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

Afghan strikes
Updated 26 Dec, 2024

Afghan strikes

The military option has been employed by the govt apparently to signal its unhappiness over the state of affairs with Afghanistan.
Revamping tax policy
26 Dec, 2024

Revamping tax policy

THE tax bureaucracy appears to have convinced the government that it can boost revenues simply by taking harsher...
Betraying women voters
26 Dec, 2024

Betraying women voters

THE ECP’s recent pledge to eliminate the gender gap among voters falls flat in the face of troubling revelations...
Kurram ‘roadmap’
Updated 25 Dec, 2024

Kurram ‘roadmap’

The state must provide ironclad guarantees that the local population will be protected from all forms of terrorism.
Snooping state
25 Dec, 2024

Snooping state

THE state’s attempts to pry into citizens’ internet activities continue apace. The latest in this regard is a...
A welcome first step
25 Dec, 2024

A welcome first step

THE commencement of a dialogue between the PTI and the coalition parties occupying the treasury benches in ...