In Pakistan, accusations of judicial overreach have become commonplace due to the judiciary’s frequent involvement in the nation’s political life. When the court intervenes in political matters outside of its purview, it is said to have overstepped its bounds and is frequently met with criticism and controversy.
In Pakistan, the issue of judicial overreach has existed since the country’s early days. The judiciary was regarded as a supporter of the military regime in Pakistan during the country’s early years of independence. The judiciary had a reputation for upholding the rulings of military dictatorships and establishing their legitimacy. The judiciary did not independently shape the country’s political system, nor was this expected.
There has been discussion about the issue of judicial overreach in Pakistan for several years. While some consider the judiciary essential to upholding democracy and the rule of law, others see it as a danger to the stability and advancement of the nation.
The perception of the judiciary as a puppet of the military regimes during Pakistan’s early years can be blamed for the history of judicial overreach in that nation. The court was frequently criticized for supporting military authorities and upholding their rulings, severely limiting its ability to influence the nation’s political system. However, under General Zia-ul-administration, Haq’s judiciary started to assert its independence in the 1980s. As a result, the Supreme Court established its authority. It undermined the military’s influence by declaring various laws and ordinances passed by the military rule unlawful under the leadership of then Chief Justice Muhammad Haleem.
The judiciary continued to play a more significant influence in Pakistan’s political system throughout this trend in the 1990s. The bench started using the Constitution in a way that was perceived as enhancing its authority at the expense of other governmental branches. As a result, the court and the executive branch of government engaged in several conflicts, raising concerns about judicial overreach.
The 1993 dismissal of Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah by then-former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is one of the most significant instances of judicial overreach in Pakistani history. In response, the judiciary demonstrated its independence and power by directing Sharif’s reinstatement. Due to this event, the court started participating more actively in the nation’s politics, a critical turning point in Pakistan’s history.
The case of former president General Pervez Musharraf, charged with violating the Constitution by instituting an emergency rule in 2007, illustrates judicial overreach. Musharraf’s actions were deemed unlawful by the court, overseen by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, and a trial was ordered. But unfortunately, Musharraf left the nation before being charged, so the case is still open.
The Panama Papers case brought the issue of judicial overreach to light in recent years. The Panama Papers were documented that were released, and they showed how many affluent people, including Sharif’s family members, had formed offshore corporations to evade taxes. As a result, the Sharif family’s overseas assets were the subject of a 2017 probe order from Pakistan’s Supreme Court. Nawaz Sharif was consequently barred from holding public office and given a prison term.
Some accused the judiciary of overstepping its bounds, while some regarded this as a triumph for accountability and transparency. They claimed that the court had gone beyond its legal bounds by acting as the executive branch of government. According to some opponents, the military, which has a long history of meddling in the nation’s politics, was said to have influenced the court.
To maintain the separation of powers and address the acute problem of judicial overreach in Pakistan, it is crucial to find a balance between the judiciary’s role in advancing the rule of law and that necessity. The court must be impartial and free from political or other influences. It must also be autonomous. In addition, it should respect the authority of other government branches and refrain from venturing outside of its purview.
There are many sides to the complex problem of judicial overreach in Pakistani politics. Although the court has been crucial in advancing democracy and accountability, it must be aware of its obligations as an independent arm of government. Striking a balance between the judiciary’s power and the requirement for checks and balances on its authority is crucial if Pakistan is to safeguard the judiciary’s integrity and the rule of law.
Under General Zia-ul-administration, Haq’s court started asserting its independence in the 1980s. Under the leadership of then Chief Justice Muhammad Haleem, the Supreme Court took several actions to restrict the power of the military government. The judiciary asserted its authority by ruling various laws and ordinances passed by the military dictatorship to be illegal.
The 1990s and beyond saw a continuation of this judicial activism trend. The judiciary started to play a more significant part in Pakistan’s political system during this period. It began to apply the Constitution in a way perceived as enhancing its power to the detriment of other governmental branches.
Nawaz Sharif’s election as Pakistan’s prime minister in 1990 is one instance of this. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, the Supreme Court Chief Judge whom Sharif himself had chosen, was fired in 1993. This firing was interpreted as Sharif’s attempt to manage and constrain the judiciary. Yet, in response, the court demanded the reinstatement of Sharif, demonstrating its independence and power.
The case of former president General Pervez Musharraf, charged with violating the Constitution by instituting an emergency rule in 2007, illustrates judicial overreach. Musharraf’s actions were deemed unlawful by the court, overseen by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, and a trial was ordered. But, unfortunately, Musharraf left the nation before being charged. Therefore, the matter still needs to be finished.
The Panama Papers case has more recently brought the issue of judicial overreach to light. The Panama Papers were documented that were released, and they showed how many affluent people, including Sharif family members, had formed offshore corporations to evade taxes. As a result, the Sharif family’s overseas assets were the subject of a 2017 probe order from Pakistan’s Supreme Court. Nawaz Sharif was consequently barred from holding public office and given a prison term.
Some accused the judiciary of overstepping its bounds, while some regarded this as a triumph for accountability and transparency. They claimed that the court had gone beyond its legal bounds by acting as the executive branch of government. The military, which hasIn addition, thelong history of meddling in the nation’s politics, was said to have influenced the court, according to some opponents.
In general, judicial overreach in Pakistani politics continues to be divisive. Others see the judiciary’s actions as infringing on the authority of the other arms of government, while some see them as essential to further democracy and accountability. The court in Pakistan would have to strike a balance between upholding the Constitution and maintaining the separation of powers while also playing a role in promoting the rule of law.
