After independence in 1947, both India and Pakistan began the process of building their constitutional systems. While India adopted its Constitution within a few years, Pakistan initially passed the Objectives Resolution in 1949, a foundational document outlining the guiding principles of the future Constitution.
The Objectives Resolution emphasized several key points:
- Independence of the judiciary
- Federal governance
- Islamic principles in governance and education
- Implementation of Islamic law
- Protection of minority rights
- Fundamental rights for citizens
This resolution later became a substantive part of Pakistan’s constitutional framework.
The 1956 Constitution and Early Judicial Role
Pakistan’s first Constitution was adopted in 1956. It recognized the authority of the Supreme Court to safeguard fundamental rights and protect the Constitution from violation.
However, in 1958, when the Constitution was abrogated following the imposition of martial law, the judiciary validated the extra-constitutional step under what became known as the “Doctrine of Necessity.”
The “Doctrine of Necessity” allowed military interventions to be justified on the grounds of state necessity. This principle resurfaced multiple times in Pakistan’s history, including during:
- The military takeover by Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in 1977
- The military coup by Pervez Musharraf in 1999
Through different eras, various Supreme Court judgments reflected evolving interpretations, but the doctrine remained controversial.
Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint
In later years, Pakistan experienced periods of strong judicial activism, particularly during the tenure of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who frequently exercised suo motu powers (taking notice of matters without formal petitions).
In contrast, other periods reflected judicial restraint, where courts avoided intervening in certain executive or political matters.
The debate continues:
Should courts actively intervene to protect public rights, or should they remain strictly neutral and limited in scope?
Delays and Structural Issues in Civil and Criminal Justice
One of the most serious challenges facing Pakistan’s judicial system is delay.
- Civil cases often take 20 to 25 years to conclude.
- Entire generations may continue litigation.
- In some instances, prolonged disputes escalate into criminal conflicts.
In criminal cases, conviction rates remain low. A significant percentage of accused individuals are acquitted due to procedural irregularities, evidentiary technicalities, or investigative weaknesses.
Additional systemic concerns include:
- Case backlogs
- Record management issues
- Delays in obtaining certified copies of judgments
- Concerns about transparency in judicial appointments
Political Cases and Public Perception
Several high-profile political cases have shaped public perception of judicial independence, including:
- The execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
- The disqualification of Nawaz Sharif in 2017 under constitutional provisions relating to honesty and trustworthiness
- The legal challenges and imprisonment proceedings involving Imran Khan
These cases continue to generate debate about whether judicial decisions were purely legal or influenced by broader political dynamics.
The Core Question: Rule of Law or Rule by Power?
The judiciary’s primary responsibility is to:
- Uphold the Constitution
- Protect fundamental rights
- Ensure equality before the law
- Deliver timely justice
When courts are perceived as neutral and independent, public confidence strengthens. When delays, inconsistencies, or political alignments are perceived, trust weakens.
There is a powerful idea often repeated in legal philosophy:
A system based on disbelief may survive, but a system based on injustice cannot endure.
The future of Pakistan’s legal system depends on:
- Judicial independence
- Transparent appointments
- Institutional reforms
- Accountability
- Commitment to the rule of law
A Moment for Reflection
History remembers institutions not by their power, but by their character.
Names may fade, but judgments remain recorded in national memory.
The judiciary still holds the opportunity to strengthen public trust by ensuring fairness, transparency, and equality under the law.
Because in the end, justice is not merely a legal concept, it is the foundation upon which nations stand.