The recent proposal to increase the number of Supreme Court judges, discussed in a Senate Standing Committee on Law and Justice session, appears sound in principle. The committee underscored the necessity of this step to address the growing backlog of cases before the apex court. However, the timing and context of this proposal have raised valid concerns.
Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar suggested that the backlog has grown due to judges not adhering to timelines and a lack of accountability for their performance. Meanwhile, the committee chair, Barrister Ali Zafar, attributed the rise in cases to the increased number of high court judges, which has expedited case resolutions at lower levels, subsequently leading to more appeals reaching the Supreme Court. Although the legislative bill on this matter has been deferred pending ‘empirical evidence’ to justify the decision, the committee acknowledged that the number of judges could be increased through straightforward legislation at any time.
While the escalating pile-up of cases at the Supreme Court does lend support to the idea of inducting more judges, it would have been more appropriate if the judiciary itself had proposed this change. The fact that this recommendation comes from the legislature is likely to be scrutinized, especially in the current political climate. Over the past two years, the government has frequently employed tailored legislation to navigate around challenges to its rule. This includes altering accountability laws, election laws, laws governing the armed forces and intelligence services, and even laws directly affecting the judiciary and fundamental rights, often without consulting opposition parties.
This pattern has fostered a perception of legislative manipulation to suit ruling class interests. Key government leaders have also adopted confrontational stances against the judiciary whenever decisions have gone against them, as evidenced by their reaction to the recent reserved seats case.
Given this backdrop, it is natural to question the government’s motives behind its sudden concern over the number of Supreme Court judges. Critics may suspect this move as another attempt to influence the judiciary, especially considering past controversies over the appointment of ad hoc judges.
To mitigate such concerns, it is crucial that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan rigorously vets all new entrants to the Supreme Court. Additionally, new inductees could be initially tasked with clearing the backlog rather than being assigned major cases. This approach would address the backlog issue while preventing potential allegations of court-packing.
Furthermore, the judiciary must be consulted for its input on this proposal. Collaboration between the legislature and judiciary is essential to maintain the integrity of the judicial system and ensure that any changes serve the best interests of justice, rather than political expediency.
In conclusion, while the proposal to increase the number of Supreme Court judges has merit, it is imperative that this process is handled transparently and collaboratively, involving the judiciary in decision-making and ensuring that new appointments are made with the utmost integrity and independence. Only then can we ensure that the Supreme Court continues to function effectively and impartially, upholding the rule of law in Pakistan.