Only public legitimacy through judicial reform and effective constitutionalism can secure judicial independence.
Is judicial tolerance due to the fact that the judiciary is dependent on the state?
How does one protect judges from persecution without compromising on accountability?
It was an attempt by judges to rectify history by removing the judicial shame of legitimising past military rule.
By failing to hold those involved in the PIC attack accountable, lawyers risk losing their legitimacy.
There’s a need for an inter-institutional dialogue to ensure judicial independence & constitutional democracy.
Will the government succeed in subduing independent judges?
The criminal apathy of the government imperils judicial reform.
Only great judges have the courage to accept the injustices of their own judicial system.
An examination of the Avenfield judgement leaves one with mixed feelings of shock, horror — and amusement.
The judicial vote is in competition with the people’s vote.
Today’s expansive judicial power is rooted in our own judicial history, besides being a global phenomenon.
Dissent, as in the metro train project, is a constitutional conversation with a future court.
Even if the courts exercise judicial restraint, some political elites will still win or lose.
The detailed judgement will be seen less in terms of its reasoning and more in terms of its spirit.
How can the anti-militancy fight to establish constitutional supremacy coexist with the denial of rights?
Can this judgement be followed in other cases of disqualification?
Perfectly legitimate civilian accountability also becomes military politics by other means.
What if the military and intelligence agencies are right about detention without trial?
What are the main reasons for the Sharifs’ successful legal strategy?