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

When medicine fails
Updated 18 Nov, 2024

When medicine fails

Between now and 2050, medical experts expect antibiotic resistance to kill 40m people worldwide.
Nawaz on India
Updated 18 Nov, 2024

Nawaz on India

Nawaz Sharif’s hopes of better ties with India can only be realised when New Delhi responds to Pakistan positively.
State of abuse
18 Nov, 2024

State of abuse

DESPITE censure from the rulers and society, and measures such as helplines and edicts to protect the young from all...
Football elections
17 Nov, 2024

Football elections

PAKISTAN football enters the most crucial juncture of its ‘normalisation’ era next week, when an Extraordinary...
IMF’s concern
17 Nov, 2024

IMF’s concern

ON Friday, the IMF team wrapped up its weeklong unscheduled talks on the Fund’s ongoing $7bn programme with the...
‘Un-Islamic’ VPNs
Updated 17 Nov, 2024

‘Un-Islamic’ VPNs

If curbing pornography is really the country’s foremost concern while it stumbles from one crisis to the next, there must be better ways to do so.