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

Troubled waters
25 May, 2025

Troubled waters

THOUGH the guns may have fallen silent on both sides, the Indian state continues to dangle the threat of stopping...
Captive women
25 May, 2025

Captive women

PAKISTAN’S stormy history of political and rights protests shows that even the use of excessive state brutality ...
Principled stand
25 May, 2025

Principled stand

THE war unleashed on American academia now has global attention. With Harvard University pushing back against the...
Lessons from history
Updated 24 May, 2025

Lessons from history

Is it apt for PM Shehbaz to describe the recent thwarting of India’s hostile designs as revenge for the loss of East Pakistan?
Business sentiment
24 May, 2025

Business sentiment

THE recent macroeconomic stability — its vulnerability to potential internal slippages and external shocks...
Sindh protests
24 May, 2025

Sindh protests

WEEKS after locals blocked off major arteries in Sindh to protest a proposal to build new canals on the Indus,...