The judiciary in Pakistan has historically played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s political landscape. From legitimizing military coups to intervening in high-stakes political disputes, the judiciary’s influence in Pakistan’s political crises cannot be overlooked. In this blog, we explore how the judicial system in Pakistan has impacted political stability, governance, and the rule of law.
Historical Context of Judiciary’s Role in Politics
Since its independence in 1947, Pakistan has faced multiple political crises, many of which saw direct or indirect intervention by the judiciary. One of the earliest and most significant interventions was the doctrine of necessity, used to justify the dismissal of elected governments and the imposition of martial law. This controversial legal principle, invoked in landmark cases like Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan vs. Federation of Pakistan, set a precedent for judicial validation of extra-constitutional measures.
Judiciary and Military Coups
The judiciary in Pakistan has often been criticized for legitimizing military takeovers. In 1958, 1977, and 1999, courts used the doctrine of necessity to validate military regimes, undermining democratic institutions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan played a crucial role in granting legal cover to General Pervez Musharraf's coup in 1999, which many critics argue damaged the credibility of the judiciary and weakened civilian supremacy.
Politicization of the Judiciary
Another significant aspect of the judiciary’s involvement in political crises is its perceived politicization. High-profile disqualifications of elected leaders, such as Nawaz Sharif under Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution, raised questions about judicial neutrality. While the courts cited legal grounds for such decisions, many saw these rulings as part of broader political engineering.
Judiciary as a Balancer or a Power Broker?
While critics accuse the judiciary of undermining democratic processes, others argue that judicial intervention has been necessary to maintain checks and balances. The judiciary has often acted as a mediator during constitutional crises, such as disputes over election dates, caretaker setups, and electoral reforms.
Recent developments, including the Supreme Court’s involvement in setting election timelines and adjudicating disputes between political parties and the Election Commission of Pakistan, show the continued and expanding role of the judiciary in Pakistan’s democratic process.
Judicial Independence and Public Trust
One of the major challenges facing the judiciary is the perception of impartiality. Public confidence in the judicial system is critical for democratic legitimacy. Repeated allegations of judicial overreach, selective accountability, and favoritism have eroded trust in the courts. Calls for judicial reforms in Pakistan are growing louder, emphasizing the need for transparency, independence, and institutional accountability.
Conclusion
The role of the judiciary in Pakistan’s political crises is both influential and controversial. While it has played a stabilizing role at times, it has also been accused of contributing to political instability and undermining democracy. Moving forward, ensuring judicial independence, constitutional supremacy, and rule of law in Pakistan is essential for long-term political stability.