Daily Times

The judiciary is considered the most sanctimonious institution due to its pivotal role in erecting the edifice of the state. In regards to dispensation of justice there is a proverb “Justice is Blind.”

This expression means that justice is impartial and objective. This proverb is usually used when talking about a legal court and refers to the way judges, juries and law enforcement entities are supposed to make decisions based only on the information presented to them and in conformity with the law pertaining to the nature of the case being adjudicated rather than based on personal experiences and likes and dislikes. It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. It underlines the need for quick and inexpensive justice.

Islam as well as all schools of jurisprudence lay great emphasis on Justice. According to Aristotle, it is justice that creates state, gives it a vision and when combined with ethics propels the state to the pinnacle of all ethical values. A country and a society where rule of law is followed within the precincts of its definition becomes a vibrant entity due to fairness and equity that it entails.

It promotes equal economic, educational and workplace opportunities besides ensuring safety and security of individuals and communities. In nutshell Justice is a catalyst to peace and progress of a society and the state.

According to Aristotle, it is justice that creates a state, gives it a vision and if combined with ethics, propels it to the pinnacle of all ethical values.

The decisions and verdicts given by the judiciary have a profound impact on all aspects of national life. The ones given in conformity with law and constitution accelerate the process of social and economic development besides building a harmonious and peaceful society whereas the verdicts pronounced in contravention of the constitution and law of the land and based on personal biases and dislikes create instability and anarchy. Unfortunately Pakistan is a victim of a flawed judicial system and some bad and unconstitutional verdicts delivered by the judges at different junctures of our history that have not only made the lives of the citizens miserable but have also pushed the country towards the crucible of precipice.

Perhaps would be pertinent to qualify this statement with some examples that lay bare the crux of the problem. A woman from Karachi filed a case in Sindh High Court over a land dispute in 2005. It remained pending for 18 years causing huge financial strain on her in terms of legal fees and allied expenditure, mental anguish and undue restrain on her property. In 2020 a young man from Lahore was arrested on charges of petty theft. He pleaded not guilty but his trial in Sessions Court Lahore was delayed repeatedly. He spent three years in pre-trial detention in jail for a crime which carried maximum jail for one year. A mother from Islamabad filed for divorce and child custody case in 2017 which is still pending whereas it should have been disposed of within three to six month. There are thousands of examples of inordinate delays in the dispensation of justice in the lower and higher courts. It is an undeniable fact that non-resolution of cases creates frustration among the masses and their lack of faith in the judicial system.

What to talk of lower judiciary, the situation in the higher judiciary including the apex court is almost the same. There are more than fifty thousand cases pending in the apex court some of them for years. As per statistics, a total of 24,303 cases were decided during the period from 2nd Feb, 2022 to 25th Feb, 2023 against the total institution of 22,018 new cases during the said period. There is still a backlog of 52,450 cases waiting to be adjudicated. That reflects poorly on the performance of the SC judges. On carrying out cost-benefit analysis it transpires that the perks and privileges of the judges before and after retirement are far more disproportionate to their performance in terms of quick dispensation of justice to the people.

The doctrine of necessity invented by the judiciary to validate military coups transgressing its constitutional powers not only undermined democracy but also instilled an element of perennial political instability in the country. Some recent verdicts given by the partisan judges of the SC including opinion rendered on Article 63 A of the constitution and in regards to allocation of special seats to political parties in violation of the constitution and Election Act 2017 have further aggravated the political crisis in the country.

The foregoing facts make the reforms in the judicial system absolutely imperative more so in the higher judiciary including the appointment and elevation of the judges to SC as well as the appointment of the Chief Justice. The government is therefore is rightly contemplating to bring constitutional amendments to rectify the situation. Although no detailed information is available on all the conceived amendments I believe in view of the existing realities the establishment of a constitutional court makes sense. It is not something out of the blue. Some 85 countries of the world do have such courts who exclusively deal with constitutional issues. The increase in the number of judges in SC is also dictated by backlog of cases in the court and in the right of the people for quick justice. Doing away with the principle of seniority in the appointment of Chief Justice and giving due consideration to merit as is also prevalent in a number of countries also seems is a good idea. Appointment of judges is actually an administrative issue and falls within purview of the executive and should not be grudged on any flimsy grounds. My considered view is that only the principle of seniority in the appointment of CJ lacks the element of continuity and stability in the apex court. A judge being the senior most may have left only months in his retirement as has been the case in many appointments.

Perhaps a look at the tenures of CJs during the last decade is pertinent. Nasir-ul-Mulk served for one year 70 days, Jawad S. Khawaja only for 23 days, Anwar Zaheer Jamali for one year and 111 days, Mian Saqib Nisar for 2 years 17 days, Asif Saeed Khosa for 336 days, Gulzar Ahmed 2 years 44 days, Umar Atta Bandial one year 226 days, Qazi Faez Isa one year and 38 days if he retires on 25th October. In view of the foregoing details and in the interest of stability and continuity the CJ picked on the basis of merit should at least have 3 years tenure. The amendments in the constitution on these lines will surely improve dispensation of justice at the highest level with a trickle down affect on the lower judiciary.

The writer is a former diplomat and freelance columnist.