SC Judge Expresses Frustration Over Pakistan’s Low Global Judicial Ranking

Global Judicial Ranking

ISLAMABAD: A seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, recently heard several important petitions, one of which involved concerns over Pakistan’s judiciary’s global ranking.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, who was part of the bench, expressed significant annoyance over the low global rankings of Pakistan’s judiciary, which have placed it at positions like 120th or 150th in different reports.

Justice Mandokhail questioned the origins of these rankings, emphasizing the lack of clarity around the figures. According to the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law index for 2024, Pakistan’s judiciary was ranked 129th out of 142 countries, marking a slight improvement from the previous year.

The bench, which also included Justices Ayesha Malik, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Naeem Afghan, heard several petitions during the session.

One petition raised the issue of litigants’ lack of access to the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that 90% of litigants faced significant obstacles in approaching the apex court.

However, Justice Mandokhail rebuffed the claim, pointing out that the petitioners were already being heard directly by the court and questioning what more access was required.

He expressed that such petitions only serve to undermine the credibility of the judicial institution. Ultimately, the bench dismissed this petition, citing it as unsubstantiated.

Another key petition involved the challenge against the recognition of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) as a parliamentary party.

The petitioner argued that the matter deserved further review, but Justice Mandokhail responded by highlighting that candidates have the right to join any political party of their choice, and that the court should not intervene in such constitutional matters. The bench upheld the objections raised by the Registrar’s Office and dismissed the petition.

Additionally, the bench heard a petition concerning the dismissal of government employees who were either unassigned or failed to fulfill their duties. Justice Ayesha Malik pointed out that the petitioner was essentially calling for the dismissal of all government employees without specifying individuals.

Justice Mandokhail, with sarcasm, asked if they were suggesting the dismissal of top officials like the president, prime minister, and parliament members. The petition was ultimately deemed inadmissible.

The bench also considered a petition asking for the establishment of time frames for the completion of trials in courts.

Justice Ayesha Malik noted that some laws already set time limits for certain cases, while other measures could be taken up with Parliament.

Justice Mandokhail reiterated that judicial operations must follow constitutional and legal limits. The petition was also dismissed as inadmissible.

In all the cases heard, the constitutional bench made it clear that many of the petitions fell outside the court’s jurisdiction and dismissed them accordingly.