The document discusses the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan. It notes that Pakistan operates a hierarchical court system with the Supreme Court and High Courts. While the constitution aims to separate powers, military dictators have undermined judicial independence. The lawyer's movement protested the suspension of the Chief Justice in 2007, seeking to reinforce the separation of powers. However, recent cases like those against Nawaz Sharif and in the Benazir Bhutto assassination suggest judicial independence remains limited by external political interference. Completely independent judiciary without any outside influence has proven elusive in Pakistan's system.

1. S H A R I Q V O H R A & A L I H A F E E Z
INDEPENDENCE OF
JUDICIARY IN PAKISTAN

2. THE JUDICIARY
• The Government consists of
• The Executive
• Legislature
• The Judiciary
• The judiciary deals with the interpretation and implication
of the law.
• It helps the judges and other organs of the government
to resolve a dispute or come up with a resolution to
various problems in different departments and areas of
the State.

3. PAKISTAN
• Pakistan operates on a hierarchal system and has two
courts
• The Supreme Court
• The High Courts of each province

4. INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY
• The independence of judiciary deals with the idea of
• keeping the judicial system away from all other departments of
the government
• to provide a fair and just verdict to settle cases
• to promise equal treatment irrespective of any internal or external
factor
• ensures that whatever is being decided regarding a case would
definitely be in accordance with the rule of law

5. INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY
• An independent judicial system is the hallmark of a
democratic state where there is no discrimination
between people, their class or what position they hold in
society.
• It remains uniform for all.
• Freedom to the judiciary is what guarantees honest
judgement and rule-making; and complete separation of
powers
• Dr. P. Sharan says;
• “It is a corner stone of every democratic government and upon it
is built the structure of civil liberty.”

6. BEST WAY TO ENFORCE AN
INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY
• The best way is to make sure that their impartial
behavior to remain just is also shown whilst being done.
• Thus, for this particular reason there is a panel of judges
that decide upon a complex case.
• This was first reported in 1999 in the House of Lord for
the Pinochet case where a panel of Law Lords were
asked to take part in the case as the judgment was
believed not to be independent and impartial.

7. PAKISTAN
• There was a shift towards the independence of judiciary
after the enactment of the constitution in 1973.
• In the Articles 9, 25, 175 and 203 of the constitution,
there is a clear mention of independence in the judicial
system.
• The constitution provides for progressive separation of
the judiciary from the state.
• However, just a little while later, there took place several
amendments which indicated that there was another
superior authority over the judiciary.

8. PAKISTAN(CONTINUED)
• The constitution is meant to preserve the rights of the
people but this function was toppled over when martial
law was imposed in 1977 by General Zia-ul-Haq.
• This powerful figure brought the crudest form of
dictatorship with him, changed all the laws and based
everything on the Islamic Law.
• In 1999, during the coup of Pervez Musharraf, the
Supreme Court of Pakistan refuted the allegations of
being corrupt by putting limitations on his powers.

9. LAWYER’S MOVEMENT
• In 2007 the Lawyer’s Movement
took place after Pervez Musharraf
unconstitutionally suspended the
Chief Justice of that time, Iftikhar
Chaudhry.
• The Supreme Court called this an
assault to the independence of the
judiciary.
• The issues with the Chief Justice
arose when he took upon himself
to clear many cases that had not
been looked at for years

10. LAWYER’S MOVEMENT(CONTINUED)
• The political parties of Pakistan and all other lawyer’s
called this illegal, unconstitutional and a total misuse of
power and authority.
• The situation was resolved in 2009 after a Long March
where enough pressure was put onto the ruling
government to reinstate the Chief Justice.

11. AITZAZ AHSAN
“The lawyers’ movement is to be judged on the
qualitative changes in the mindset of
Pakistanis. I venture to think that after the civic
debate it has caused across the board, the
common man now understands what the rule
of law means… However, the broader aspect
of the movement is the dream that has been
placed in the eyes of the people in the form of
a transformed state.”

12. RECENT EXAMPLES OF LACK OF RULE
OF LAW IN PAKISTAN
• After the Panama Papers came out in 2016, it took more than
a year for the judiciary to accept any cases and subsequent
proceedings against Nawaz Sharif.
• The final verdict that came out in July 2017 which asked the
removal of Nawaz Sharif from the office would not have been
possible had there not been a series of protests by the
political parties and uproar from the public.
• Even after being removed from office, Nawaz Sharif started
his own rallies stating that the judiciary made baseless
allegations against him of corruption and has absolutely no
evidence.

13. RECENT EXAMPLES OF LACK OF RULE
OF LAW IN PAKISTAN
• In early September 2017, the Benazir Bhutto
assassination case was put to rest after nearly nine
years.
• The verdict was opposed as the people believed it was
in no way just or fair. The time span over which both
these cases were dragged on show that the judicial
system of Pakistan is not fully independent.
• There are external factors that play a major role in the
way things end up; especially government officials.

14. CONCLUSION
• In Pakistan, which is mostly considered as a lawless
country, judges are either bought or sacked whilst
providing justice. These actions have led people to
believe that there are people and institutions that are
somehow ‘above the law’.
• Complete judicial independence in Pakistan, without any
sort of interference, seems to be a far-fetched idea.
Judicial independence is important whether the judge is
dealing with a civil or a criminal case.
• Individuals involved in any kind of case before the courts
need to be sure that the judge dealing with their case
cannot be influenced by an outside party or by the
judge’s own personal interests.

15. THANK YOU
A PRESENTATION BY SHARIQ VOHRA & ALI HAFEEZ