Editorial
Accountability of the Judiciary is a very complicated subject. Democratically healthy countries have chosen frameworks according to their contexts: some have achieved a ‘balance’ of judicial independence vs. judicial accountability. In these countries with strong democratic norms, the judiciary has been made independent of the executive influence in the decision-making powers. While on the other hand, some constitutional tools have been placed to check the judicial overreach. In Pakistan, the famous 26–27th amendments were steps in this direction, in addition to the criticism.
To understand this complex subject, we need to understand the terms ‘independence’ and ‘accountability.’ An example of a bird can be useful. For example, there’s an independent bird. She is allowed to move here and there in liberty and eat whatever she wants. But she is prohibited from spoiling people’s food and creating noise at odd hours. If she violates, she faces some accountability in terms of restrictions on independence and liberty.
Similarly, a court must be independent in decision-making and immune from influence from the bureaucratic executive. Also, it must be accountable for the overreach to the legislature, which is the representative of the people. In a parliamentary democracy, the court is independent of executive influence but not a separate sovereign body. It must work under the constitutional accountability exercised through a forum that is the custodian of people’s will: parliament.
‘In a healthy system, there is a dialogue between the courts and legislature.’ — Tariq Awan, Fixing the Judicial Branch of Government in Pakistan
In the book, he further writes, “The slogan ‘depoliticize the judiciary’ has been often used in Pakistan by status-quo powers to actually avoid scrutiny.” The word “politics” in a democracy fundamentally means “representation of the people’s will. ” Justice is not a cloistered virtue; it must be seen and evaluated by the public it serves.
Buy Now: 0341-4222501
