Judicial Infighting and the Erosion of Credibility in Pakistan’s Supreme Court

 The recent public spat within Pakistan’s Supreme Court has raised alarm at a time when the country is grappling with multiple crises. At the heart of the issue lies the deterioration of decorum within the judiciary—an institution that is meant to stand above the fray, serve as a symbol of impartiality, and uphold justice. Yet, instead of resolving their disputes through formal judgments, senior judges have taken the uncharacteristic step of airing their grievances publicly, creating an atmosphere of infighting that is severely undermining the court’s credibility.

A Crisis of Leadership

The spotlight has naturally fallen on the Chief Justice, who has been at the center of much of the criticism. His perceived shift in stance on key issues, particularly before and after taking office, has led many to question his leadership. However, laying the blame solely on his shoulders is neither fair nor entirely accurate. The current turmoil is a collective failure, with senior judges also responsible for the deterioration in the court’s integrity. For instance, the recent exchange between the senior puisne judge and the Chief Justice over the exclusion of another judge from an important apex committee, which made its way into the public domain, should have been handled discreetly. By taking their differences to the public, the judges have only exacerbated the situation, fueling further division and adding to the perception of internal strife.

Weakening Judicial Authority

The consequences of this judicial discord go far beyond mere internal conflict. In an already fragile political and institutional landscape, the Supreme Court’s authority has come under significant threat. With public confidence in the judiciary already strained, these public displays of division only weaken its power further. It also sets a dangerous precedent, where the government and other state institutions may feel emboldened to challenge or ignore the court’s decisions. The recent refusal by the government to implement a court decision regarding reserved seats serves as a stark reminder of how this infighting is being used to undermine the judiciary.

If the judiciary cannot present a united front, it risks becoming a weakened entity susceptible to outside interference and influence. The role of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is to act as a check on executive and legislative powers, but if the public perceives the judges as divided and compromised, that vital function is jeopardized.

Lessons from the Past

This internal strife within the judiciary is not without precedent. The turmoil recalls the tenure of former Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, whose downfall in the 1990s was precipitated by persistent discord within the ranks of the court. The parallels between then and now are unsettling, though the situation today is still in its early stages. However, without prompt and decisive action to resolve these internal disputes, there is a genuine risk that the judiciary could face a similar crisis. This time, with the added complexities of a volatile political environment, the stakes are even higher.

A Call for Unity

The judiciary’s survival hinges on its ability to act as a cohesive unit, prioritizing the institution over individual egos. The responsibility for restoring the court’s authority lies with its senior judges, who must recognize that their public squabbling only serves to erode the very institution they have sworn to protect. If they fail to come together, the consequences could be far-reaching—not just for the judiciary, but for Pakistan’s entire legal and political framework.

There is still time for the court to heal its wounds. The judges must settle their differences privately and find a way to work together, not just for the sake of their institution, but for the greater good of the nation. Only by acting with wisdom, restraint, and a commitment to justice can the Supreme Court regain its lost stature and continue to play its critical role in Pakistan’s democracy.

The path to restoring trust and authority is clear: internal unity, careful deliberation, and a firm resolve to uphold the law. If the judges can embrace these principles, the judiciary may emerge stronger from this crisis.