The constitution certainly allows ad hoc appointments in the judiciary, but only under the rationale of necessity. By bringing retired judges to serve on the Supreme Court bench as ad hoc judges, the government is escalating already controversial judicial matters. Although the government defends this move under constitutional pretexts, the context and recent decisions of the SC bench prompting these appointments are evident to all. Judicial appointments are sensitive, given the numerous accusations against judges of being politicized, partial, and biased. The volatile political environment takes a toll on the judiciary’s integrity.

In Pakistan’s history, the judiciary has not been celebrated. Part of the problem is the undue interference in judicial functions and countless attempts to influence decisions. Making ad hoc appointments without a solid rationale muddies the waters further. The availability of senior judges to serve temporarily in the Supreme Court nullifies the logic of appointing retired judges, creating apprehension about the partiality this will bring.

For the government, the wise course of action is to avoid measures that obviously reflect mal-intention. This dents the government’s popularity and makes the judiciary vulnerable to criticism from all quarters. High-profile political cases are already being heard in the apex court, and controversial steps like ad hoc appointments jeopardize these proceedings. Invoking constitutional provisions at the wrong time tends to misuse the constitution. For the sake of political stability, the government needs to recognize how the judiciary maintains balance by extending legal outlets and breathing space. There are enough bad precedents already, and the government must rethink its approach to stay within moderate confines.