The Judicial history of Pakistan begins with its independence in 1947. The Federal Court of Pakistan was established in October 1948. It was the highest court at that time. The court was created under the Government of India Act, 1935, which continued to be in effect after the partition until the new constitution was adopted. The Federal Court served as the highest court in the country until it was restructured and renamed the Supreme Court of Pakistan with the adoption of the 1956 Constitution. It formalized its role as the apex judicial authority in the nation. This transition marked a significant evolution in Pakistan's judicial framework because it began to develop its own identity separate from colonial influences.
Chief Justice Sir Abdul Rashid headed the initial judiciary. The early years focused on establishing legal frameworks and precedents. The first constitutional crisis emerged in 1954. The Maulvi Tamizuddin case validated the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. This decision established the "doctrine of necessity". The 1956 Constitution created the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Justice Muhammad Munir became influential in shaping early jurisprudence. His decisions often supported executive authority.
Pakistan’s early years were not so charming. The 1958 military coup brought new challenges. It was a decisive moment for the Judiciary to implement the supreme law of Pakistan with full force but the moment did not go well. The circumstances were not in favour of the democracy. The judiciary validated General Ayub Khan's martial law. Hence, this began a pattern of judicial validation of military interventions. The 1962 Constitution further centralized power. The judiciary's independence almost diminished. Executive influence over judicial appointments increased. The 1969 martial law under the command of General Yahya Khan received judicial support. The Supreme Court continued applying the doctrine of necessity. This weakened democratic institutions.
On the other hand, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's era saw judicial reforms. The 1973 Constitution strengthened the Supreme Court's position. However, executive interference continued. During Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's regime that lasted from 1971 to 1977, the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan faced significant challenges, particularly influenced by the political climate and Bhutto's governance style. Initially, Bhutto's government operated under a democratic framework, but it increasingly resorted to authoritarian measures, including the suppression of political opposition and the extension of emergency rule. This environment allowed for the manipulation of judicial processes to serve political ends.
One of the most notable events reflecting the compromised judiciary was the trial of Bhutto himself after he was ousted from power by General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in a military coup in July 1977. Following his arrest, Bhutto was tried for the murder of a political opponent namely Kasuri in a highly controversial trial. The trial took place in the Lahore High Court rather than a lower court, effectively denying him the right to appeal. The trial was marred by allegations of bias and external pressure on judges, with former Chief Justice Nasim Hasan Shah. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Bhutto's trial lacked due process and fairness, emphasizing that it was conducted under martial law conditions where fundamental rights were suspended.
The Nusrat Bhutto case in 1977 again validated martial law. Chief Justice Anwar-Ul-Haq cited the necessity doctrine. This decision deeply impacted Pakistan's legal history. Following the imposition of martial law by General Zia-Ul-Haq on September, 1977, former Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and several leaders of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) were arrested. In response to their detention, Nusrat Bhutto filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court. Her writ challenged the legality of the martial law and her husband's detention.
The Supreme Court's ruling in this case reaffirmed the Doctrine of Necessity which had been previously used to justify military interventions in Pakistan. The court held that Zia's imposition of martial law was a necessary response to what it deemed a deteriorating political situation. Thus It legitimized actions taken against Bhutto and his associates. The court ruled that since the Constitution was suspended, fundamental rights were also temporarily invalidated. It was meant that the court could not provide relief against the military's actions. This decision marked a pivotal moment in Pakistan's judicial history as it illustrated how the judiciary could be influenced by political circumstances and military authority.
Furthermore, the ruling drew a distinction from earlier cases, such as Asma Jilani vs Government of Punjab, where martial law was declared illegal. The Supreme Court justified its stance by arguing that the context in which Zia imposed martial law was different and warranted such an extraordinary measure. This case not only highlighted the judiciary's role in legitimizing military power but also set a precedent for future interactions between the judiciary and military regimes in Pakistan. It raised ongoing concerns about judicial independence and accountability within the political framework.
The 1980s saw increased Islamization of laws. The Federal Shariat Court (FSC) was established. This created a parallel judicial system. The Federal Shariat Court represented a pivotal development in the judicial history of Pakistan. It aimed at ensuring that the laws of the country conform to Islamic principles. Created under the Constitution of Pakistan, the FSC was initially formed as Shariat Benches in provincial High Courts before evolving into a full-fledged autonomous court. Its establishment was part of Zia's broader agenda of Islamization. The idea of Islamization sought to legitimize his military rule and divert attention from the political instability that characterized the period following his coup in 1977. The court has the authority to examine laws and determine their compliance with Sharia, thereby holding significant power over legislative processes. It consists of judges trained in both common law and Islamic jurisprudence, with a mandate to review existing laws and prevent the enactment of those deemed un-Islamic.
Democracy's return in 1988 brought judicial activism. The Supreme Court began asserting independence. Public interest litigation increased. The 1990s witnessed political instability. The judiciary played a crucial role in power transitions. Several governments faced judicial scrutiny. Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah's era brought conflict. The judiciary clashed with executive authority. This led to a judicial crisis in 1997. Musharraf's 1999 coup received initial judicial validation. The Supreme Court set a three-year deadline for elections. This showed growing judicial assertion. The 2007 Lawyer's Movement marked a turning point. Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry's suspension sparked protests. The legal community united for judicial independence. The movement succeeded in 2009. Judicial activism reached new heights. The Supreme Court frequently challenged executive decisions. The post-2009 era saw unprecedented judicial power. The Court disqualified Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani. It actively supervised government actions.
Chief Justice Saqib Nisar's tenure brought judicial populism. The Court intervened in administrative matters. This raised questions about judicial overreach. The Panama Papers case in 2017 proved historic. The Supreme Court disqualified Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. This demonstrated the judiciary's enhanced role. Recent years show continued judicial activism. The courts balance various interests. Political cases remain prominent. The judiciary faces ongoing challenges. Questions of independence persist. Political interference remains a concern. Appointment processes draw scrutiny. Judicial accountability debates continue. Reform proposals emerge regularly. Case backlogs remain problematic. The lower judiciary needs strengthening. Access to justice remains limited. The Supreme Court maintains significant influence. Its decisions shape national politics. Constitutional interpretations evolve.
The judicial history of Pakistan is marked by its evolution from colonial-era legal structures to an independent judiciary that has played a crucial role in shaping the country's governance, politics, and constitutional development. Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan’s judiciary has navigated complex political landscapes, facing periods of autonomy as well as challenges from executive and military interventions. Pakistan’s judiciary has played a dual role—at times upholding democratic principles and at others endorsing authoritarian rule. While it has shown resilience in certain periods, its independence has often been compromised due to political and military pressures. The future of Pakistan’s judiciary depends on its ability to maintain neutrality, uphold the rule of law, and resist external influences.
