The Rise of Judicial Politics in Pakistan: Arbiter or Actor?

Dr. Asis Mistry 

In a country where politics rarely follows a predictable script, one institution has emerged as a referee and a participant in the drama—the judiciary. Once seen as a passive arm of the state, beholden to executive whims, Pakistan’s judiciary has reinvented itself as a formidable political force over the past two decades. But this reinvention begs a fundamental question: is the judiciary acting as a constitutional arbiter, or has it become an autonomous actor in the country’s high-stakes power game?

From Doctrine of Necessity to Judicial Activism

Historically, the judiciary in Pakistan has been remembered less for defending democracy than for facilitating its derailment. The infamous "Doctrine of Necessity", first invoked in 1954 to validate the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, became the judiciary’s go-to justification for military takeovers. In case after case—from Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf—the courts sided with strongmen, often under the pretence of national stability.

But something shifted in the early 2000s. The Lawyers’ Movement of 2007–2009, sparked by the sacking of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, marked a turning point. It mobilised civil society in unprecedented ways and reintroduced the judiciary as a site of resistance rather than submission. The courts regained public trust, and judicial independence became a rallying cry. But with independence came power, and power, as always, tends to seek more of itself.

Enter the Era of Judicial Politics

In the post-Musharraf democratic period, Pakistan's courts became increasingly interventionist. From disqualifying elected prime ministers to blocking laws and summoning bureaucrats on live television, the judiciary blurred the line between legal oversight and executive control.

The 2017 disqualification of Nawaz Sharif—based on Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, requiring lawmakers to be "honest and righteous"—was a watershed moment. The ruling was not just judicial; it was deeply political, effectively reshaping the electoral landscape ahead of the 2018 general elections. Critics argued that the judiciary had overstepped its mandate and acted in concert with powerful unelected institutions to engineer political outcomes.

Since then, Pakistan has entered a new phase of judicial politics, one where courts are not merely interpreting laws but actively influencing the course of political events.

The Supreme Court in the Eye of the Storm

The 2024 elections once again placed the judiciary at the centre of controversy. As candidates from the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) faced disqualifications, and electoral rules appeared to be selectively applied, opposition voices accused the judiciary of partisan leanings. Legal decisions about constituency delimitations, election timelines, and party symbols were seen by many as shaping—not just regulating, the electoral playing field.

Moreover, suo motu powers—the ability of the Supreme Court to initiate proceedings on its own—have been exercised with great frequency, often without consistent standards. In matters ranging from sugar prices to political alliances, the courts have intervened in ways that some see as necessary for governance, but others view as judicial overreach.

Even within the judiciary, fault lines have emerged. Split decisions, dissenting opinions, and public statements by judges reveal a judiciary struggling with its own internal coherence—and perhaps, its political soul.

Is the Judiciary Filling a Vacuum?

Supporters of judicial activism argue that the courts are stepping in where the political class has failed. In a system riddled with corruption, dynastic control, and military manipulation, the judiciary, they say, is the only institution left with enough credibility to act as a check on power.

Indeed, many Pakistanis still look to the courts for justice in a system where police and bureaucracy are compromised. Landmark rulings on minority rights, women's inheritance, and environmental protection demonstrate the judiciary’s capacity to protect the vulnerable and uphold fundamental rights.

But legitimacy is a fragile currency. If judicial action is perceived as selective, or worse, politically motivated, it can erode public trust. The danger is not just to the court's image—it is to the very foundations of democratic governance.

Arbiter or Actor?

So, where does that leave the judiciary today? Somewhere in between. It has certainly outgrown the image of a rubber-stamping institution. But whether it has matured into a neutral arbiter is less certain.

When courts begin to selectively interpret constitutional clauses to remove political rivals or dictate policy, they risk becoming political actors in robes. This erodes the separation of powers and undermines the idea of an impartial judiciary. Worse, it opens the judiciary itself to politicisation, where judges are appointed or targeted not for their legal acumen, but for their perceived political leanings.

In such a scenario, judicial independence becomes a myth. What emerges instead is a form of judicial partisanship, often cloaked in constitutional rhetoric.

The Way Forward: Judicial Humility and Democratic Maturity

If Pakistan’s democracy is to mature, all institutions—especially the judiciary—must rediscover their limits. Judicial reform should focus not just on increasing efficiency, but on embedding institutional humility. Judges must resist the allure of public adulation and media limelight and return to the quieter but more powerful role of guardians of the Constitution.

At the same time, the political class must stop looking to the courts for political arbitration. Parties must resolve their disputes in Parliament, not the courtroom. Elections must be contested on manifestos, not petitions. And the military establishment, too, must respect judicial independence and refrain from covertly influencing the legal process.

The Battle for the Soul of the Judiciary

The rise of judicial politics in Pakistan is neither accidental nor entirely undesirable. A robust judiciary is essential for a functioning democracy. But when courts become proxies for political power, the very idea of justice is put on trial.

Pakistan today stands at a crossroads. The judiciary can either serve as the guardian of democratic values or become another pawn in the country’s endless game of power. It cannot be both.

@ Author is Faculty, Department of Political Science, University of Calcutta