Judicial reform

Published February 21, 2023

RECENT remarks from a former Supreme Court justice regarding the “corruption” of the judiciary — coming at a time when the role of the judiciary is being repeatedly brought into question by political quarters — have opened the door for a critical reconsideration of how appointments are being made to various tiers of our judicial system. Speaking at the Karachi Literature Festival, former justice Maqbool Baqar noted that the judiciary has never been immune to corruption, which he described as “not just financial, but moral, social and political as well”. He attributed the rot to the process through which judges are inducted. Mr Baqar said nepotism, favouritism and the sacrificing of merit in the selection process were the core reasons why the judiciary became slowly compromised since independence.

Mr Baqar stressed that the judiciary’s independence ultimately boiled down to the kind of individuals who led it. “You need character, courage and calibre,” he said, evidently indicating that these traits were missing in the ‘weak links’ within the judiciary. His remarks swung a spotlight onto a running debate over who should be considered worthy of elevation to the Supreme Court — something he explicitly acknowledged. This debate has resulted in multiple stand-offs at the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, where some have insisted on seniority, a simple measure, as the basis for elevation, and others on merit, an arguably newer and more nebulous approach. Both measures have some drawbacks, and it is unfortunate that the deadlock has yet to be broken through a clear-cut, rationalised process for appointment. There is a widely held perception that it is lawyers who are unable to run successful practices who end up in the lower judiciary, where their career may stand a better chance due to its low barriers to entry. Though it may not always hold true, this is a disappointing commentary on the state of our judicial system. Coming back to the question of seniority versus merit, the dilemma would not exist if, from the very lowest tier, the requirements for an appointment to the judiciary were set such that only people of “character, courage and calibre” were inducted. Strengthening the appointment process of judges at all tiers would not only prevent further corruption of the judicial system but also make it simpler to make decisions about individuals’ progression without having to worry about unfit judges compromising top offices.

Published in Dawn, February 21st, 2023

Opinion

Editorial

Iran stalemate
Updated 02 May, 2026

Iran stalemate

THE US and Iran are currently somewhere between war and peace. While a tenuous ceasefire — extended largely due to...
Tax shortfall
02 May, 2026

Tax shortfall

THE Rs684bn shortfall in tax collection during the first 10 months of the fiscal year is a continuation of a...
Teaching inclusion
02 May, 2026

Teaching inclusion

DISCRIMINATORY and exclusionary content in Punjab’s textbooks has been flagged in Inclusive Education for a United...
Water vision
01 May, 2026

Water vision

WATER insecurity in Pakistan has been building up for decades as per capita water availability has declined from...
Vaccine policy
01 May, 2026

Vaccine policy

PAKISTAN has finally approved its first National Vaccine Policy; a step the health ministry has rightly described as...
Labour rights
Updated 01 May, 2026

Labour rights

THE annual observance of May Day should move beyond statements about the state’s commitment to the rights of...