The credibility of Pakistan’s judiciary is once again under intense scrutiny. The Islamabad High Court’s Justice Tariq Mehmood Jehangiri has been barred from performing judicial work following an order passed by a two-member bench led by Chief Sarfraz Dogar. The bench observed that since a reference concerning Justice Jehangiri is pending before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), he should refrain from judicial duties until the matter is concluded.
This move has stirred fresh debate about judicial independence and internal divisions. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan noted that the decision made rifts within the judiciary more visible, describing it as “not a good omen for the country.” For a system meant to safeguard justice, such internal cracks erode public trust and signal institutional fragility.
Pakistan’s judiciary has long oscillated between being a defender of constitutional order and a tool of political engineering. From the Lawyers’ Movement of 2007, which restored Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, to the disqualification of elected prime ministers under controversial interpretations of law, the judiciary has often been thrust into the political spotlight.
Observers argue that today’s judiciary appears divided — not by accident, but by design. Vested interests, both political and institutional, have allegedly worked to align parts of the bench with competing power centers. The barring of Justice Jehangiri, regardless of its legal merit, feeds a growing perception that courts are no longer neutral arbiters but battlegrounds for influence.
No modern economy has succeeded without a functioning, impartial judiciary. Investors — whether domestic entrepreneurs or foreign corporations — need assurance that contracts will be enforced, intellectual property protected, and disputes resolved without bias.
Pakistan’s track record is poor. According to the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2023, Pakistan ranked 129th out of 142 countries, faring particularly badly on “absence of corruption” and “civil justice.” The World Bank’s Doing Business report (2020) highlighted that enforcing contracts in Pakistan takes on average 1,071 days — nearly three years . Such delays and unpredictability discourage investment and fuel capital flight.
When courts fail to deliver, the economic costs are severe. Investors take their money elsewhere, domestic businesses operate in uncertainty, and citizens grow disillusioned with state institutions.
The malaise goes beyond inefficiency. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2024 placed Pakistan at 140th out of 180 countries, a decline from previous years. Public perception is blunt: no government department functions without bribery. Sadly, the judiciary, instead of being a firewall, is often accused of being part of the same cycle.
Litigants complain of “buying” favorable orders in lower courts. Lawyers exploit adjournments to prolong cases, forcing clients to pay more. Judges themselves face allegations — whether of political partisanship, financial misconduct, or external pressure. Each scandal chips away at the credibility of the bench and by extension, the entire state apparatus.
The case of Justice Jehangiri is therefore not just about one judge; it highlights a system where accountability is opaque, delays are endemic, and internal divisions deepen public suspicion.
Other nations offer lessons Pakistan has yet to internalize. Bangladesh, despite its own political turbulence, ranks higher on several judicial efficiency indicators, enabling faster resolution of commercial disputes. India has invested heavily in digitizing court records and introducing e-filing systems, which, although imperfect, have improved transparency.
At the other extreme, Singapore demonstrates what a credible judiciary can achieve. In less than four decades, it built one of the world’s most trusted judicial systems, enabling it to become a global hub for trade, finance, and arbitration. The rule of law, more than natural resources or geography, turned Singapore into an investment magnet.
Pakistan’s inability to enforce contracts or deliver impartial justice keeps it stuck in a low-investment, low-growth cycle. Unless the judiciary reforms itself, no economic package or foreign bailout can substitute for lost credibility.
The judiciary is not just another state organ; it is the backbone of institutional reliability. When citizens cannot expect fair hearings, they either abandon formal channels or resort to alternative, often violent, methods of dispute resolution. This creates fertile ground for extremism, vigilantism, and organized crime.
We have seen this dynamic in Pakistan’s tribal areas, where parallel systems of justice emerged because state courts were slow, corrupt, or inaccessible. Such parallel systems, while filling immediate gaps, undermine the state’s authority in the long run.
Pakistan’s leadership often resorts to optics — suspending judges, reshuffling benches, or announcing “accountability drives.” Yet these cosmetic measures rarely restore confidence. The barring of Justice Jehangiri may satisfy procedural requirements, but it does little to fix systemic rot.
Without reforms, Pakistan’s judiciary will remain in the dock, and the country will remain trapped in its cycle of instability.
Ordinary Pakistanis are asking a simple question: for how long will this continue? A nation where courts are viewed as compromised cannot inspire confidence — not in its citizens, not in its investors, and not in the global community.
The world is watching. In today’s interconnected environment, judicial failures cannot be hidden behind political rhetoric. International investors, financial institutions, and foreign governments all track Pakistan’s governance indicators closely. A judiciary that lacks credibility translates into an economy that lacks opportunity.
As Barrister Gohar observed, the visible divisions within the judiciary are alarming. Pakistan stands at a crossroads: either embark on genuine reform and reclaim the judiciary’s role as guardian of justice, or continue down the path of decline where vested interests dominate and national development remains a dream deferred.
The time for optics is over. What Pakistan needs now is integrity, transparency, and the courage for institutional soul-searching. Only then can the judiciary emerge from the dock and reclaim its rightful place as the foundation of a strong and stable nation.
