As recently expressed regret over an institution in this newspaper, and the brave some of the judges’ letters have been highlighted, the Supreme Court is fighting for survival, some judges refuse to go under no fight. Kaha, striving to prevent complete capitalization.
The ongoing struggle for the independence of the judiciary, mostly disabled fans with judges, echo the lawyers’ movement in Pakistan. This is an important moment when a Chief Justice dared to face the most powerful people in Pakistan, despite his shortcomings.
The lawyers’ movement, the widespread mobilization of lawyers and civil society, faced the country’s most important democratic reforms over decades.
By fighting General Musharraf’s authoritarian interference in the judiciary, the movement not only encouraged the restoration of the judiciary but also facilitated constitutional milestones such as the 18th and 19th Amendment, removing the appointment from the government and strengthening judicial independence. What and gave them to the panel of senior judges. And lawyers.
Finally, the movement paved the way for a democratic transfer to Pakistan due to the abolition of General Musharraf’s military government. These changes have promised a judiciary that can act as a real scrutiny on executive power. It is a judiciary that is to enforce constitutional rights with teeth, protect civil liberties, and hold state and politically powerful soldiers accountable.
Despite political pressure, Pakistan’s judiciary showed that it could stand as a blurk for backward people.
Nevertheless, the history of Pakistan’s judiciary tells another proportional story, in which the commitment of justice is angry and its formation, forming free orders.
While the moments of subordinate, such as the tragic endorsement of martial laws or the execution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1979, long shadow cast, judges and lawyers have repeatedly incited the inheritance of flexibility to judges and lawyers challenging judges and lawyers. – This legacy of resistance keeps the organs of justice alive.
Since the 1990s, Pakistan’s judiciary has launched an unprecedented pressure from generals seeking compliance, urban leaders have sent armed gangs to court and disrupts judicial proceedings, and local interests. By defying its sovereignty. Despite these challenges, it has often pushed back, re -interpreting the constitutional provisions to maintain influence on judicial appointments and to issue historical rules that maintain democratic principles.
Darshan Masia vs. State Case Examples of the role of the judiciary is an example: in response to the frustrated telegram of the bonded workers in the custody of the landlord, as well as the collusion of the police, the court’s “judicial ban” to counter the head of modern slavery. Saxon denied traditions. On this, take unprecedented action to hear their request. This bold move not only confirmed the basic rights but also indicated the will of the judiciary to challenge the structure of the judiciary and to ensure justice for the most backward people.
Despite political pressure, Pakistan’s judiciary showed that it could stand as a blurk for backward people. From the recognition of environmental protection as a constitutional right to declare civil cases by military courts, historical orders have explained the landscape. The echoes of past defamation still form a battle of justice, in which the letter of six judges acts as a wonderful reminder of this tradition.
The after -2007 spirit of defense re -presented in a letter of 2024, in which six Islamabad High Court judges authored, which addressed the Supreme Judicial Council. In an extraordinary public confrontation, these judges exposed the alleged interference of Pakistan’s unidentified intelligence agencies in judicial affairs.
Their pressure, surveillance and claims of threats to their families have identified the growing institutional challenges of judicial independence. The letter, described as the most bold act of the judiciary since the movement of lawyers, highlighted the extent in which the judiciary should still fight to maintain its sovereignty.
The independence of Pakistan’s judiciary, which is once a victory for public protests and constitutional reforms, is now under siege. The 26th Constitutional Amendment, which was passed in November 2024, pushed into misconduct and allegations of oppression and abduction of opposition lawmakers, mainly changed the structure of the judiciary.
The amendment effectively transmits the government from the courts to make judicial appointments, increase political appointments, increase political appointments, and reduce direct ministerial participation in the selection of judges, and reduce direct ministerial participation in the selection of judges. This structural change not only weakens the ability to freely appoint judges of the judiciary, but also undermine its role as a state threshold.
Which was once a sign of institutional flexibility is now a threat to the move that is hidden from giving power to power in the language of reform. Under the guise of reforms, the delicate balance established by the 18th and 19th amendments has been abolished.
There is more disturbing speed and blurred with which these changes were implemented. The 26th Amendment was deliberately represented in the 26th Amendment how the Power Power operates in Pakistan’s constitutional framework. Although it maintains the hidden people of the democratic procedure, the substance is unreasonable.
The lesson is clear: Democratic back sliding does not always reach the tanks’ sound or gun thunder. In Pakistan, it is following closed doors, codified in the text of the legislature, and sold to the public as a necessary reform. The same judiciary, which once violated the dictator, is now being systematically violated, and its independence has been stopped.
The defamation shown in 2007 and the letter of the judges of 2024 is a reminder that judicial freedom has not been given. It should be permanently defended against overtime and subtle encroachments.
If Pakistan’s judiciary is able to complete political control, the nation will lose not only the rule of law but also the democratic progress set up on the sacrifices of its past reformers.
The protection of judicial freedom is not just about the protection of the courts – it is about to ensure that many fabrics of Pakistan are sustained. The Bar Association can no longer afford internal differences. They should unite with united judges and rally civil society to prevent non -refundable elimination.
The author is a professor of economics at Moscow’s New Economic School.
Dawn, appeared on February 10, 2025
