ISLAMABAD:
The country’s top judge played host to some unusual guests at his residence last week, first meeting with executive officials and later conferring with the key opposition party to seek their input on the judicial reform agenda, among other matters — sparking debate over the judiciary’s role in political affairs and the implications of such engagements.
In the curious turn of events, Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Yahya Afridi not only waded into politically charged waters but also reportedly counselled the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to stay within the system and shun boycotts – advice that comes as PTI and other opposition parties gear up for an anti-government push.
Political experts have described the development as unprecedented, noting that previous chief justices have also attempted to “fix the system” despite it being beyond their constitutional mandate. They argue that engaging with a select group of political representatives was an unwise move and question whether the chief justice will now extend the same opportunity to other political parties.
In the first meeting, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had requested CJP for expeditious disposal of tax-related cases on merit as, as of January 2025, as many as 33,522 cases worth Rs4.7 trillion are currently pending nationwide in various courts and tribunals.
Though the executive’s meeting with the top judge went smoothly, PTI somewhat grilled CJP by telling him it doesn’t recognize the 26th Amendmentthe very amendment that paved the way for CJP’s appointment and urged him to decide petitions regarding the 26th Amendment first, refrain from ‘court packing’, put his house in order, and do not become an accomplice against PTI.
Referring to recent letters and petitions of Supreme Court and Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges pertaining to the 26th Amendment and seniority of high court’s judges, respectively, as well as the alleged role of spy agencies, the PTI delegation had gone on to say that it was CJP’s responsibility to fix things in his own backyard.
PTI had also briefed CJP in detail about how PTI founder Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, were being treated unfairly and urged him to ensure the rule of law and the Constitution in the country instead of allowing the judiciary to become an accomplice against PTI.
“Many past CJPs remained under the illusion that they had a much greater role to fix the national problems beyond the role assigned to them by the Constitution,” the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT), Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, said.
The PILDAT chief argued that previous CJPs had also attempted to take on broader responsibilities but it didn’t lead to anything meaningful. “CJPs tried to assume the role but judges are neither cut out for that role nor our constitution defines such a role for judges or CJP,” Mehboob said.
To the questions about how things have played up in SC and IHC in the past few weeks, Mehboob said that “it was not a very wise move for CJP to meet PM and PTI delegation led by Leader of the Opposition,” saying “it was unnecessary, against the past practices and potentially counterproductive.”
In addition, he said, “CJP unnecessarily exposed himself to the political narrative of PTI.” He further added that it will be difficult for CJP now if other political parties also ask to be heard.
Professor Tahir Naeem Malik of NUML University opined that CJP’s newly-assumed role of meeting political parties was unprecedented as none invited and met political parties to discuss political, judicial and other issues in the past few decades.
“CJP stepping out of his institutional role and trying to resolve political crisis can be interpreted in different ways but simple truth makes sense: it’s not his job to meet a select few political parties, assure them to resolve their grievances and then later on decide their cases,” Professor Malik said.
