SC Justice Critiques Pakistan Judiciary's Global Ranking

On November 20, 2024, Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail voiced his frustration regarding the low global rankings of Pakistan's judiciary. During a hearing by the constitutional bench, he questioned the credibility of these rankings, stating, "I do not know where these numbers emerge from. Some place our judiciary on 120 while others on 150." This statement reflects a growing concern among legal experts and citizens alike about the perception of the judiciary's effectiveness.

The World Justice Project's Rule of Law index for 2024 ranks Pakistan's judiciary at 129 out of 142 countries, indicating a slight improvement from the previous year. However, this ranking still raises eyebrows and prompts discussions about the challenges faced by the legal system in Pakistan. Justice Mandokhail, who is part of a constitutional bench led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, emphasized the need for clarity regarding these international assessments.

During the hearing, the bench addressed multiple petitions, including one that highlighted the difficulties litigants face in accessing the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that a staggering 90% of individuals seeking justice are unable to approach the apex court. Justice Mandokhail responded by questioning the necessity of further access, stating that the arguments were being heard directly. He expressed concern that such petitions could undermine the institution's credibility.

In another case, the bench reviewed a petition challenging the declaration of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) as a parliamentary party. Justice Mandokhail questioned the petitioner’s motives, asking why they were seeking an unconstitutional action. He reminded the petitioner that individuals have the right to choose their political affiliations freely. The bench ultimately dismissed the petition, reinforcing the importance of adhering to constitutional principles.

The constitutional bench also examined a petition regarding the dismissal of government officials who were either not performing their duties or were unassigned. Justice Ayesha Malik pointed out that the petitioner’s request implied a blanket dismissal of all government employees, which was impractical. She advised the petitioner to specify the officials in question and seek appropriate action through the relevant authorities.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court heard a petition requesting a time frame for completing trials in courts. Justice Ayesha noted that existing laws already outline time frames for criminal cases. She encouraged the petitioner to engage with Parliament for any necessary legislative changes. Justice Malik acknowledged the imperfections in the system but highlighted ongoing progress, urging the petitioner to participate in reform efforts rather than seeking court intervention.

Justice Mandokhail reiterated that the judiciary operates within the framework of the Constitution and the law. He cautioned that a harsh response from the courts could lead to further disillusionment among the public. The bench ultimately dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the Law and Justice Commission is the appropriate body for addressing judicial reforms.

The discussions in the Supreme Court reflect a broader concern about the state of the judiciary in Pakistan. As the legal system grapples with its challenges, it is crucial for stakeholders to engage in constructive dialogue and work towards meaningful reforms. The judiciary's role in upholding justice is paramount, and addressing these issues will be essential for restoring public confidence in the legal system.