Judiciary Under Siege: Pakistan Faces Crisis of Judicial Independence

Judiciary under siege: Rule of law or rule of men? Pakistan’s judiciary is once again at a crossroads, raising urgent questions about whether the country is governed by the rule of law or the rule of men. The crisis centers around Justice Sarfraz Dogar of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), who recently restrained fellow judge Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from performing judicial duties. Justice Jahangiri had earlier signed a letter alleging executive interference and also challenged Dogar’s transfer to the IHC. In response, five IHC judges approached the Supreme Court, terming it “a desperate measure of last resort.” Critics note that Justice Dogar’s order cites no legal basis. History shows that even during martial law regimes, presidents enacted specific laws before suspending judges. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that no judge can be restrained from judicial work except through constitutional removal. Meanwhile, lawyers protesting against Dogar’s actions faced FIRs under anti-terrorism laws, filed by Islamabad High Court Bar Association President Wajid Gilani — a move widely condemned as an abuse of power. The crisis highlights a dangerous trend: courageous judges being sidelined, executive-friendly rulings prioritized, and bar associations compromised. With judicial independence under siege, all eyes are now on the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Yahya Afridi to act decisively before institutional credibility collapses further.