Get Alerts
Judicial independence is one of the foundations of constitutional democracy. Courts are expected to keep governments within the boundaries of law, protect fundamental rights, and review executive action. Yet the institution responsible for checking political power is itself vulnerable to political influence. That creates the central paradox of judicial independence: if courts guard the Constitution, who guards the courts?
In Pakistan, this question has become increasingly urgent following constitutional changes that have reshaped the structure of the superior judiciary. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment altered the judicial appointment process and introduced constitutional benches, while the Twenty-Seventh Amendment established a Federal Constitutional Court and significantly reorganised constitutional adjudication. These reforms have revived an important question: when does judicial reform strengthen the system, and when does it weaken judicial independence?
Parliament undoubtedly possesses the formal power to amend the Constitution. The more difficult question is whether that power can be used to restructure the judiciary in a manner that reduces its ability to scrutinise political power. This goes directly to the principles of separation of powers, constitutional supremacy, and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Judicial independence is also more than simply freedom from political interference. It includes institutional independence, decisional independence, and financial and administrative autonomy. A court may formally appear independent while its appointments, case assignments, resources, or jurisdiction are increasingly shaped by political considerations.
The problem arises when reform makes the judiciary more dependent on the very political institutions it is expected to scrutinise
The appointments process is particularly important. If political institutions acquire excessive influence over who becomes a judge, judicial independence can be compromised before a single constitutional case is heard. Similarly, if judges fear removal, transfer, disciplinary action, or institutional consequences because of politically inconvenient decisions, constitutional guarantees of independence become little more than words on paper.
This is where the distinction between judicial reform and judicial capture becomes important. Judicial reform is not inherently wrong. Pakistan’s courts face genuine problems of delay, inefficiency, and institutional dysfunction. Reform can therefore be necessary. The problem arises when reform makes the judiciary more dependent on the very political institutions it is expected to scrutinise.
This can happen without suspending the Constitution or removing judges outright. It can happen through legal and constitutional restructuring. Courts remain open, judges continue to issue judgments, and rights remain formally protected, while the institutional balance gradually shifts. This is the danger of legal capture: political influence can be embedded within the legal framework itself.
The basic structure doctrine becomes relevant here. If certain fundamental features of the constitutional order cannot be destroyed through amendment, judicial independence raises a difficult question. Can constitutional review remain meaningful if the political majority can restructure the judiciary whenever judicial scrutiny becomes inconvenient?
The answer should not be based on the assumption that every judicial reform is an attack on independence. Courts are not above accountability. Judges are unelected, and their power cannot be unlimited. Judicial overreach is a legitimate concern, and accountability through transparent appointments, ethical standards, reasoned judgments, disciplinary mechanisms, and appellate review is necessary.
But accountability and political control are not the same thing. A judge who engages in misconduct should face consequences. A judge who violates professional standards should be disciplined. Yet a judge should not face institutional retaliation simply because a decision is unpopular with the government of the day.
The same balance is necessary in judicial appointments. Some democratic participation in appointments may be justified, but excessive political control creates a serious risk. If judges believe their tenure, future appointments, or institutional position depend upon remaining in the favour of political actors, independence may survive in form while disappearing in substance.
Ultimately, judicial independence does not exist to protect judges from democracy. It exists to protect democracy from the concentration of power. Parliament makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets and enforces constitutional limits. None should exercise unchecked authority over the others.
This matters because judicial independence protects citizens, not merely judges. A citizen whose rights have been violated needs an institution capable of hearing the claim without fear or favour. A political minority needs protection when a temporary majority decides that constitutional limits are inconvenient. Without an independent judiciary, constitutional rights risk becoming promises that governments can choose whether to honour.
Pakistan therefore needs to ask a narrower and more difficult question. Not whether the judiciary should be reformed, but when judicial reform becomes judicial control.
A reform that improves efficiency while preserving the judiciary’s ability to independently scrutinise government action can strengthen constitutional democracy. A reform that makes constitutional adjudication dependent upon political preference does the opposite, regardless of how constitutionally valid it may appear.
The real measure of judicial independence is not whether courts exist or whether judges are formally described as independent. It is whether the judiciary retains the institutional capacity to tell the government “no” when it exceeds its authority.
So, who guards the guardians?
No single institution can do so. Judicial independence ultimately depends on constitutional safeguards, transparent appointments, meaningful accountability, institutional checks, and professional integrity. Above all, it requires a political culture willing to accept that no government stands above the Constitution.
Because when judicial independence disappears, it is not only judges who lose their freedom. Citizens lose their last independent forum against power.
The author is an LLB hons student at the University of London
The Friday Times is Pakistan’s first independent weekly, founded in 1989.TFT offers a diverse range of perspectives on national and international issues.
Copyright ©2026 The Friday Times. All Rights Reserved.
Leave a Reply