Some recent constitutional amendments in Pakistan regarding the judiciary’s functioning have significant long-term implications for the profession itself.

There is little debate that the Supreme Court, already overburdened with high-profile political cases, struggles to address the needs of ordinary litigants, causing prolonged delays in their cases. A separate constitutional court, independent from the Supreme Court system, could help expedite the resolution of such cases. Previously, unlike in the UK, Switzerland, or the United States, Pakistan’s Parliament had a limited role in judicial appointments, often relying on informal agreements with the judiciary to facilitate these processes.

However, the recent amendments seem to have gone too far. In the UK and the USA, involving public representatives in legal appointments led to significant issues in both the legal and medical fields, and Pakistan risks a similar path if it overextends political involvement.

A former Chief Justice recently noted that bypassing seniority in provincial chief justice appointments could remove the motivation for judges further down the line to excel in their roles, possibly encouraging them to seek political patronage instead.

While some reform was necessary, these amendments may lead to judicial chaos and require a careful second review before further appointments are made. The focus should remain on professionalism, avoiding political influence to preserve the judiciary’s independence.

Fazl Rahman supported these amendments without demanding Islamic muftis or strict Sharia laws, which raises additional questions about implementing reform while regularly devaluing the currency. In a system no longer based on a stable gold standard, abolishing interest would be complex and could disadvantage lenders.

The public, intellectuals, and experienced litigants are stakeholders in this reform. This is a delicate matter; haste is not advisable.

M. SHAIKH,

Islamabad.