Constitutional Courts: Need For Swift Justice In Pakistan – OpEd
Pakistan’s judicial system is facing a severe crisis. With over 55,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court, delays in justice are becoming the norm, not the exception. In this context, the establishment of constitutional courts in Pakistan is not just a matter of judicial reform; it is a necessity for ensuring swift justice and maintaining the integrity of the legal system.
Constitutional courts exist in countries like Germany, Russia, Italy, France, and the United States, where they have a clear purpose: to interpret the constitution, resolve inter-institutional disputes, and protect citizens’ fundamental rights. The concept of constitutional courts is deeply embedded in the idea of specialized judicial bodies that focus solely on constitutional issues, providing clarity and consistency in how the constitution is applied across different legal and governmental frameworks.
In Pakistan, the Supreme Court is currently burdened with cases that go beyond constitutional matters, causing an immense backlog and slowing down the legal process. The establishment of a constitutional court could significantly alleviate this burden, allowing the Supreme Court to focus on non-constitutional issues while the new court handles cases related to constitutional interpretation, fundamental rights, and inter-institutional conflicts. This division of labor would undoubtedly improve the overall efficiency of the judiciary.
One of the most important benefits of having constitutional courts is specialization. The judiciary in Pakistan currently handles a wide range of cases, from civil to criminal, family law to human rights issues. While the judges of the Supreme Court are undoubtedly capable, the lack of specialization in constitutional matters can sometimes lead to inconsistent interpretations and slower resolution of cases. Constitutional courts, by contrast, are composed of judges who are experts in constitutional law. These judges are more equipped to deal with complex constitutional matters, ensuring that decisions are made based on a deep understanding of the legal framework. This level of expertise is crucial when it comes to interpreting the constitution, as it ensures consistency and prevents the judiciary from making contradictory rulings on fundamental issues.
Another critical advantage of constitutional courts is their ability to protect the judiciary from political interference. In Pakistan, the judiciary has often been drawn into political conflicts, with political actors using legal cases to undermine their opponents. This politicization of the judiciary not only undermines the independence of the courts but also erodes public confidence in the legal system. A constitutional court, by focusing solely on constitutional matters, would be better positioned to remain impartial and independent. These courts are designed to resolve disputes between different branches of government, ensuring that no single institution can overstep its constitutional limits. By acting as a check on the executive and legislative branches, constitutional courts can safeguard the rule of law and protect citizens’ rights from political manipulation.
In countries like Pakistan, where the boundaries between different branches of government are often blurred, the establishment of constitutional courts could help resolve inter-institutional disputes. Whether it is a conflict between the executive and judiciary or between the federal and provincial governments, a constitutional court would serve as an impartial arbitrator, ensuring that disputes are resolved based on constitutional principles rather than political expediency.
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan, a vocal advocate of Western democratic values, has often praised the legal and political systems of countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. However, despite his admiration for these countries, Khan has not publicly supported the establishment of constitutional courts in Pakistan, a cornerstone of the judicial systems in many Western democracies.
This raises an important question: why oppose the creation of constitutional courts in Pakistan when they have proven to be so effective in protecting democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights in other countries? Khan’s stance seems contradictory, given his frequent criticism of political interference in Pakistan’s judiciary. If anything, the establishment of constitutional courts would align perfectly with his vision of a stronger, more independent judiciary.
The establishment of constitutional courts in Pakistan is not just a reform; it is an urgent necessity. With a growing backlog of cases, political interference, and inter-institutional disputes threatening the integrity of the legal system, constitutional courts offer a practical solution to these problems. By focusing solely on constitutional matters, these courts would improve judicial performance, protect fundamental rights, and ensure that the government operates within the boundaries of the constitution.
Pakistan’s democracy can only be strengthened by such a move, ensuring that justice is delivered swiftly and impartially. The time has come for Pakistan to join other democracies in establishing a constitutional court, for the benefit of its people and the preservation of the rule of law.
