- By: Barrister Usman Ali (Ph.D.)
Pakistan’s judiciary has long lived under the shadow of controversial verdicts, pressure from the powerful, and political loyalties. Today, judges are remembered less for their rulings than for their speeches and soundbites. Sometimes they stand with dictators; other times they present themselves as defenders of democracy. This double standard has damaged the judiciary’s credibility and eroded public trust. The question is: when will the nation see real justice?
From its earliest days, the judiciary bowed before military rulers. It legitimized unconstitutional martial laws, turning black into white, and allowed dictators to govern for decades. Only a handful of judges ever resisted pressure and delivered rulings above fear or temptation.
In recent years, a troubling trend has grown: judges stepping into the role of politicians in robes. Verdicts often reflect personal or family loyalties, while popularity is earned not in courts but through seminars, media appearances, and letters. Some echo the government’s line, others parrot the opposition. At bar councils and conferences, their speeches often sound more like political rallies. Craving applause, they find validation on television screens and social media feeds.
The public sees through this contradiction. One day a judge thunders about constitutional supremacy; the next day, he falls silent. Sometimes he closes his eyes to injustice, only to reappear as a self-styled champion of rights.
History is filled with such double standards. In the Maulvi Tamizuddin Case, the judiciary upheld the dissolution of the assembly, striking the first blow to democracy. In the Nusrat Bhutto Case, General Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law was given constitutional cover. In the Zafar Ali Shah Case, General Musharraf’s coup was legitimized. These rulings show how judicial conscience bends with the political wind.
Take the example of one judge, famous for fiery speeches. At a seminar, he declared: “As a judge, I never understood how General Zia-ul-Haq, in uniform, could give an interview to a British broadcaster.” Yet the same judge had no difficulty supporting Musharraf—the general who toppled an elected government and ruled in uniform for eight years. At the time, this judge, then a lawyer, was one of Musharraf’s loudest defenders and even accepted a ministerial post. The gap between words and deeds could not be clearer.
Such judges, like others, were drawn repeatedly into establishment schemes against democracy, accepting posts during dictatorships and enjoying the favor of the powerful. Pakistan’s tragedy is that those who rise with the establishment’s blessing later rebrand themselves as the loudest voices for democracy and human rights.
Their appointments were often no cleaner. At times they were elevated through patronage, at others by sidelining more senior colleagues. When a fellow judge was dismissed for criticizing military interference, today’s “revolutionary” judge stayed silent, because his own promotion was tied to that dismissal. Their rise, it seemed, owed as much to politics as to merit.
Even in their tenure, justice for the opposition often stalled. Bail applications dragged on for months, trials moved at a snail’s pace. Yet their pointed remarks in court grabbed headlines and turned them into heroes. The contradiction persisted: sharp words against the powerful, but advancement through those very same powers.
This double standard has become a pattern. Judges condemn one dictator fiercely but fall silent before another. They denounce one disputed election but certify the next as “free and fair” despite blatant rigging. The public has grown wise: these fiery speeches are driven less by principle than by personal interests and political alignments.
The time has come to end this charade. If the judiciary truly wants dignity, it will not come through grandstanding or letters. Judges must sit together and frame a strict code of conduct: no politics, no media appearances, no public interviews or speeches. For a time, the courts should impose a self-blackout, no daily tickers, no political observations. Judges should speak only through their verdicts, and those verdicts must be clear, impartial, and just.
For the future, the principle must be firm: only non-political and impartial individuals should be elevated to the bench. Any judge found dabbling in politics, corruption, or partisanship should be removed immediately. Only then will people believe the judiciary is truly an institution of justice, not a shield for the powerful.
But responsibility does not rest with the judiciary alone. Politicians and the establishment must abandon the “my judge, your judge” mindset. They must stop rewarding judges who bend to please them. If politicians refrain from corruption, avoid vendettas, keep disputes out of courts, and end the lure of post-retirement jobs for judges, conditions will improve. The wasted years cannot be recovered, but the survival of future generations is still at stake. Otherwise, the cycle will never end, and politics will remain trapped in the same old game: this judge is mine, that one is yours.
This is a defining moment. Either the judiciary and politics together change course and restore institutional dignity, or they will forever stand in the dock of history.
The nation needs judges of decisions, not of speeches, because history remembers verdicts, not statements.
And if justice remains imprisoned in rhetoric, history will not forgive the judiciary.