Top members of the Bar and Bench have repeatedly confessed in the media that true justice and independence has not trickled down from the higher judiciary to the lower following the lawyers movement. Pressure tactics of various kinds are routinely seen in decision-making, blemishing the image of judiciary at that level. In other words, justice is still limping in the same way as it did before March 13, 2007 - the day the lawyers' movement took the first step for reformation. The Raymond Davies case brought up two important points to surface:
1. It confirmed that the lower judiciary still works under pressure-political or otherwise. The session judge of the lower court would not have gone on sudden leave after pronouncing the judgement had he been independent in his decision.
2. The higher judiciary may not be as independent, as we are given the impression. Reason? Why the LHC transferred a very high-profile case of Raymond Davis to the lower court, knowing fully well that the lower judiciary has not yet reformed to the standards of the high judiciary. Will it be fair to say that the higher judiciary passed the buck of responsibility to the lower judiciary for the reasons that the lower judiciary is allegedly accused of?