The recent trend of judges from superior courts engaging with political figures, bureaucrats, and even international financial institutions is deeply concerning and sets a dangerous precedent for judicial independence. The latest example of this involves Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, along with his aides and bureaucrats, visiting the residence of Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi. Reportedly, this visit was initiated by an invitation from the Chief Justice himself to discuss the agenda of the upcoming National Judicial Policymaking Committee meeting. Furthermore, Afridi has also suggested that the opposition should be taken on board regarding judicial reforms, an act that directly entangles the judiciary in political affairs.
Adding to this disturbing development, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) delegation has also met with the Chief Justice to seek details on Pakistan’s judicial system and governance. This involvement of an external financial institution in judicial matters is not just unusual but raises significant ethical concerns about the independence and credibility of the judiciary. A judicial system is expected to operate autonomously, without external influences, whether political or financial. The idea that a judge should engage in discussions about judicial policies with a global financial body creates an impression that the judiciary is susceptible to external pressures.
Traditionally, the judiciary has maintained a strict separation from political figures and bureaucrats to uphold its impartiality. Judges have always been expected to refrain from mingling with political personalities in informal or social settings, as such engagements inevitably lead to conflicts of interest and perceptions of bias. The role of judges is to interpret the law and dispense justice without fear or favor, not to be involved in discussions or negotiations with political stakeholders.
This current deviation from long-established judicial norms is unprecedented and goes against the very principles of judicial independence. Historically, Pakistan’s judiciary has witnessed moments when its integrity was tested by political authorities, yet some judges have set remarkable examples of restraint and impartiality. One of the most respected figures in Pakistan’s judicial history, Chief Justice Alvin Robert Cornelius, refused to entertain any political discussions with government officials. His firm stance established an example that a judge’s role is not to engage with the executive branch but to deliver justice without external influence.
In countries like India and the United Kingdom, the judiciary maintains a strict separation from political entities. There are notable incidents in British legal history where judges have taken a firm stand against government overreach. For example, in the UK, judges have historically ruled against government actions when they perceive them as unconstitutional or unjust. The famous case of R v Secretary of State for Home Department (2002), where the House of Lords ruled against indefinite detention without trial under anti-terrorism laws, exemplifies how British judges have upheld civil liberties in the face of political pressure.
Similarly, in India, there have been moments when judges have stood firmly against governmental authority. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which established the “basic structure doctrine,” is a landmark decision that reinforced judicial supremacy over parliamentary legislation. Such decisions highlight how an independent judiciary can serve as a bulwark against potential abuses by the executive branch.
In contrast, history also records moments where the judiciary succumbed to political pressures, with disastrous consequences. Under General Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime, the judiciary became an instrument of legitimizing his authoritarian rule through controversial verdicts, including the validation of martial law and the execution of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Similarly, during General Pervez Musharraf’s tenure, the judiciary was infamously compromised, with the removal of independent-minded judges who refused to toe the regime’s line. These instances serve as stark reminders of what happens when the judiciary allows itself to be influenced by political forces.
Beyond Pakistan, there have been numerous instances in other legal traditions where judges have taken bold stands to uphold judicial independence. In the British legal system, judges have historically maintained strict detachment from political affairs. One of the most notable examples is that of Lord Denning, a distinguished English judge known for his unyielding commitment to judicial independence. Denning refused to bow to political pressures and consistently upheld the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Similarly, in India, Justice H.R. Khanna is remembered for his dissenting opinion in the ADM Jabalpur case during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency rule. While the majority of the Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of allowing the government to suspend fundamental rights, Justice Khanna dissented, arguing that the Constitution did not permit absolute power to the executive. His stand cost him the position of Chief Justice, but it cemented his legacy as a fearless protector of judicial integrity.
These historical examples contrast sharply with the current situation in Pakistan, where the Chief Justice’s willingness to engage with political and financial bodies raises serious concerns about judicial independence. The judiciary must remain above politics, ensuring that its decisions are made purely based on legal merit rather than political or economic considerations. The recent meetings between the Chief Justice and political figures, as well as international financial institutions, blur the lines between the judiciary and other branches of governance, creating a dangerous precedent that could erode public confidence in the legal system.
There is no precedent in any developed democracy where judges openly consult political leaders or external institutions regarding internal judicial affairs. Reforms in the judiciary should be a matter of internal deliberation within the judicial framework, guided by legal principles and the needs of justice, rather than external consultations or political considerations. In established legal systems, judicial reforms are undertaken by independent judicial committees, ensuring that the judiciary remains self-regulating and free from external influences. It is unimaginable for the Chief Justice of the United States, for example, to meet with the President to discuss judicial policymaking, let alone invite him to his residence for such a discussion.
Moreover, the recent trend of judges addressing the media to build a public image is another worrisome development. The judiciary should communicate its stance solely through its judgments and official statements, rather than press conferences or informal gatherings. The practice of holding media interactions to defend judicial actions diminishes the gravity of judicial authority and invites unnecessary scrutiny and debate over judicial conduct.
The judiciary must return to its foundational principles and maintain the highest level of detachment from political affairs. A judge’s power comes from their impartiality and independence, not from their associations with political leaders or international financial institutions. The recent engagements of Pakistan’s Chief Justice with politicians and the IMF undermine these principles and risk reducing the judiciary to just another arm of governance rather than an independent pillar of the state.
Pakistan’s judiciary has a long road ahead in rebuilding its credibility and ensuring that it functions as a truly independent institution. If it continues on the current path, where judges willingly or unwillingly involve themselves in political matters, it risks losing the trust of the public and diminishing its ability to serve as the ultimate arbiter of justice. Judges must resist any attempts—whether by politicians, bureaucrats, or international financial bodies—to influence judicial processes and must work towards strengthening their autonomy rather than compromising it.
The judiciary is the last line of defense against tyranny, corruption, and injustice. If it begins to erode its own independence by engaging in political discussions, it will soon find itself unable to stand firm when the nation needs it most. The Chief Justice and all members of the superior courts must take a step back, reevaluate their role, and recommit to the principles of judicial independence that define their authority and responsibility. Only by doing so can the judiciary maintain its credibility and continue to serve as a true guardian of justice.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Coverpage’s editorial stance.
