THE judiciary, once regarded as a source of clarity in times of political and institutional uncertainty, now appears increasingly consumed by internal discord.

Where judgements once prompted debates about their implications for citizens, the focus today has shifted to the courts’ own crises. Instead of guiding the public, the judiciary seems locked in a cycle of controversy that has steadily eroded all confidence in its ability to dispense justice.

Recent decisions have done little to inspire trust or repair their reputation. In most of the political cases, the courts have increasingly appeared unconcerned about grounding their rulings in sound reasoning, as long as the outcome serves immediate ends. At other times, they have adopted an inexplicable passivity when proactive intervention was both warranted and constitutionally mandated. This was true of both the case pertaining to the military trial of civilians, as well as the petitions concerning the 26th Amendment.

The judiciary is expected to uphold the supremacy of the law and ensure the separation of powers. Yet in case after case, this solemn responsibility seems to have been abdicated.

Worse still, judges who have sought to defend their institution appear to have paid a steep price. A troubling example is that of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri of the Islamabad High Court, who was among the judges to formally complain of interference by intelligence agencies in a letter addressed to the superior judiciary in 2024.

Recently, Karachi University once again cancelled his law degree, declaring it tainted by “unfair means” he allegedly used four decades ago. The timing of this extraordinary step, coming just days after the judge, along with four others, petitioned the Supreme Court regarding alleged misdoings in the IHC, raises grave questions about how internal resistance to the judiciary’s perceived capture is being dealt with by powerful quarters.

If a high court judge can be discredited and penalised in this manner, what hope can an ordinary petitioner have? If the courts themselves cannot safeguard their own, how can they protect the rights of citizens? These are questions the judiciary must confront with urgency.

Unless it can restore its independence and reassert its commitment to fairness, it risks losing not only public confidence but also its relevance as a guardian of justice. It is disturbing to contemplate what would happen in that instance.

If powerful individuals and institutions begin writing and rewriting the laws based on their whims, and if a handful of people start deciding where the law applies and where it does not, society will devolve to a Hobbesian state. The judiciary is meant to safeguard the vulnerable and check those with totalitarian instincts. It cannot and must not avoid that responsibility. Pakistan and its people must not be abandoned to a punishing fate.

Published in Dawn, September 29th, 2025