Hafiz Mudassar Rizwan
In a significant development, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) tribunal hearing a Judicial Service Appeal filed by a judge challenging the appointment and subsequent elevation of another judge in the subordinate judiciary has sparked controversy. On March 18, President Asif Ali Zardari, acting on the advice of acting IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar, reconstituted the tribunal. This decision came after the tribunal had reportedly already reached a conclusion on the petition before it. The reconstitution has now become the center of a legal dispute, with the tribunal issuing a judgment that disregards the reconstitution order and raises important questions about judicial authority and independence.
The tribunal, which originally consisted of Justices Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, and Sardar Ejaz, issued its ruling after the reconstitution. The tribunal found that the law does not permit the IHC or its subordinate judiciary to be filled with judges borrowed from other courts. In its ruling, the tribunal ordered the IHC registrar to “return all members presently serving in the subordinate judiciary for Islamabad Capital Territory on deputation within six months.” The tribunal further stated that any decisions made by the chief justice or a committee appointed by the chief justice, which do not adhere to the legal requirements, are not sustainable under the law. This includes decisions related to appointments, deputations, inductions, or promotions, and such decisions are liable to be set aside by the tribunal.
The tribunal’s ruling also questioned the authority of the president and the acting chief justice, declaring that neither had the legal justification to reconstitute the tribunal. It declared the reconstitution of the tribunal as “unconstitutional” and emphasized that the acting chief justice of the IHC has no authority to interfere with the tribunal’s functions. This legal interpretation has sparked a broader debate about the power dynamics within Pakistan’s judiciary and the growing influence of the executive over judicial affairs.
The controversy surrounding the reconstitution of the IHC tribunal comes at a time when the judiciary in Pakistan has been grappling with issues of autonomy and governance. The 26th Amendment, which brought significant changes to the judiciary’s operational structure, has been a point of contention. This amendment, which expanded the government’s role in judicial appointments and internal matters, has made it increasingly difficult for the judiciary to function independently.
In recent years, Pakistan’s judicial landscape has seen a growing trend of government interference in the judiciary’s internal affairs, often through changes in the appointment process or the shifting of cases between benches. This was evident in a similar dispute that arose within the Supreme Court, where an important case was abruptly moved from one bench to another, seemingly in anticipation of an adverse ruling. Such actions have raised concerns about the influence of the executive on the judiciary and the undermining of judicial independence.
The reconstitution of the IHC tribunal is a continuation of these tensions, highlighting the ongoing challenges the judiciary faces in maintaining its autonomy in the face of external pressures. The tribunal’s ruling, which rejects the reconstitution order, signals that a significant portion of the judiciary is not willing to accept what it perceives as unconstitutional interference in its affairs. This raises important questions about the checks and balances within Pakistan’s judicial system and the role of the executive in judicial matters.
The public’s perception of the judiciary’s independence and neutrality has taken a hit in recent years, largely due to the bitter and highly publicized disputes between senior judges. These disputes have often played out in the media, painting a picture of a fractured and dysfunctional institution. The ongoing disagreements and controversies, including the latest dispute over the IHC tribunal’s reconstitution, have only served to deepen public skepticism about the judiciary’s ability to function impartially.
Pl subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com
The deterioration of trust in the judiciary is concerning because it undermines the very foundation of the legal system. The judiciary is supposed to be a pillar of justice, providing a fair and impartial resolution of disputes. When the public perceives the judiciary as being mired in internal conflicts or subject to external pressures, it erodes confidence in the entire system. This loss of trust is not just damaging to the judiciary itself but also to the broader democratic framework in Pakistan.
The growing dissatisfaction within the judiciary, as reflected in the ongoing disputes among senior judges, further complicates the situation. These internal rifts signal that there is a deep sense of frustration and disillusionment within the institution regarding how it is being managed and its perceived lack of independence. As these conflicts continue to unfold in the public eye, they raise serious concerns about the future of judicial governance in Pakistan.
The ongoing disputes within Pakistan’s judiciary underscore the urgent need for reform. While the reconstitution of the IHC tribunal is a legal matter that will likely be resolved in the Supreme Court, it is part of a broader pattern of challenges facing the judiciary as a whole. The judiciary’s ability to function independently and impartially is being increasingly called into question, and this trend must be addressed through structural reforms.
First and foremost, Pakistan’s judicial system needs to regain its independence. This requires a clear separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, ensuring that judicial decisions are not influenced by political or external considerations. Reforms should aim to strengthen the judiciary’s internal governance structures, making it less susceptible to political pressures and more capable of making decisions based solely on the law.
Additionally, there needs to be greater transparency and accountability in the judicial appointment process. The current system, which has seen increasing involvement from the executive in judicial appointments and promotions, has led to concerns about the politicization of the judiciary. Reforms should aim to ensure that judicial appointments are made based on merit and competence, rather than political considerations. This will help restore public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice impartially.
Lastly, the judiciary must address its internal divisions and work toward fostering a culture of collaboration and unity. While it is inevitable that disagreements will arise within any institution, these conflicts should be resolved through dialogue and consensus-building, rather than through public spats and legal battles. A more united and cohesive judiciary will be better equipped to navigate the challenges it faces and to restore its credibility in the eyes of the public.
The ongoing controversy surrounding the reconstitution of the IHC tribunal highlights the deep challenges facing Pakistan’s judiciary. While this legal dispute will likely be resolved in the Supreme Court, it reflects broader issues related to judicial independence, governance, and public perception. The judiciary must take decisive steps to regain its autonomy, ensure the impartiality of its decisions, and restore public trust. Only through meaningful reform and a commitment to independence can Pakistan’s judiciary hope to overcome the challenges it currently faces and fulfill its role as the guardian of justice in the country.
