This is apropos this writer’s two back-to-back letters carried by the newspaper on Wednesday and Thursday. I would further argue that in the area of, “Absence of Corruption”, Pakistan scores 0.28, ranking 133rd. This low score highlights pervasive corruption within the judicial system, significantly undermining its credibility and effectiveness. (Internal) The “Open Government” parameter, which measures transparency and access to information, shows a score of 0.34, with Pakistan ranking 120th.
This reflects substantial deficiencies in making laws and government data accessible to the public. (External). For “Fundamental Rights”, Pakistan scores 0.32, ranking 126th. This indicates considerable issues with protecting basic human rights and freedoms.
(External) The country’s highest score is in “Order and Security”, where it achieves a score of 0.50, ranking 90th. While this is relatively better, it still indicates substantial room for improvement in ensuring public safety and security. (Internal) Regulatory Enforcement receives a score of 0.30, placing Pakistan at 123rd. This low score reflects challenges in effectively implementing and enforcing regulations. (External)
In terms of “Civil Justice”, Pakistan scores 0.35, ranking 128th. This shows significant barriers in resolving civil disputes efficiently and fairly. (Internal) The “Criminal Justice” parameter scores 0.34, with a rank of 125th, highlighting issues in the fairness, effectiveness, and integrity of the criminal justice system.(Internal).
These facts and figures undermine the government’s rationale for implementing sweeping changes in the judiciary without addressing other critical factors. Assuming that the judiciary can be reformed in isolation, while ignoring the pervasive issues in corruption, economic freedom, human development, and press freedom, might be an oversimplification.
It is crucial to recognize that these systemic issues are interlinked and require comprehensive reforms across multiple sectors to achieve meaningful improvements. This study also proves that comments of the government, political parties, media, and analysts on judiciary’s low ranking in isolation are highly misplaced. They may inadvertently convey a distorted view of the judiciary to their listeners, viewers, or followers.
Their arguments would carry more weight if they compared the judiciary’s performance with other state pillars such as good governance and legislative parameters, which are also dismal. One low-performing institution, such as the executive, legislature, or media, cannot justifiably blame another pillar for its shortcomings. This is particularly unfair as the judiciary, by its nature, cannot defend itself against every accusation, whether serious or frivolous, in the media or through other means.
Such baseless and out-of-context charges could one day compel the Supreme Court to use its exclusive jurisdiction under Article 184 to summon those who are degrading, insulting, and blaming the judiciary for inefficiency and systematic defects.
This could lead to those individuals tendering unconditional apologies to the Superior Judiciary, similar to recent cases involving Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal. Addressing systemic issues across all state pillars is crucial for holistic improvement, rather than singling out the judiciary alone.
Qamar Bashir
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024