CHAPTER

04 CHALLENGES TO JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN PAKISTAN

4.1 Introduction

A democratic system requires judicial accountability to ensure both legal compliance from judges
and ethical conduct and freedom from bribery activities and biased judgments. Judicial
independence protects courts from external influence while judicial accountability makes certain
judges avoid power misuse by maintaining transparent operation and public answerability. A
properly working judicial accountability system both boosts public faith in the judicial branch and
sustains legal institution integrity and brings about equitable justice administering. Public
criticism focuses on the Supreme Judicial Council for maintaining secrecy combined with
irregular disciplinary enforcement practices towards judges. Judicial scrutiny regarding
acknowledged misconduct exists only for select judges because executive officials and
political ties maintain
immunity for others despite allegations.. This has raised concerns about whether the judiciary is
genuinely accountable to the public or whether accountability mechanisms are being used as tools
for political retaliation50.

The application of judicial accountability standards stands essential for maintaining judge
functions with purity while eliminating both biases and wrongdoings and inefficiencies. Such
systems prevent unethical acts from judges while maintaining the most stringent ethical
requirements for their conduct. A weak judicial accountability system lets down both the public's
faith in justice because people begin to believe courts are affected by political interference and
display favoritism or exist in corruption. Judicial decisions face continuous scrutiny within
Pakistan due to allegations about bribery and executive control of appointment processes and
rulings alongside judicial nepotism. The Pakistani judicial system faces increased workload
because it must handle a long backlog of pending cases alongside its delayed procedures and
operational inefficiencies in case management. Injustice to citizens and system deterioration
result from improper accountability systems which judge their performance regarding delays and
misconduct. Through accountability the judicial efficiency improves alongside accelerated justice
delivery and better performance from the judiciary system.

50
H Bhatti, 'Nawaz Sharif Steps Down as PM After SC's Disqualification Verdict' Dawn (Karachi, 28 July 2017)
https://www.dawn.com/news/1348520 accessed 4 March 2025.
4.2 Weaknesses in Judicial Accountability Mechanisms

The Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan functions as the central body for supervising judicial
accountability in the country by conducting investigations into judicial misconduct. The Supreme
Judicial Council established to maintain judicial integrity has experienced major performance
setbacks because of structural problems that exist alongside low transparency levels and
inefficient disciplinary measures. Multiple defects in judicial self-regulation mechanisms have
raised public concerns about how judicial oversight works through selectivity and executive
control together with inadequate judicial self-governance.

Structural issues in the SJC

The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) is the primary body responsible for judicial accountability in
Pakistan. Established under article 209 of the constitution, the SJC consists of:

 The CJP(chairman)
 Two senior-most supreme court judges
 Two senior-most CJ’s of the high courts

While this structure ensures that judicial accountability remains within the judiciary itself, it also
creates conflicts of interest, limits external oversight, and allows judicial misconduct to go
unpunished due to internal protectionism.
lack of independence and internal bias

Since the SJC is composed entirely of judges, there is a strong risk of favoritism and reluctance to
take action against fellow judges. This makes the SJC highly dependent on the willingness of the
judiciary to hold itself accountable, which has proven to be ineffective in many cases.

Unlike other democracies where judicial accountability is overseen by independent commissions

or parliamentary bodies, Pakistan’s model keeps judicial accountability within the judiciary itself,
reducing impartial oversight.

In many cases, allegations of judicial misconduct have either been delayed indefinitely or
dismissed without proper justification, raising concerns about the lack of genuine accountability.

limited scope of jurisdiction

The SJC is only responsible for superior court judges (supreme court and high courts), meaning
that lower court judges, who handle most of the cases in Pakistan, are not subject to the same
level of accountability.The accountability mechanisms for lower court judges remain unclear and
ineffective, allowing corrupt and inefficient judges to continue working without facing
disciplinary action.
Inconsistent and selective accountability

The SJC has been accused of selectively targeting certain judges while ignoring misconduct by
others, particularly in politically sensitive cases.Cases such as justice qazi faez isa’s presidential
reference (2019-2021) raised concerns about whether judicial accountability is being used as a
political weapon rather than a neutral process.Meanwhile, other cases of judicial corruption and
misconduct remain unaddressed, reinforcing perceptions of a biased and inconsistent judicial
accountability system.

Secretive proceedings and lack of public confidence

SJC proceedings are conducted behind closed doors, and there is no public access to records or
decisions. This lack of transparency leads to speculation, distrust, and suspicions of unfair
practices.In contrast, countries like the UK and the USA have public judicial accountability
hearings, ensuring that judges are held accountable in a manner that builds public trust.Because
there is no public reporting of disciplinary actions, the public has no way of knowing whether
judges found guilty of misconduct actually face consequences51.

51
International Commission of Jurists, 'Pakistan: ICJ Condemns Amendments Undermining Judicial
Independence' (21 October 2024) https://www.icj.org/pakistan-judicial-independence-threatened accessed 4
March 2025.
Delays in disciplinary actions and case resolutions

Judicial misconduct cases often remain unresolved for years, leading to a backlog of disciplinary
cases.Since there are no strict timelines for resolving misconduct cases, judges accused of
wrongdoing often continue to serve for extended periods without consequences.This inefficiency
weakens the deterrence effect of judicial accountability, as judges may believe they can avoid
punishment by exploiting procedural delays.

Political influence in the judicial accountability process

While judicial accountability should remain independent, many cases have shown that judicial
accountability mechanisms can be manipulated for political gain.Governments have historically
used the SJC and presidential references to target judges who issue rulings unfavorable to the
executive.The justice iftikhar chaudhry case (2007) demonstrated how executive authorities
attempted to remove an independent judge through judicial accountability mechanisms, leading to
national protests and the lawyers’ movement.

Comparative perspective on judicial accountability

Many democratic countries have independent and transparent judicial accountability mechanisms
that ensure judges remain accountable without compromising judicial independence.
 Country Judicial accountability mechanism Transparency and oversight

United Judicial conduct investigations

Public reports on judicial misconduct cases
Kingdom office (JCIO)

Judicial councils and impeachment

United States Public hearings for impeachment cases
by congress

Collegium system and impeachment Some transparency, but concerns over

India
by parliament selective accountability

Secretive proceedings, inconsistent

Pakistan Supreme judicial council (SJC)
enforcement

Pakistan’s judicial accountability mechanisms lack transparency and external oversight, unlike
the UK and USA, where judicial misconduct cases are openly reviewed.

4.3 Political and Institutional Challenges

Multiple political conflicts together with institutional forces in Pakistan negatively affect judicial
accountability by reducing judicial independence. Judicial proceedings along with executive
decisions remain fundamental issues about judicial independence which affects the judicial role
and impartial decision-making capacity. The Pakistani constitution establishes a system of
separated powers only for theoretical purposes since in real life executive officials frequently
manipulate judicial decisions regarding sensitive political cases. Judicial accountability suffered
serious harm along with widespread mistrust toward the judicial system due to outside
interference.

Political Interference in Judicial Proceedings

One of the most prominent examples of political interference in judicial proceedings was the
removal of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry in 2007 by then-President Pervez
Musharraf52. Justice Chaudhry was dismissed after refusing to comply with the executive’s
demands, sparking widespread protests and ultimately leading to the Lawyers’ Movement
However, this case also exposed the vulnerability of the judiciary to executive pressure,
demonstrating how political leaders could attempt to control judicial proceedings for their own
benefit. The case set an important precedent for judicial resistance but also underscored the need
for institutional safeguards against executive overreach.

Executive Influence Over Judicial Decisions

Amid current times the presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa in 2019 has intensified
doubts regarding the political use of judicial accountability measures. A reference targeting
Justice Isa on grounds of unreported family assets was understood by many as an attempt to
destroy the independence of a judge who had issued unfavorable verdicts against the executive
branch. The

52
Syed Zafar Ali Shah vs. Pervez Musharraf (2000) PLD 2000 SC 869
Supreme Court dismissed the reference which proved judicial accountability could lead judges to
face intimidation pressure and judicial decision interference.

Political interference in judicial accountability is enabled due to institutional weaknesses found in

Pakistan's judicial system. Critics challenge the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) because they
observe secrecy regarding its operations while it demonstrates biased application of judicial
accountability measures. The Supreme Judicial Council manages to penalize some judges yet others
maintain their positions due to their political influences. The irregularities in judicial
accountability outcomes spark doubts about both system impartiality and whether executives steer
these processes.

The Need for Institutional Reforms

Pakistan’s judiciary operates in a complex political environment where executive interference,

political appointments, and selective accountability mechanisms continue to hinder judicial
independence. The repeated use of the Doctrine of Necessity, the strategic removal and
appointment of judges, and the manipulation of judicial accountability processes have all
contributed to a judiciary that struggles to maintain its autonomy.

To strengthen judicial accountability, there is a need for structural reforms that insulate the
judiciary from political pressures. These reforms should include greater transparency in judicial
appointments, a more independent and publicly accountable Supreme Judicial Council, and legal
safeguards to prevent executive interference in judicial proceedings.

4.4 Internal Challenges in the Judiciary

The judicial system in Pakistan faces substantial obstacles from within the judiciary as well as
from outside political and executive intrusion. The justice system suffered severe damage because
of corruption together with nepotism and delayed court proceedings and judicial operational
inefficiencies. Internal problems within the judiciary create two main issues because they reduce
public confidence while simultaneously producing excessive case backlogs which block common
people from justice.

4.4.1 Corruption and Nepotism in the Judiciary

Judicial corruption can take various forms, including bribery, case manipulation, favoritism in
judicial appointments, and the sale of verdicts. The influence of money and political connections
has often resulted in biased judgments, delayed justice, and questionable rulings in high-profile
cases. Reports from Transparency International and legal watchdog organizations have pointed
out that corruption exists at multiple levels of the judicial system, particularly in lower courts
where litigants are often forced to pay bribes to speed up case proceedings.

Nepotism and Favoritism in Judicial Appointments

A severe impact on judicial accountability in Pakistan results from judges appointing their
relatives or politically connected persons instead of qualified candidates. Judges facing
accusations for supporting their family members or their political sponsors with appointments
have resulted in diminishing both judicial competence and integrity. No clear standards within
judicial appointment procedures enable powerful figures to exert control over the system thus
giving them discretion to pursue personal and political gains.
The Al-Jehad Trust vs. Federation of Pakistan (1996 ) judicial case commonly referred to as the
Judges' Case presented the most striking evidence of biased appointments within Pakistan's
judicial system. According to the Supreme Court judges must obtain positions based on their
seniority and qualifications instead of political backing which restricted executive interference in
legal matters.. However, despite this ruling, judicial nepotism has persisted, with appointments
often influenced by political considerations rather than judicial competence 53.

Notable Cases of Corruption and Nepotism in the Judiciary

Case Year Issue Impact on Judiciary

Justice Shaukat Alleged judicial interference Raised concerns about external

2018
Aziz Siddiqui Case by intelligence agencies pressure on judicial rulings

Established merit-based
Al-Jehad Trust Nepotism in judicial
1996 appointment principle, but influence
Case appointments
persisted

Justice Qazi Faez 2019- Alleged politically motivated Exposed executive influence over
Isa Case 2021 judicial targeting judicial accountability

53
Mazhar Ali Akbar Naqvi vs. Federation of Pakistan (2023) PLD 2023 SC 498.
4.4.2 Delays in Case Proceedings and Lack of Judicial Efficiency

The pace at which Pakistan’s judiciary resolves cases remains a significant internal hurdle that
has caused an enormous number of pending cases to accumulate. Delayed resolution of court
cases by judicial institutions has diminished public trust in the Pakistani judiciary because
citizens must endure extended waits that should only require months to finalize. Multiple
elements cause these procedural delays to occur.

1. High Case Backlog

The Pakistani judiciary is burdened with over two million pending cases, ranging from
criminal trials to civil disputes. Courts lack the necessary resources and manpower to process
cases efficiently, leading to prolonged delays.

2. Inefficient Case Management

The absence of a proper case scheduling system and digital record-keeping has led to
frequent adjournments, lost files, and procedural inefficiencies.

3. Shortage of Judges

Pakistan has an insufficient number of judges compared to the volume of cases. The
appointment process is slow and politicized, preventing timely recruitment of competent
judges.
 4. Frequent Strikes and Protests

Court proceedings are often disrupted by lawyers’ strikes and judicial protests, further
delaying case resolutions.

Impact of Judicial Delays on Justice System

The failure to ensure timely case resolution has had severe consequences on Pakistan’s justice
system. Many individuals, particularly those in criminal cases, remain imprisoned for years
without trial, while business disputes, property claims, and civil litigation drag on indefinitely.
The inefficiency of the courts has also allowed powerful individuals to manipulate delays in their
favor, as prolonged proceedings often lead to evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or case
dismissals due to procedural lapses54.

One of the most notable cases demonstrating the consequences of judicial delays is the Asghar
Khan Case (1996-2018)55. This case, which involved allegations that military officials distributed
funds to influence the 1990 elections, remained unresolved for over two decades. The Supreme
Court ruled on the case in 2018, but by then, many key individuals had either passed away or

54
Haji Saifullah vs. Federation of Pakistan (1989) PLD 1989 SC 166.

55
Malik Asad Ali vs. Federation of Pakistan (1998) PLD 1998 SC 161.
political circumstances had changed, rendering the verdict ineffective. This case highlights how
delays in judicial proceedings can often result in justice being denied entirely.

Judicial Reforms to Improve Efficiency

To improve judicial efficiency, several legal and structural reforms must be implemented. These
include:

 Digitization of court records and case management systems to prevent loss of files and
reduce administrative delays.
 Introduction of strict timelines for case completion, similar to judicial models in countries
like the UK and the USA.
 Stronger disciplinary measures against unnecessary adjournments and procedural
inefficiencies.

4.5 Conclusion

The judicial system of Pakistan struggles with numerous problems which have deteriorated both
its reliability and operational effectiveness and judicial autonomy. The lack of an accountable
justice system based on transparency has led to widespread corruption together with nepotism and
political pressures thereby weakening justice systems. The structure of the Supreme Judicial
Council needs immediate reform because its present condition delays legal processes and lowers
public faith in judicial institutions. The SJC operates with restricted visibility through unknown
procedures while facing accusations that its investigation process favors judges connected to
executive powers over
those who receive political pressure. Stray applications of judicial oversight systems created false
narratives about judges who are easy to control