For 78 years, millions have been denied justice, denied timely redress, trapped in poverty, crushed by delay, and stripped of dignity. If constitutionalism means anything, it must begin with Article 9. In our jurisprudence, “life” is not mere survival. It is access to justice, livelihood security, transparent governance, institutional efficiency, and human dignity. Applied as written, Article 9 can transform governance and enforce accountability. But that demands intellectual honesty, constitutional discipline, and a shift from institutional ego to public service.
A dangerous narrative now equates parliamentary authority with judicial independence. At the recent All-Pakistan Lawyers’ Convention, abstract appeals to judicial supremacy drowned out constitutional text. Pakistan needs an independent judiciary that operates strictly under the Constitution and delivers justice to the common citizen. The Constitution is supreme. Parliament legislates and amends, but only within a written constitutional order. Assaulting that authority through social media polemics, text-free doctrines, or jurisdictionally defective petitions confuses young lawyers, misleads the public, and erodes the rule of law.
The issue is not whether Parliament may amend the Constitution. It may. The issue is the legal effect of those amendments and whether the bar meets it with clarity. The deeper question is: what does judicial independence mean in practice, and how is it enforced? The 27th Amendment’s Article 239(5) is explicit that no court shall entertain any challenge to a constitutional amendment on any ground whatsoever. This clause overrides every other provision and precedent. Earlier rulings permitting structural or substantive challenges are extinguished. The amendment is now an immutable constitutional text. Any revision must come through political struggle, electoral accountability, and civic mobilisation—not litigation.
This is not interpretation; it is constitutional command. Denying it is not a principle; it is professional misdirection. For decades, superior court appointments lacked transparent, codified standards for eligibility, fitness, merit, and public accountability. The 18th Amendment created Article 175A. Clause (4) ordered the Commission to frame rules. That was a constitutional duty, not discretion. Yet the rules omitted substantive benchmarks for merit, competence, temperament, and arbitrariness. This was not an oversight. It was a structural failure that has defined appointments for over a decade.
The architecture for real independence was never built. Bar councils, associations, and senior practitioners stayed silent. They invoked “independence” as a ritual while ignoring the rigour, standards, and accountability needed to make it real. Independence is built through rules, enforced through discipline, and earned through public trust. The 26th Amendment required new appointment rules. They were never promulgated. The bar remained silent. Confusion infected the bench and bar, including Chief Justices. We pressed this through articles, letters, social media, and petitions.
A legal system that does not serve its citizens is not justice—it is delay
Three Chief Justices still sent nominee lists to the JCP. Only Justice Mansoor Ali Shah recognised that the old framework had collapsed the moment the 26th Amendment took effect. This chronic malaise—inefficiency, incompetence, anti-people inertia—still denies citizens justice. Only after Justice Shah’s 2 December 2024 objection did the JCP convene a committee. The rules adopted later that month relied on his framework, born of years of advocacy. The 27th Amendment now requires fresh adjustments. The bar is silent again. Yet many call themselves “practitioners of the Constitution”. Claiming independence while ignoring its rules is hypocrisy that fractures the judicial architecture.
Amendments now mandate annual performance evaluation of High Court judges. The bar has not used this to demand courtroom reform, transparent case allocation, or standard hearing protocols. Independence is not immunity from accountability. It is accountability through constitutional means. Courtroom practice routinely breaches Articles 9, 10A, 14, 25, and 199(2): judges cutting off counsel, refusing accurate order sheets, snubbing litigants, asking impulsive questions, imposing arbitrary schedules, hiding behind opacity, and ignoring the human cost of delay.
These are not anomalies. They are structural breakdowns. Independence cannot be divorced from the duty to deliver dignified, accessible justice. Real independence cannot survive manual files, opaque listings, and archaic procedures. Digitisation, real-time tracking, e-filing, and transparent scheduling are constitutional necessities. A judiciary without procedural transparency has no functional independence, however autonomous it may be from the executive or legislature.
The tragedy is not the amendment. It is the comprehension gap it revealed: petitions filed without jurisdiction, as with the 26th Amendment. The Constitutional Bench under Article 191A pushed beyond its mandate, asked to act as the Supreme Court and disqualify 26th Amendment judges. That collapses the separation of functions—arguments that merge institutions and mandates, courts asked to do what the Constitution forbids.
Even benches have asked counsel: “Show us the legal path.” Without constitutional grounding, advocacy is noise. While boundaries are debated, 78 years of failure shape daily life: justice delayed and denied, governance without transparency, power without accountability, and dignity without protection. If constitutional purpose matters, return to Article 9: the right to life. In our law, “life” includes access to justice and fair process, livelihood security and economic dignity, transparency and accountability in state conduct, institutional efficiency, and public trust—all human and constitutional rights as fundamental rights.
Enforced, Article 9 compels governance reform and institutional accountability. That requires honesty, discipline, and service over ego. Article 239(5) is the law. Changing it demands organised, sustained political struggle. The profession must respect litigation’s limits and focus on where change is possible. Simultaneously, humanise and modernise the system we run: real-time tracking, e-filing, standardised listing, and public hearing schedules to end arbitrary delay.
Align rules with the 27th Amendment; ensure transparent, merit-based appointments. Use annual evaluations to enforce courtroom efficiency, accurate record-keeping, and disciplined case management. Simplify procedure, cut costs, expand legal aid, and deliver justice to the poorest. These are duties, not slogans.
From rhetoric to responsibility, judicial independence is not the bench’s privilege. It is the people’s promise. It lives only when courts function transparently, accountably, and in strict fidelity to fundamental rights and constitutionalism. Pain, understood, becomes purpose. Turn this discomfort into a movement for constitutional clarity over rhetorical supremacy, judicial integrity over institutional fragmentation, and justice for the people over procedural posturing. A legal system that does not serve its citizens is not justice—it is delay. The time for clarity, discipline, and action is now.