– Judiciary farm

The article analyzes the recent 26th Amendment to Pakistan’s Constitution, which has restructured the superior judiciary under the guise of improving efficiency and addressing judicial activism. This amendment transferred the power of bench formation from the Chief Justice to the executive, creating a potential conflict of interest as the government often stands as a litigant. Despite promises of streamlined decision-making, the newly formed constitutional benches have failed to deliver substantial judgments, leaving critical cases pending and amplifying delays. The opacity of their proceedings, lack of adherence to merit-based judicial appointments, and arbitrary decision-making have raised concerns about the erosion of judicial independence and accountability.

Furthermore, the amendment’s effects are highlighted through recent controversies, such as the arbitrary exclusion of senior judges in bench formations and the sidelining of previously established rules for judicial appointments. These changes suggest a shift from one form of arbitrariness to another, undermining the judiciary’s credibility. The writer metaphorically compares the situation to amputating a limb to address a minor itch, only to worsen the overall condition, signifying a judiciary plagued by inefficiency and political manipulation.

Overview:

The article dissects the ramifications of the 26th Amendment, underscoring its failure to achieve the proclaimed objectives of efficiency and impartiality. It exposes how the judiciary’s restructuring has led to executive overreach and compromised decision-making. Key issues such as delayed cases, lack of merit-based appointments, and opacity in proceedings highlight the need for genuine judicial reforms rather than superficial amendments.

NOTES:

The article critically examines the 26th Amendment to Pakistan’s Constitution, highlighting its impact on the judiciary’s autonomy and efficiency. It argues that the amendment has replaced the arbitrary authority of the Chief Justice with that of the executive, creating a conflict of interest, as the government often stands as a litigant. This shift has led to inefficiencies, with constitutional benches failing to deliver substantial judgments on critical cases while prioritizing less significant matters. The lack of transparency in proceedings, such as the absence of livestreaming, further undermines public trust. Judicial appointments, once expected to follow merit-based criteria, have instead become arbitrary, with senior judges being overlooked without explanation. The writer metaphorically compares the amendment’s impact to amputating a limb to address a minor issue, worsening the overall condition. The article underscores the need for transparent processes and genuine reforms to preserve judicial independence and uphold democratic values.

CSS Syllabus Topics or Subjects:

• Pakistan Affairs: Constitution of Pakistan, judicial reforms, and executive-judiciary relations.
• Governance and Public Policies: Impact of governance on institutional performance.
• Current Affairs: Recent amendments and their socio-political implications.

Notes for Beginners:

The 26th Amendment was introduced to improve Pakistan’s judicial system but has sparked controversy. Instead of allowing judges to make decisions independently, the government now plays a significant role in selecting which judges hear cases. This creates conflicts of interest since the government is often involved in these cases. For example, while some judges work on minor cases, more critical cases, like military trials, remain unresolved. The lack of proper rules for appointing judges has also led to unfair practices, with senior judges being ignored. This situation shows that without clear processes, even well-intentioned reforms can backfire.

Facts and Figures:

The 26th Amendment transferred bench-forming authority from the Chief Justice to the executive.

Over 30 days, the constitutional benches have failed to resolve critical cases or issue detailed judgments.

Pending cases include military trials of civilians and constitutional challenges against the amendment itself.

To wrap up, The article provides a cautionary tale about superficial reforms that compromise institutional integrity. The judiciary’s independence is pivotal for democratic governance, and its erosion through arbitrary amendments and executive overreach threatens Pakistan’s legal framework. True progress lies in transparent and merit-based reforms rather than politically motivated adjustments.

Difficult Words and Meanings: