Pakistan's Rotten judiciary.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 

[khail007]

Early hours of morning, I listened this horrific murders committed by some savages. Alas, the print media on net is criminally ignoring.
Shame to the judiciary which granted bails to savages to facilitate the murder of five women ( of which two were expecting) and 03 children 03 more childen are wounded.
The judge who granted bail should also be booked in this case as complicit. This rotten judiciary is not above the law.

 

[xyx007]

Once the injustice rule on land, Allah perish the entire nation. We are witnesses, what happens to those nations before us.

 

[Chakar The Great]

When courts are bulldozed by military dictators like Musharaf who forced the Judges to take Oath on new constitutional ordinance, kept judges of higher judiciary under house arrests for months, imposes emergency suspending constitution , what do you expect from Judiciary??

Having said that Pakistan's higher judiciary and courts are much more Just and free-fair than neighbouring countries like India, Bangladesh.

 

[Imran Khan]

our judicial system is worse then even politics . sunday they have court to bail corrupt . cases against politicans finish in days and poor in decades . judges are all biased

 

[Enigma SIG]

This is because justice system is flawed. We should be bringing in a jury system.

 

[Pandora]

We have Matric pass as Judges on fake degrees so i wouldn't expect any less from these judicial jokers.

 

[niaz]

We have Matric pass as Judges on fake degrees so i wouldn't expect any less from these judicial jokers.

Sir,

For your kind info, there is a formal procedure for the appointment of judges in Pakistan.

Quote

This comment pertains to judicial appointments in Pakistan. It explains how the traditional or pre-18th Amendment process of appointing judges gave the judiciary clear dominance over regulating the appointment of judges. Consequently, this process lacked all the necessary checks and balances. The 18th Amendment attempted to change this state of affairs by giving the Parliament a role in judicial appointments by establishing two necessary bodies: the Judicial Commission and the Parliamentary Committee. However, subsequent legislative and judicial developments have reverted the situation to the pre-18th Amendment position.

INTRODUCTION
The question posed by the Roman poet Juvenal,‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’ (who will guard the guards?), finds resonance in the contemporary constitutional discourse in Pakistan on judicial appointment processes. The primary objection to the traditional appointment process of judges was that it essentially entailed judges appointing judges. The objection was particularly relevant in the case of the superior judiciary (the reference here is to the High Courts and the Supreme Court of Pakistan) where the only constitutional accountability process was also within the exclusive control of the judiciary. The process visibly lacked any checks and balances. As recently as 2010, the judiciary has quite jealously guarded its definite and ultimate control over regulating the entry of judges into (and, in one rare case, exit from) the judicial system.
An attempt was made to change the traditional model of appointments through the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (the ‘Constitution’). The intention of the 18th Amendment was to give the Parliament a role in the appointment of judges. In this comment, I examine the 18th Amendment and subsequent developments, both legislative and judicial, and argue that the situation, as it currently stands, has for all practical purposes returned to the pre-18thAmendment position.

PRE-18TH AMENDMENT PROCESS
The process of judicial appointments in the Constitution before the passage of the 18th Amendment was that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court recommended a panel to the President, who selected a suitable candidate from that panel. Similarly, for the appointment of judges in the High Courts, the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court forwarded a panel to the President which was channelled through the Governor of the Province and the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The pivotal role in the process was that of the Chief Justice of Pakistan as well as the provincial Chief Justices. In the famous 1996 ‘Judges’ Case’, the Supreme Court further curtailed the executive discretion of the President, almost to the point of making it entirely ineffectual.1 The Court held that the recommendations of the Chief Justice were ordinarily binding on the President, except where the President departed from the recommendations, in which case the reasons for his decision were justiciable.
Unquote.

Full article:
https://sahsol.lums.edu.pk/law-journal/judicial-appointments-pakistan-coming-full-circle

Judges are a part of our society and hence they prone to the prejudices & the bias prevailing in our society. One can criticize their judgments to one's heart's content, but to condemn the entire judiciary by pronouncing "We have Matric pass as Judges on fake degrees" is in my humble opinion going way 'Over the top'.

 

[HAIDER]

 

[Pandora]

Sir,

For your kind info, there is a formal procedure for the appointment of judges in Pakistan.

Quote

This comment pertains to judicial appointments in Pakistan. It explains how the traditional or pre-18th Amendment process of appointing judges gave the judiciary clear dominance over regulating the appointment of judges. Consequently, this process lacked all the necessary checks and balances. The 18th Amendment attempted to change this state of affairs by giving the Parliament a role in judicial appointments by establishing two necessary bodies: the Judicial Commission and the Parliamentary Committee. However, subsequent legislative and judicial developments have reverted the situation to the pre-18th Amendment position.

INTRODUCTION
The question posed by the Roman poet Juvenal,‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’ (who will guard the guards?), finds resonance in the contemporary constitutional discourse in Pakistan on judicial appointment processes. The primary objection to the traditional appointment process of judges was that it essentially entailed judges appointing judges. The objection was particularly relevant in the case of the superior judiciary (the reference here is to the High Courts and the Supreme Court of Pakistan) where the only constitutional accountability process was also within the exclusive control of the judiciary. The process visibly lacked any checks and balances. As recently as 2010, the judiciary has quite jealously guarded its definite and ultimate control over regulating the entry of judges into (and, in one rare case, exit from) the judicial system.
An attempt was made to change the traditional model of appointments through the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (the ‘Constitution’). The intention of the 18th Amendment was to give the Parliament a role in the appointment of judges. In this comment, I examine the 18th Amendment and subsequent developments, both legislative and judicial, and argue that the situation, as it currently stands, has for all practical purposes returned to the pre-18thAmendment position.

PRE-18TH AMENDMENT PROCESS
The process of judicial appointments in the Constitution before the passage of the 18th Amendment was that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court recommended a panel to the President, who selected a suitable candidate from that panel. Similarly, for the appointment of judges in the High Courts, the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court forwarded a panel to the President which was channelled through the Governor of the Province and the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The pivotal role in the process was that of the Chief Justice of Pakistan as well as the provincial Chief Justices. In the famous 1996 ‘Judges’ Case’, the Supreme Court further curtailed the executive discretion of the President, almost to the point of making it entirely ineffectual.1 The Court held that the recommendations of the Chief Justice were ordinarily binding on the President, except where the President departed from the recommendations, in which case the reasons for his decision were justiciable.
Unquote.

Full article:
https://sahsol.lums.edu.pk/law-journal/judicial-appointments-pakistan-coming-full-circle

Judges are a part of our society and hence they prone to the prejudices & the bias prevailing in our society. One can criticize their judgments to one's heart's content, but to condemn the entire judiciary by pronouncing "We have Matric pass as Judges on fake degrees" is in my humble opinion going way 'Over the top'.

There was a formal procedure for Aviation licensing as well but you know how that went for us. I know a person who passed through PMDC just bcz his father was a big wig. Some times people here seem to forget we are living in Pakistan.