy, as well as all legislative proposals.[23] The Constitution
however, vests the president with the powers of granting pardons, reprieves, and the control over
the military; however, all appointments at higher commands of the military must be made by the
President on a "required and necessary" basis, upon consultation and approval from the prime
minister.[24]
The president is indirectly elected by the Electoral College for a five-year term. The Constitution
requires the president to be a "Muslim of not less than forty five (45) years of age". The president
resides in an estate in Islamabad known as Aiwan-e-Sadar (President's House). In his absence,
the chairman of Senate exercises the responsibilities of the post, until the actual president resumes
office, or the next office holder is elected.
There have been a total of 13 presidents. The first president was Iskander Ali Mirza who entered
office on 23 March 1956. The current office holder is Arif Alvi, who took charge on 9 September
2018, following his victory in the 2018 elections.[25]

Judicial branch
Main article: Judiciary of Pakistan

Pakistan's independent judicial system began under the British Raj, and its concepts and procedures
resemble those of Anglo-Saxon countries. Institutional and judicial procedures were later changed,
in 1950s, under the influence of American legal system to remove the fundamental rights problems.
[11]
 The judiciary consists of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Provincial High Courts, District
Courts, Anti-terrorism courts, Sharia courts, and Environmental courts all over the country; Supreme
Court being the superior court.[2] The Supreme Court of Pakistan consists of a Chief Justice,
and Senior Justices appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan.
The Constitution does not fix the number of justices of the Supreme Court, though it can be fixed by
Parliament through an act signed by the President. [26]
Judicature transfer
The Constitution grants powers to the Supreme Court to make judicature transfers. [26] Although the
proceedings in the Supreme Court arise out of the judgement or orders made by the subordinate
courts, the Supreme Court reserves the right to transfer any case, appeal or proceedings pending
before any High Court to any other High Court.[26]
Supreme Judicial Council
Misconduct of judges is highly intolerable as is mentioned in the constitution. Under the mainframe
of the Supreme Judicial Council Article 209 an inquiry into the capacity or conduct of a Judge, who is
a member of the council, may be conducted.

Civil service
Main articles: Central Superior Services of Pakistan and Pakistan Administrative Service

The civil service of Pakistan is the permanent bureaucracy of the Government of Pakistan. The civil
servants are the permanent officials of the government, occupying a respected image in the civil
society. Civil servants come from different cadres (e.g. Pakistan Administrative Service, Police
Service of Pakistan etc.) after passing the CSS examinations. Not all the employees of the
Government of Pakistan are civil servants; other employees of the Government of Pakistan come
from the scientific institutions, state-owned corporations and commissioned military science circles.
In the parliamentary democracy, the ultimate responsibility for running the administration rests with
the elected representatives of the people who are the ministers. These ministers are accountable to
the legislatures which are also elected by the people on the basis of universal adult suffrage. The
cabinet and its ministers are expected to lay down the policy guidelines, and the civil servants are
responsible for implementing and enforcing it.

Federal secretaries
Main article: Federal Secretary

The federal secretaries are the most senior, experienced, and capable officials in the country. Each
ministry/division has its Secretary to oversee and enforce the public policy matters.
The secretaries, who are basic pay scale (BPS)-22 grade officers, are largely considered to be the
most powerful officials in the country.[27][28] Due to the importance of their respective assignments,
there are twelve specific federal secretaries which are considered to be the most vital in the
Government of Pakistan. These include the Secretary Establishment (responsible for civil service
matters), Secretary Commerce (responsible for trade), Secretary Cabinet (responsible for Cabinet
Division), Secretary to the Prime Minister (responsible for Prime Minister's Office), Secretary
Interior (responsible for law and order), Secretary Finance (responsible for the country's
treasury), Secretary Foreign Affairs (responsible for foreign relations), Secretary Maritime
Affairs (responsible for ports and shipping), Secretary Power (responsible for the electricity and
power sector), Secretary Planning and Development (responsible for development
projects), Secretary Petroleum (responsible for the petroleum sector) and Secretary
Industries (responsible for industrial development). [29][30]
Management of major crisis situations in the country and coordination of activities of the various
Ministries in such situations are the functions of the Cabinet Division. Appointment for the chairman
of the FPSC, the prestigious body responsible for the recruitment of elite bureaucrats, is made by
the President after consulting the Prime Minister, according to Article 242 of the Constitution. [31]

Elections and voting system

Main articles: Elections in Pakistan and Politics of Pakistan

See also: Election Commission of Pakistan

Since 1947, Pakistan has an asymmetric federal government, with elected officials at the national
(federal), provincial, tribal, and local levels. Constitution has set the limit of government for five
years, but if a Vote of no confidence movements takes place in the parliament (and prelude of
movements are proved at the Judicial branch), the government falls and immediately replaced
with caretaker government initiated by the president (consultation of Prime Minister also required to
make such move), in regards to Article 58 of the constitution. [32]
There has been four times that the martial law has been in effect, and controversially approved by
the supreme court.[17] Through a general election where the leader of the majority winning party is
selected to be the Prime Minister. [17] All members of the federal legislature, the Parliament, are
directly elected. Elections in Pakistan take place every five years by universal adult suffrage. [17]

Administration and governments

Provincial and Local governments
Main articles: Provincial Governments of Pakistan, local government in Pakistan, and Administrative
units of Pakistan

There are four provincial governments that rule the four provinces of the state. The Chief
Minister heads the provincial government. All provincial assemblies are unicameral, elected for five
years.[33] The Governors appointed by President after consulting the Prime minister, act only as
representatives of federal government in the province and do not have any part in running the
government.
The provincial governments tend to have the greatest influence over most Pakistanis' daily lives.
The Local government functions at the basic level.[34] It is the third level of government,
consisting Jirga in rural tribal areas.[35]

Finances
Main articles: State Bank of Pakistan, National Bank of Pakistan, and Pakistan Remittance Initiative

Taxation and budget

Main articles: Taxation in Pakistan, Federal budget of Pakistan, Tax on cash withdrawal,
and Foreign trade of Pakistan

Pakistan has a complex taxation system of more than 70 unique taxes administered by at least 37

tax collection institutions of the Government of Pakistan. [36] Taxation is a debated and controversial
issue in public and political science circle of the country, and according to the International
Development Committee, Pakistan had a lower-than-average tax take.[37] Only 0.57% of Pakistanis,
or 768,000 people out of a population of 190 million pay income tax.[37]
The Finance Minister of Pakistan presents the annual federal budget in the Parliament in the midst
of the year, and it has to be passed by both houses of the Parliament.[38] The budget is preceded by
an economic survey which outlines the broad direction of the budget and the economic performance
of the country for the outgoing financial fiscal year.[39]

National Finance Commission program overview

Main article: NFC award

Constituted under the Article 160 of the Constitution of Pakistan by the Constitution, the National

Finance Commission Award (NFC) program is a series of planned economic programs to take
control of financial imbalances and equally manage the financial resources for the four provinces to
meet their expenditure liabilities while alleviating the horizontal fiscal imbalances.[40]
According to stipulations and directions of the Constitution, the provisional governments and Federal
government compete to get higher share of the program's revenues in order to stabilize their own
financial status.[41]

Downloaded from : [Link]

%20Constitution%2C%20there%20are,judiciary%2C%20with%20the%20Supreme%20Court. Dated 25.04.23

The politicization of Judiciary and the Judicialization of politics- who to

blame?

By Azwar Shakeel. Dawn April 5, 2023.

In recent months, Pakistan’s superior judiciary has found itself mired in

controversy, either due to internal schisms over administrative authority or
external pressures over the formation of benches.

But Pakistan’s judiciary is no stranger to controversy. Over the years, it has

been responsible for its fair share of excesses, often done under the garb of
being the protector of the Constitution and upholder of the rule of law.

Some who have dared to challenge the legitimacy of the judiciary’s not-so-
kosher actions have found themselves staring down the barrel of contempt of
court charges. By shutting down fair criticism, the judiciary has exalted itself to
a near-untouchable and unaccountable status.

The judicial activism we see on display in Pakistan today has a long and
troubling history, starting with the infamous Molvi Tamizuddin case in 1954, in
which the then Chief Justice of Pakistan Muhammad Munir, along with four
other judges, declared the dissolution of the legislative assembly by Governor
General Ghulam Mohammad legally valid.

This would become the first of many instances where the courts legitimised
the abrogation of the Constitution under the guise of the ‘doctrine of
necessity’. In more recent times, these excesses have morphed into
needless suo motu actions, as well as interference in political decisions, through
which the judiciary has repeatedly overstepped its constitutional
bounds, damaging both democracy and institutions of governance in the
process.
Legacy of the Lawyers’ Movement
Modern day judicial activism took off considerably after the Lawyers’
Movement of 2007-2009. While it was a grassroots level movement, engaging
local bar councils from across the country, political parties also threw their
weight behind the campaign due to its mass appeal.

The PPP was at the forefront of this political support, but when President Asif
Ali Zardari failed to reinstate judges sacked by his predecessor, General
Musharraf, for refusing to take oath under the Provisional Constitutional
Order, the movement started targeting him for reneging on his promises.

This also led to the fracture of the Lawyers’ Movement into pro-judiciary and
pro-government camps — each with their own support bases and affiliated
political parties — ushering in a new era of political and establishment
intervention in the judiciary.

Read more: Role of the judiciary

Thus, despite the fact that the modern judiciary is the brainchild of a mass
movement — that supposedly gave way to an independent judicial system — it
has not been able to shake the impression of being controlled by the
establishment. In fact, that perception has only grown, primarily due to the fact
that the superior judiciary has repeatedly been accused of involvement in
‘political engineering’ and regime changes.

Political interference
Article 184(3), which grants the Supreme Court suo motu powers, on its own is
an effective tool by way of which the constitutional validity of laws and
decisions made by public bodies may be reviewed.

The actual issue arises when judges show unnecessary eagerness to invalidate
legislative or executive actions. Moreover, in some cases, the superior judiciary
has been seen to go beyond the confines of the petitions before it and allow
its own personal views to influence decisions on matters of public policy.

Read more: Judicial overreach?

Take for example the decision taken by the Supreme Court in 2012 to suspend
28 lawmakers. The special bench comprising Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry passed
the order while hearing petitions filed by the PTI and the PPP, challenging the
validity of by-polls conducted on the basis of bogus entries in the electoral
rolls leading up to the February 2008 elections.

The court went beyond the ambit of the petitions to question why the Election
Commission of Pakistan (ECP) was not properly constituted in accordance with
the 18th Amendment. Moreover, it tied the reinstatement of the suspended
lawmakers on the condition of passage of the 20th Amendment. This condition
set off another round of political confrontations as the court gave opposition
parties leverage to drag their feet. It also set a dangerous precedent of the
court setting aside the results of an election.

Suo motu action over delay Punjab and KP polls

The recent suo motu action by the Supreme Court over delay in the elections
of Punjab and KP, much like the suo motu proceedings in 2012, are being called
out by legal experts as well as some judges of the Supreme Court as
unjustified.

While few constitutionalists would argue against the verdict ordering the ECP
to hold elections within 90 days, it is the manner in which the suo
motu proceedings were conducted that made it controversial, particularly in
light of the recusals that followed.

As Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail pointed out in his dissenting note, the

bench of Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi, while hearing an
unrelated petition, summoned the Chief Election Commissioner and asked
about the delay in elections in Punjab.

In these circumstances, suo motu action was unjustified, observed Justice

Mandokhail. Agreeing with him, Justice Yahya Afridi termed it “judicial pre-
emptive eagerness to decide”, especially considering the fact that an intra-
court appeal on the same matter was pending before the Lahore High Court.

Then there was the matter of bench formation, in which Justices Qazi Faez Isa
and Sardar Tariq Masood — the two senior-most judges after Chief Justice of
Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial — were absent. However, Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar
Naqvi, the subject of an audio leak controversy, was included in the same
bench — a move that was “inappropriate”, wrote Justice Mansoor Ali Shah in
his dissenting note. “This inclusion becomes more nuanced when other senior
Hon’ble Judges of this Court are not included on the Bench,” Justice Shah
added.

This controversial judicial episode simply shows that it does not matter if the
decisions taken in the end are correct. What matters is the way in which those
decisions are taken. As the popular maxim goes, justice must not only be done,
it must also be seen to be done. If the impression given by a particular decision
is one of partiality and favouritism, the objectives of justice have been
defeated.

PTI petition against ECP order to delay elections

Weeks after the SC verdict, ordering the ECP to conduct the provincial
elections on time, a five-member bench was formed to hear the PTI’s petition
against the electoral watchdog’s decision to delay elections in Punjab — in
contravention of the SC’s orders.

Once again, notable names were missing from a case of grave constitutional
importance. The inclusion of Justice Ijazul Ahsan, after he had recused
himself from a previous nine-member bench over allegations that he had
already disclosed his mind, was a surprise entry. From the outset, Justice
Mandokhail maintained that the Supreme Court had dismissed the suo
motu case with a 4-3 majority, and stuck to disagreements expressed in his
dissenting note.

While the hearing on this petition was ongoing, Justice Qazi Faez Isa authored
a 12-page judgement where he remarked that the CJP does not have unilateral
power to constitute benches and select judges, and that all cases under Article
184(3) be postponed until amendments are made to the Supreme Court Rules
1980 regarding the CJP’s discretionary powers.

On the basis of this judgement, Justice Aminuddin Khan recused himself from

the bench, which was followed soon after by the recusal of Justice
Mandokhail.

Subsequently, the CJP, through SC Registrar Ishrat Ali, issued a circular in

which he disregarded the aforementioned judgement, and resumed hearing
with the remaining three judges. This three member-bench ruled on
Tuesday that the ECP decision to postpone polls in Punjab till Oct 8 was
“unconstitutional” and fixed May 14 as the date for elections in the province.

The verdict came amid an outcry from various political circles for the
formation of a full court to dispel the notion of bias and settle the matter of
election delay conclusively. A request in this regard by Attorney General for
Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan has already been rejected by the CJP.

The judicialisation of politics and politicisation of the judiciary cuts both ways.
Quite often, courts are dragged into the political domain, making them a
subject of criticism and ridicule. But the judiciary has also made itself
controversial by eagerly interfering in matters that should ordinarily have
political solutions. The election date issue is now extremely polarised. Barring a
full court, any verdict would invite a fresh round of public bashing from
relevant stakeholders on either side of the political aisle.

Read more: Beginning of another crisis? Legal eagles weigh in on SC’s Punjab poll
verdict

Judicial activism in recent history

In legal parlance, the ends do not justify the means. The process of attaining
justice sometimes carries more importance than the final judgement itself. If
the former is tainted, the latter, though binding, will not be respected.

Events surrounding the vote of no-confidence last year serve as another

example of this phenomenon. Restoration of the National Assembly after
dissolution by the President was a noble move on the part of the Supreme
Court as it broke away from the ugly precedent of the ‘doctrine of necessity’.

However, the late-night opening of the Islamabad High Court and Supreme
Court offices — as the clock approached midnight on April 9 and the speaker
was reluctant to put the no-confidence motion to vote — drew widespread
criticism.

The fact that this happened soon after news broke that then-Prime
Minister Imran Khan may denotify the incumbent Chief of Army Staff, served
to create the perception that it was done at the behest of the establishment.
Judicial actions are supposed to be reactive, not proactive in nature. In that
instance, however, the Supreme Court took notice before the speaker
committed contempt by violating the restoration order. And it did so after
regular court timings, which is highly unusual.

The court might well have been performing its constitutional duty as the final
arbiter of the rule of law. However, what is visible, sells. And what was seen
here was a court unilaterally eager to perform the role of both the legislature
and the executive.

Recent history is replete with other examples of judicial activism and political
intervention by the judiciary — the blatant constitutional rewriting by the
Supreme Court in its decision on a presidential reference seeking
interpretation of Article 63-A, the surprise hospital visits by former Chief
Justice Saqib Nisar, declaration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) to
be permanent in nature and the conviction and disqualification of former
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani — have all served to tarnish the reputation
of the judiciary and polarised public opinion towards it.

The impact of judicial activism beyond politics

Judicial activism also has dire economic consequences. It hurts investor
sentiment who fear that the risk of litigation may create unnecessary
constraints. Foreign investors, in particular, shy away from uncertainty and
unpredictability, an environment created by needless intervention by the
judiciary in the executive and legislative domains. The botched privatisation of
Pakistan Steel Mills in 2006 at the hands of the Supreme Court serves as a
prominent example, which has cost the national exchequer an exorbitant
amount to date.

An overly eager judiciary, that is perceived to be trampling institutional

bounds, also serves to turn public sentiment against the courts. Political
decisions will always have polarising reactions, and usually that anger is
directed towards the legislature and executive — two institutions that are
constitutionally mandated to protect public welfare. However, public contempt
is redirected towards the courts and the military when political decisions are
seen to be taken by them.

Last but not by far the least, judicial activism weakens democracy. It comes at
the expense of parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy. Lawmakers become
dependent on courts to offer legitimacy to their actions or undermine those of
their opponents. In the process, the institutional capacity of both the
legislature and the executive is damaged.

Unfortunately, in Pakistan, the weakening of democracy goes hand in hand

with strengthening of the military. In addition to the aforementioned Molvi
Tamizuddin case, the Zafar Ali Shah case, where General Musharraf’s 1999
imposition of martial law was rubber stamped by the Supreme Court, and
the Begum Nusrat Bhutto case, whereby General Ziaul Haq’s 1977 declaration
of martial law was given legal cover by then Chief Justice Anwarul Haq’s court,
are all important readings for those looking to learn more about the judiciary’s
role in undermining democracy.

Reforming the judicial system

First and foremost, the administrative authority of the CJP must be curtailed.
Powers related to appointment and removal of judges, exercise of suo
motu powers and the constitution of benches give unbridled influence to one
single person to run an entire institution based on their own whims.

To this end, an independent and objective criterion for the selection of judicial
nominees must be introduced. There should be input from all stakeholders in
society on this matter. And the use of discretion to pick and choose judges for
specific cases must be regulated.

Bench formation should be a transparent process. Suo motu jurisdiction must

be limited to issues of fundamental rights. Taking up any matter as a suo
motu case has been seen to facilitate misuse of authority. The Supreme Court
(Practise and Procedure) Bill 2023 recently passed in the National Assembly is
a step in the right direction, although it is likely to face many legal hurdles.

Secondly, the legislative and executive branches must also stop involving the
courts in issues that fall within the political domain. There are an exceedingly
large number of frivolous cases filed by rival political parties against each
other. Such cluttering of the legal system only serves to delay justice for those
who truly need it.

Lastly, judges must also realise that they are not above criticism and must
submit themselves to institutional checks and balances. The judiciary must not
continue to dangle the contempt of court sword over society in an attempt to
curb valid and necessary criticism.

In the process of targeting the military for institutional abuse of power, the
acts of the judiciary often go unnoticed, even though the judiciary has often
served as a proxy for the establishment.

History reveals dire consequences of politicised courts and judicialised politics.

It would be a fool’s paradise to expect anything different from the future
without implementing judicial reforms. It is high time to break the cycle of
institutional transgressions. Only then will democracy in Pakistan begin to gain
a foothold.