No real democratic state can exist without the independence of the judiciary in the world. The judiciary is the sole guardian of the Constitution, which interprets legislation and enforces it.

The judiciary collaborates with the legislative and executive branches to run the government system smoothly and effectively. It creates peace and harmony in the state by ensuring speedy justice and interpreting thorny issues in light of the Constitution. It also checks the constitutionality of laws. In short, a real democratic state and the independence of the judiciary are interlinked.

The Constitution of Pakistan also ensures the independence of the judiciary by categorically stating that the independence of the judiciary “shall be fully secured”. To protect the rights of the people, Article 4 of the Constitution states that “to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan, in particular, no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law; no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law; and no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do.”

Unfortunately, it is a proven fact that the judiciary is not independent in Pakistan because the executive, including politicians and intelligence agencies, has meddled in judicial affairs since the Federation of Pakistan v. Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan (1955) case, which gave birth to “the doctrine of necessity.” The judiciary has been used to protect three martial laws, hang prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, endorse the removal of Benazir Bhutto’s governments in 1990 and 1996, remove Nawaz Sharif from the premiership on alleged corruption charges, and then absolve him of all the charges.

It is also a tragic fact that many judges’ role in upholding justice has also been very poor and questionable in Pakistan. The judges like Chief Justice Muhammad Munir, Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain, Arshad Malik, and Humayun Dilawar will always be remembered in negative words in the history of Pakistan. While taking an oath, a judge pledges: “That I will abide by the code of conduct issued by the Supreme Judicial Council; that I will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; and that, in all circumstances, I will do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear, favour, affection, or ill-will.” All the above-mentioned judges have blatantly violated their oaths and duties by indulging in corrupt practices.

Even the Apex Court has declared that ex-PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s was denied a fair trial. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa said, “We didn’t find that the fair trial and due process requirements were met.” In his ruling, CJP Isa declared that there have been cases in the past in the country’s judicial history that created a public perception that “either fear or favour deterred the performance” of the judiciary. “We must, therefore, be willing to confront our past missteps and infallibility with humility in the spirit of self-accountability and as a testament to our commitment to ensure that justice shall be served with unwavering, integrity and fidelity to the law,” he said.

The letter written by six judges of the Islamabad High Court to the Supreme Judicial Council also endorses the fact that the judiciary is not independent in Pakistan. The judges wrote: “We are writing to seek guidance from the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) with regard to the duty of a judge to report and respond to actions on part of members of the executive, including operatives of intelligence agencies, that seek to interfere with discharge of his/her official functions and qualify as intimidation, as well as the duty to report any such actions that come to his/her attention in relation to colleagues and/or members of the courts that the High Court supervises.”

The case is being heard in the Supreme Court and the people of Pakistan are hoping that the Apex Court would view the letter within the larger framework of fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Pakistani Constitution, rather than in isolation.

A newspaper writes: “As some of his brothers-in-robes become more vocal, posing challenging questions, the Chief Justice of Pakistan appears to be trudging through a quandary, indeed; reluctant to delve deeper into the matter. This tug-of-war between maintaining secrecy and advocating for transparency has polarized the judiciary, creating a dilemma of cover-up versus open-up. There’s no denying how the recent accusations of interference gaining grounds in high courts across the country have thrown the entire bench into chaos. The judges are not only confirming the prevalence of external pressures but also seeking help on how to address explicit threats with potential consequences. Of course, the actualities of a few scenarios cannot be used to splash muddy water in all directions. If today, these judges can find the courage to navigate a terrain where speaking out is not just a matter of discomfort but a question of safeguarding their integrity against looming threats, a similar conscience call could have been made in the past. The prevailing situation adds richness to an oft-quoted analogy, “If you are not happy in Pakistan, leave Pakistan.” The ethical dilemma must be profound – whether to acquiesce to the flawed system or to raise their voices against it. But the fact that many among them have gladly played along, using the honourable position to bag as many privileges and connections as possible. Now the fact that the entire machinery has decided to blackmail the whistleblower judge by leaking his details and branding him with a target on his back considerably thickens the plot. Only in Pakistan would anyone daring to oppose the status quo would be turned into a national hero by subjecting him to a greater ordeal. To safeguard the fundamental principles of transparency, accountability, and moral courage that are considered imperative for upholding the sanctity of justice, the blindfolded Lady Justice needs to be resurrected from some dusty corner and her all-encompassing attention to detail given a free hand. Addressing the internal divide and fostering a culture of openness and ethical conduct are paramount to reinstating trust in the judiciary. It is high time that they come together to work towards a more transparent and accountable judicial system.”

The Apex Court has a great chance to get full independence by deciding “this letter case” in favour of protecting fundamental rights and the sanctity of the judiciary.