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

Paying the price
Updated 18 Apr, 2025

Paying the price

Pakistan is trapped in a relentless cycle of climate volatility.
Political solution
18 Apr, 2025

Political solution

THOUGH the BNP-M may have ended its 20-day protest sit-in outside Quetta on Wednesday, the core issues affecting...
Grave desecration
18 Apr, 2025

Grave desecration

THE desecration of 85 Muslim graves at a cemetery in Hertfordshire in the UK is a distressing act that deserves the...
Double-edged sword
Updated 17 Apr, 2025

Double-edged sword

While remittances have provided critical support to current account, they have also been a double-edged sword.
Besieged people
17 Apr, 2025

Besieged people

DESPITE all the talk about becoming a ‘hard’ state, Pakistan is still looking incredibly soft when it comes to...
Deadly zealotry
Updated 17 Apr, 2025

Deadly zealotry

Murdering people and attacking firms is indefensible and only besmirches the Palestinian cause.