Judicial Activism at the Cost of Separation of Power in Pakistan: A Comparison of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and Justice Saqib Nisar’s Era

Abstract

The study deals with the significant role of judicial activism in different eras in Pakistan. It examines the role of judicial institutions in damaging the democratic culture of the country. Since the independence of Pakistan, frequent military interventions were validated by the Superior Judiciary of Pakistan. The study discussed these landmark cases which dented the doctrine of Separation of Power in the county. The concept of judicial review has been originated and developed in Britain, and later reached the US in Marbury v. Madison. The history of Pakistan is marred by several instances of Judicial Activism, in which the jurisdiction of the judiciary encroached upon the domain of legislature and executive. In this study, the activism of populist Judges, Justice Iftikhar Chaurdhty and Justice Saqib Nisar has been compared. Their Judicial actions have been discussed in which the domain of the executive has been compromised. The populist actions of Judges dent the independence of the Judiciary and lead to judicial impartiality, as in several cases, different verdicts are observed in the same nature cases. The study concluded by establishing the link between Judicial activism and Separation of powers, as all organs of the states have constitutional limits to work within, The researchers also proposed some judicial reforms, that will maintain the sanctity of the Doctrine of Separation of Power while exercising Judicial Activism. Keywords: Judicial Activism, Separation of Power, Judicial Review in Pakistan, Judicial Reforms.

The Analysis of Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan regarding Cases is Pending or Decided by High Courts

“…This was the first instance using Article 184(3) of the Pakistani Constitution of 1973, notwithstanding the existence of a prior case, the Zebunisa case, which fell under a similar provision, Article 22 of the 1956 Constitution. The SCOP issued a logical ruling in the Manzoor Elahi case State (1975), stating that a petition filed under Article 184(3) should not be allowed as a routine practice while the issue is still being resolved in the High Court as per Article 199 (Amir, Muhammad, & Jan, 2022).…”