A battle is brewing within Pakistan’s judiciary, with five confirmed judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) taking on the president, the federation, the Judicial Commission, Supreme Court and high court registrars, and even three of their fellow judges. Their petition challenges the recent transfer of justices to the IHC, the alteration of the court’s seniority list, and the replacement of senior IHC judges on key committees with the freshly transferred justices. The petitioners contend that these maneuvers violate constitutional principles, particularly the judiciary’s independence, the separation of powers, and federalism.
The apex court has been urged to invoke its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to hear the matter. Their case appears strong, as it underscores a dangerous trend that threatens judicial autonomy. The current crisis did not emerge in isolation; it has been building since last year when multiple IHC judges voiced concerns over undue interference by security agencies in judicial affairs. Their complaints, addressed to then-Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, were echoed by other high courts, yet no concrete steps were taken to address them. This lack of action has emboldened those seeking to curtail judicial independence.
More alarmingly, after the controversial passage of the 26th Amendment, a pattern has emerged where judges seen as independent-minded or resistant to external pressures are systematically sidelined. Denied promotions and stripped of administrative roles, these judges are being ‘neutralized’ in a manner that raises serious concerns about the state of judicial autonomy in Pakistan. The perception that judicial appointments and postings are being manipulated to serve executive interests is gaining credibility with each passing day.
This decline in judicial independence is also evident in the Supreme Court’s handling—or lack thereof—of challenges to the 26th Amendment. Petitions against the amendment have not received the urgency they demand, reinforcing doubts about the judiciary’s ability to act as an impartial guardian of constitutional rights. The judiciary’s image as an independent institution has suffered significantly, and continued inaction will only deepen public distrust.
The petition by the five IHC judges presents a crucial opportunity to restore faith in the judicial system. If taken up, it will compel the authorities to publicly justify their actions and decisions that have undermined judicial autonomy. Such scrutiny is necessary to preserve institutional integrity and prevent further erosion of the judiciary’s credibility.
To ensure impartiality, any case dealing with the judiciary’s independence must be heard by a full court. A selective bench would only reinforce suspicions of conflicts of interest and further damage public confidence in the legal system. The judiciary’s institutional leadership must recognize that ignoring growing criticism is not an option. The time has come for decisive action to reaffirm the judiciary’s independence and uphold the rule of law.
