The legal framework of any country is a vital institution that preserves democracy, the rule of law, and citizens’ liberty. This has not been so in Pakistan, where the journey of the Judiciary has been bumpy and previously defined by politics, military coups, and flashes of judicial activism. This is widely regarded as one of the most important controversies of Pakistani law, of judicial morality at least, and ways in which the so-called “judicial redemption” might interact with the 26th Amendment. These two processes are closely connected with Pakistan’s political context change, its work on a Constitution, and its attempts at democracy.
Judicial Redemption concerns revitalizing or strengthening the judiciary branch and its authority with power and credibility. This concept focuses on the Judiciary as being the umpire, protector of the Constitution, a vehicle through which the public gets legal redress for political wrongs, a vehicle through which the public receives legal redress for political wrongs and the re-establishment of the public’s trust in the system. In Pakistan, where the Judiciary has faced criticism for acting with political bias or for an un-independent judiciary, the objective of judicial salvation persists so that it can perform its role of Public Law meaningfully.
Proposed this year, the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan requires special attention in this context. This Amendment addressed the Judiciary’s most contentious issue: judicial appointments. It modified Article 175A of the Constitution, which deals with the procedure for appointing Superior Judiciary judges. It sought to counter the alleged politicization of the nominees to establish a more transparent and productive way to bring in credible candidates who could be trusted to depoliticize the Judiciary as much as possible.
The interaction between judicial Redemption and the 26th Amendment is pivotal to deciphering ongoing efforts cut out for the Pakistan judicial system. Judicial Redemption seeks to reclaim the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the Judiciary, while the 26th Amendment confronts the process through which the composition of the Judiciary is determined. One of the deliverability issues that the Amendment has prioritized as the best approach to freeing the Judiciary from political interference is the depoliticization of the Judiciary, as the fourth arm of government relies on it as a check and balance system.
Pakistan’s judiciary system, in particular, has had two problems in asserting the court’s independence. Judicial Redemption has become a topical issue in the country because different political players, the military, and the public have doubted the neutrality of the courts. These apprehensions are deemed to be tackled by the 26th Amendment, which presents a possible blueprint for a more autonomous and reliable Judiciike.
Until the mentioned date, November 2024, the relevance of the 26th Amendment in the overall process of judicial Redemption in the context of states’ current political sphere remains questionable for Pakistan. The change is more likely to be needed because of its potential to foster more transparency and a merit-based approach to judicial selection. Yet, the political setting remains polarised, with the military interference and the institutions’ vulnerabilities making the complete implementation problematic. The coalition government has to manage these challenges in light of minimising political encroachment and ensuring the independence of the Judiciary.
In the words of a selectively applied cliché, the 26th Amendment is another all-important step towards the independence of the Judiciary in Pakistan. If pursued, it can contribute towards the objective of judicial Redemption by maintaining an open, credible mechanism for selecting judicial officials. However, such reforms can only be achieved if there is a will in the government and the Judiciary to demonstrate its independence. The future years will be crucial in defining the potential of judicial Redemption and realising its complete potential. The subject of the following study will develop the foundations for an independent judiciary in Pakistan and thus fortify democracy.
Pre-Integration Background of Judicial Activism in Pakistan
To give context to the concept of judicial Redemption and its relation to the 26th Amendment, it seems only logical to delve briefly into Pakistan’s judicial past. The Judiciary in Pakistan has often come under pressure, mainly on the question of its autonomy from the Executive and the military authorities. The Judiciary has also not been an independent branch as it undergoes political vice and interference, hence losing its credibility among the people.
Early Years: Judicial Self-Government and Other Struggles for Judicial Independence
Pakistan judiciary-positioned in the middle of the power: The political history of post-independent Pakistan. The Pakistan judiciary, though, is mandated to deliver justice, and upholding the law has been viewed mainly as a political pawn. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Pakistani courts appeared to act under political influence, and the opinion of judicial sovereignty was still tender.
Indeed, during the first decades of Pakistan’s existence, the judicial branch was repeatedly viewed as an instrument used to give a legal framework to the dictatorship of the ruling circle. However, the juvenile did not have much power until the adoption of the 1973 Constitution. Still, this independence was always in jeopardy, mainly when military generals were in control – during Zia-ul Haq (1977-1988) and Pervez Musharraf (1999-2008).
The Military Regime And The Judiciary
Unfortunately, under General Zia-ul-Haq’s reign, it began economically polishing military rule. Supreme Court, especially in its decision to endorse martial law rule by Ziaulhaq after his coup of 1977, proved that the Judiciary was not against fait accompli of excluding elected representatives of the people. This resulted in the loss of confidence in the Judiciary. You had many people regarding the Supreme Court as politically influenced.
Again, during General Pervez Musharraf’s rule, the public viewed the Judiciary as a tail wagged by the military. An expression of outrage by the people also came in the Lawyers’ Movement of 2007 when President Pervez Musharraf dismissed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. This Movement had a big part in awakening the public to metamorphose judicial Redemption in Pakistan.
Judicial Activism and the Lawyers’ Movement
The Lawyers’ Movement of 2007 was a significant landmark in Pakistan’s Judiciary’s history. This was so much so that a massive Lawyers Movement spearheaded by lawyers and civil society demanded the return of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and judicial freedom. Although the public reacted vigorously to Musharraf’s decision to remove Chaudhry, the organizations carried out protests and demonstrations, and they got the judicial Redemption they had always desired. After the military rule in 2009, the Judiciary restored independence with the chief justice Iftikhar Choudhry.
The event was a great triumph for judicial independence in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This was a fair testimony of a culture of autonomy where the Judiciary emerged from the autumn of political influence and military dominance. However, the Lawyers’ Movement failed to engage in system transformation at its institutional level, let alone problems like the issue of judicial appointments and politicization of the Judiciary.
The 26th Amendment: An Overview
Amendment number 26 to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was adopted in 2020 with the following objective: to deal with some of the problems that had emerged from time to time regarding the appointments of judges. The Amendment is mainly concerned with how the superior judiciary bench of the superior courts, which includes the Supreme Court and High Courts, is filled.
The 26th Amendment relates to Article 175A para 1 of the Constitution, which relates to appointing judges. The original Article, as modified in 2010 by the Eighteenth Amendment, contains a provision for a Judicial Commission of the federation to appoint judges. What had happened was, under the 18th Amendment, the Judicial Commission had the involvement of the Chief Justice, the senior judges, the Law Minister, and the members of the National Assembly. So, it was a political affair.
The 26th Amendment was intended to change this composition and respond to critics of political influence in selecting judges. The Amendment was introduced to bring openness to the perceived and secured appointments of commissioners, which were not influenced by political factors. They enacted changes that made the process less tilted and unfair, with added provisions disclosing the fact that an independent judiciary conducted the process.
The Core Provisions Of The 26th Amendment
Composition of the Judicial Commission: The Constitution was amended to change the commission’s composition to approve the nominees for the Judicial Commission. They guaranteed that most commission members would be judges, which was considered a move towards decreasing political influence over selecting candidates for judges’ positions.
Role of the Prime Minister and the President: The Prime Minister and the President were given a more formal role in selecting the Judiciary. It also revealed that the President always acted in a way that ensured a check on the Judicial Commission when giving their recommendations.
Merit-Based Appointments: The 26th Amendment established that qualification is crucial to picking judges. This was in light of complaints that previous appointments were carried out based on the ability to serve the political master’s interests and not judicial capacity.
Transparency in the Appointment Process: One of the main objectives of the Amendment is the increase in transparency of appointing judges and the limitation of the opportunities to tune the work of courts by political authorities.
Reforms to Judicial Oversight: The 26th Amendment also focused on the processes of making judges more accountable so that the system of justice was as fair as possible.
Justice As A Redemption Of Constitutional Courts Through The 26th Amendment
One would like to think of the 26th Amendment as part of the never-ending saga of Pakistani judicial Redemption. To this, the Amendment seeks to address the process of appointment of the Judiciary to increase the credibility of the Judiciary. To many, the Amendment means seeking to guard against political influence in the nomination of the Judiciary, which was a worry of prior decades.
Through the promotion of transparency and merit in appointing the members of the Judiciary, the Amendment is a plus on the agenda in rebuilding the image of the Judiciary. If well implemented, it could eradicate the politicization of judicial appointments and translate into the appointment of the best brains in the superior courts. This, on the other hand, would reignité confidence in the Judiciary and thus assist in other democratic development goals.
Hierarchy and Consequence on the Rule of Law and Democracy
It is essential to identify the focus on judicial independence of the 26th Amendment as the key to supporting the rule of law in Pakistan. An independent judiciary can better protect rights and freedoms, defend the Constitution, and check on the other branches of government. In a democracy, the Judiciary plays the role of referee in that society regarding how they will adhere to the country’s laws.
However, an essential element the Amendment can help develop is a more transparent system of appointing judges in Pakistani politics. It may also assist in restoring the public’s lost confidence in the judicial process, which has dwindled gradually due to corruption and political influence.
The Relationship Between the Current Coalition Government and Judicial Independence
Since 2022, the government has been represented by the PPP, the PML-N, JUI-F, and other political parties forming the current coalition government. The primary goal of creating the coalition was to bring stability to Pakistan’s politics after removing Imran Khan. However, the existing challenge has been to manage internal crises, economic instability, and fragile relations with the military. The government’s management of judicial reforms associated with its position on judicial selection is evident both in the government’s efforts to maintain civilian control over the military and in addressing a long list of concerns about the independence of the Judiciary.
The Role of the Judiciary in the Current Political Context
Since the formation of the coalition government, the political process has gained a new member in the Judiciary. The most prominent example is that the Judiciary takes part in matters concerning the dissolution of the National Assembly, election conduct, and handling of complex graft cases linked to former presidents. The political context has been shaped very clearly by public perception of the Judiciary, as either partial or not – this has led to charges of an activist Judiciary or a docile Judiciary wedded to the whims of politicians or the military.
For example, most people observed the Supreme Court’s interference in the political turmoil that concerned Imran Khan’s removal of power and the disintegration of the National Assembly as an advanced act of activism. This moment proved that the Judiciary had a strong influence on political decisions. Still, it also questioned judicial independence due to the continued political confrontation between PTI, PPP, and PML-N.
Judicial Redemption, in this context, is a continual requirement. The people of Pakistan have certain expectations from their Judiciary, which has been established based on its previous orders, which are considered politically biased. Since the current political climate, there has been increasing pressure on the Judiciary to regain its lost independence and coherence. This is where the 26th Amendment comes into play once again.
26th Amendment, Judicial Redemption, And The Current Coalition Government
The recently enacted 26th Amendment, ratified in 2020, was aimed at judicial reforms aimed at changes to the political appointment of political judges for the superior Judiciary in the country. Although it was made during the term of the PTI-led government, this Amendment remains highly sensitive in the current government, with PDM trying to wrest control of the superior judiciary appointments.
Reducing Political Influence
Among such depoliticization objectives, one of the most important arguments for the 26th Amendment was the increase of openness to the judicial appointment process and decreased opportunities for political influence. This was especially so given the political instability of Pakistan & given the fact that almost all appointments of judges’ tenure carry significant controversy over political influence.
By the 18th Amendment of 2010, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) was established for such appointments. Nonetheless, some voices claimed that JCP is biased towards them. Executive branch that made it susceptible to political influence. The 26th Amendment aimed at these concerns by providing an amendment to the composition of the JCP by focussing on the Judiciary as an institution in the appointment process. Since the Amendment had constitutional guarantees of protecting the independence of the Judiciary, it also had the favorable implication of partly limiting the control of the Executive or the political elites on judicial appointments.
The reform of the judicial appointment is a touchy question for the coalition government members. On the one hand, the coalition should guarantee that the judiciary system is nonpolitical because its independence is crucial in repairing societal confidence. On the other hand, since Pakistan has a coalition government, both PML-N and PPP, as major political parties in the government, may attempt to position a friendly Judiciary by having their preferred judges appointed. However, these political pressures are well addressed by the procedures established for the categorical Amendment by the 26th Amendment.
Mitigating the Ingenuity of Political Interference
Following the formation of the coalition government, there have been paradoxically many questions about political influence over the appointment of judges. The government is known to have tried to place what is referred to as ‘packing’ the Judiciary by staffing it with compliant judges. In such an environment, the 26th Amendment is cherished for bringing an objective that makes the political adjudication not a mere political patronage but a competent one.
Also, the Amendment’s requirements include increased transparency of the process, which is essential to decreasing distrust on the part of the clients. Suppose the government guarantees that the Judicial Commission is working efficiently and without any internal corruption. In that case, this can be a first step in building an independent judiciary that has a check on the Executive.
Nevertheless, the government’s actions regarding judicial appointments under the 26th Amendment have not been without controversy. For instance, controversies surrounding the CEC and members of the ECP selection have also provided the blueprint of how political parties meddle in matters of the Judiciary. Moreover, the role of the coalition government is still regarded as aiming to control the judicial selection process. In that case, judicial rehabilitation is likely to be impacted negatively.
Executive, The Military, And The Judiciary
Another element based on which the topic of judicial rehabilitation and the 26th Amendment has emerged is the military’s presence in the Pakistani political and legal system. The military has had somewhat of a say in appointing judges, especially when there’s been a military government. It still matters in the present time as the ability of the Judiciary to work independently, which is one of the significant fundamentals of any democratic system, is frequently tested in the context of military formation.
The current coalition government is not intimate or thoroughly sympathetic to the military institution and has to deal with such tensions. On the one hand, it has the charter to enhance civilian authoritarianism and bring low military influence in political matters such as the Judiciary. In contrast, any serious attempts to restrict the military’s role in choosing the Judiciary may trigger responses from the military’s authoritative factions.
Thus, the 26th Amendment can become an instrument for generating judicial independence from the military. One of the unmentioned goals of the Amendment could be the possibility of decreasing the military’s influence over other branches of government by clearing the path toward more independent judiciary appointments. However, this would mean that the incumbent government must have the political will and be unhesitant to act effectively, which has always been lip service in the context of Pakistan.
Challenges to Judicial Redemption in the Coalition Government Era
Despite the promises of judicial Redemption through the 26th Amendment, several challenges remain in the current political context:
- Political Polarization
The incumbent government, a coalition government, can hardly present a united front as most of its members are sharply divided along party lines with the opposition parties. It was observed that politicization also comes into the Judiciary, where each side often complains of bias or partiality of the Judiciary being used by the other side. Under such circumstances, liberalizing the Judiciary is almost impossible, for both sides, the government and the opposition, view the Judiciary as a means to an end.
- Weak Institutional Structures
Despite the changes that the 26th Amendment had introduced, the Judicial Commission remains an organization that needs constant supervision and responsible answers. The existing political conflict of power interconnected with distrust between the Executive and Judiciary branches does not have the foundation for creating such structures.
- Influence of External Forces
It is because the military has actively participated in Pakistan’s political and judicial Pakistan’s affairs for years. However much the government has tried to keep the military from interfering with the Judiciary, the military enjoys a large parcel of power and influence within the judicial system and continues to sway judgments persistently.
Judicial Redemption: A Recap of Past Struggles
Before explaining why judicial Redemption is essential, one must examine Pakistan’s Judiciary and past problems. Over time, the Pakistani Judiciary has not successfully freed them from political and Military interference; therefore, citizens have lost their confidence in the Judiciary.
Judicial Activism and Older Movements
The most memorable judiciary emancipation in contemporary history has been the Lawyers’ Movement of 2007-2009, which ensured the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, whom President Pervez Musharraf had removed. The Lawyers Movement was a good representation of civil society’s pressure on the government to have an empowered judicial system with no influence from the political or military. This process worked up to restoring the independence of the Judiciary, which many people found to be the Pakistani Judiciary’s ‘coming of age.’
Nevertheless, in the following years, questions of judicial neutrality and its position in the political struggle remained unanswered. Various political and military decisions indicated that the Judiciary was, at the same time, intrusive and vulnerable to political control and influence. Such tensions amounted to judicial Redemption, the long-drawn process of restoring public faith in the Judiciary and rising above the political influence prism.
Pursuance of the 26th Amendment of the Constitution
The 26th Amendment was enacted in Pakistan in 2020, and it intended to bring change to the judicial appointment system. The Amendment altered Article No. 175A of the Constitution of Pakistan, which deals with the procedures to fill up the superior Judiciary. Judicial appointments have been a cause of concern in Pakistan regarding the overall backdrop of the independence of the Judiciary. Traditionally, there were political influences in appointment processes, where governments were alleged to have put in judges based on their favorite political feelings.
The 26th Amendment discouraged political control of judicial selection, the process being more objective and fair. Another amendment introduced in the process was the Prime Minister, the President, apart from the JCP, which was made under the 18th Amendment Act 2010. However, many people were not happy with the composition of JCP under the 26th Amendment as it did not completely deploy the political influence, but it tried to counterbalance the political influence with the Judiciary.
The 26th Amendment and Judicial Redemption: Political Dynamics in 2024
Article 26 uses the same language regarding democracy and freedom, as the 26th Amendment still effectively contributes to the struggle for regaining the Judiciary’s independence in Pakistan after 2024. More so, the current dynamics of the politics of the nation have further escalated the challenges when it comes to assessing the success of judicial reforms, especially given the fact that the current government is still young, having come to power in April 2022 under Shehbaz Sharif, and the changes that arrived the nation’s political vista afterward which makes the position of the Judiciary a little tricky.
Judicial Appointments and the Coalition Government
In 2022, the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) coalition government was in power with PPP and PML-N, along with other regional parties who together dismissed Imran Khan through a no-confidence motion. The process of appointments to the Judiciary under the new government regime was not well received, and the opposition accused it of trying to place judges favorable to its political line.
Such conditions turned the 26th Amendment to the center of the debate regarding the independence of the Judiciary. They all viewed the Amendment as a way to reign in the Executive and the political branches’ power over the selection of judges. However, as the coalition government struggled to contain political opposition to its nominees, there was growing fear that judicial appointments could degenerate into another political football game. Some took the position that the Amendment was insufficient to deliver a truly independent Judiciary and that politicians in the ruling coalition would persist in maintaining control over judicial selection to their benefit.
Appointments and Judicial System
Several developments related to judicial appointments have occurred since the 26th Amendment’s passage, highlighting ongoing tensions between the Judiciary, the government, and the opposition:
Chief Justice Appointments
The choice of Chief Justice in 2024 has emerged as a contested area the main political parties have sought to shape. Just as the 26th Amendment was an effort to dilute the influence of the executive branch in these appointments, the ruling coalition in 2024 had its fair measure of input into the makeup of the Judicial Commission. This has further led to increased politically related conflict between the two wings, with the one accusing the other of politicking the judiciary branches.
Role of the Military
This paper reviews and analyses the military establishment’s role in appointing judges, which is a continuing debate. In the recent past, political and judicial world affairs in the military SSC continue, but their integration into civilian institutions of power is decreasing. Another worry is the Judiciary’s involvement in some of the most sensitive national security generations, including military ones. Although the 26th Amendment was designed to eliminate political and military filters in selecting judges, bringing this vision into practice is a problem.
Court Rulings on Election Delays
Some of the issues that sparked the Nigerian populace’s concern include The Judiciary’s interference in generalized elections after the dissolution of the National Assembly in 2022. Most people thought the Judiciary extended the political instability and enabled the ruling coalition to leverage the delayed elections. This was a transparent scenario of how the Judiciary must operate in its constitutional provision while contending with politics.
Political Polarization
The exponential growth of political rivalry between the ruling coalition government and the opposition led by PTI with Imran Khan has seen each side claim that the Judiciary is political or has been compromised by political actors. This is because Congress’s presidency in 2020, especially with national elections to be held in 2024, made it even more challenging for the judiciary branch to remain a neutral, independent institution.
The Coalition Government’s Strategy for Judicial Reform
However, the current situation is quite different, and the coalition government has furthered an extraordinary result in applying judicial reforms as envisioned by the spirit of the 26th Amendment. Some of the efforts include:
Attempts to Enhance Transparency
The government wanted to make the judicial selection process more transparent to the public. In particular, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan has been forced to become increasingly transparent in its proceedings over judicial selection. The other important element worth looking at about judicial Redemption is clarity in the selection process, lest one feels that judges are elected along party lines.
Reforming the Judicial Commission
Similar proposals have been made to extend reform of the Judicial Commission, which would guarantee not only the representation of the Judiciary but also the independence of this body from political influence. However, these reforms are typically associated with severe political struggles because parties attempt to regulate the composition of the Commission in their interest.
Strengthening Accountability
The government has also asked for improvements in judicial accountability to reclaim the public’s trust. Recommendations have been made to advance the measures of increasing the efficiency of judicial accountability and reclaiming the dignity of judges. The pursuit of accountability is partly intended to eliminate corruption within the Judiciary, which has previously eroded its reputation.
Judicial Redemption and the Future
By November 2024, Pakistan’s court redemption is still ongoing. Although the 26th Amendment attempted to diminish political influences and provide a merit-based and transparent selection process for a judge, political reasons, military bias, and public suspicion have rendered the independence of the Judiciary practically unachievable.
The contemporary coalition government has especially strived to advance these reforms, although these reforms are under constant pressure of political dynamics and polarization. This is where judicial Redemption will stand or fall, as the government and Judiciary can only overcome these challenges and establish an environment where the judicial system is viewed as fair, transparent, and independent. Until then, the search for a fully independent judiciary and genuine judicial reform in Pakistan will continue.
Conclusion
Thus, the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan and the idea of judicial Redemption are the essential steps behind recreating the independent and honorable Judiciary. After the incumbent coalition government, judicial Redemption and the Amendment have featured prominently in Pakistan’s political narrative. This is why the proposed plan for a change in the methods of nominating judges, and especially the introduction of merit as the defining criterion for such appointment, is so vital in the contemporary conditions when the public no longer trusts the Judiciary, and politics has an apparent influence on it.
Nevertheless, these reforms are still experimental in the present political situation as of November 2024. The coalition government is at a crossroads in its efforts to ton the political influence over the appointment process of judges while strengthening the Judiciary as a separate branch of power. Impediments to judicial independence remain embedded in challenges such as political polarization, military interferences, and institutional vulnerabilities.
Thus, the extent to which the 26th Amendment will lead to judicial Redemption will, therefore, depend on the political commitment of the current coalition government and judicial independence. If effectively done, the Amendment could open the way towards, or at least contribute towards, reforming and making the Judiciary independent and impartial, which in turn is an important component of building the rule of law and democracy. Pakistan’s process of judicial Redemption is ongoing and has been personalized and synchronized with the continuously changing political dynamics, institutional development, and acts to establish judiciary independence. The 26th Amendment outlines the bare structure of how the Judiciary can regain the public’s confidence.
The coming years will define whether judicial Redemption can come into its own for Pakistan. The effectiveness of this change process will depend on the actualization of these reform measures and Juli Gaye’ud’s court in its non-partisan role as constitutional and legal guarantor.
Leave a Reply