Over the course of the past few years, Pakistan’s judiciary has adopted an unusual and increasingly problematic tradition of penning letters to the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), though few believe the actual audience is anything but the common citizenry.
Ostensibly aimed at resolving internal issues or strengthening the institution, these letters serve little purpose apart from briefly capturing headlines and shaping public sentiment.
The primary culprit for the current trend is former CJP Qazi Faez Isa, who brought this practice into the limelight during his time as a judge of the Supreme Court. His letters, some open to the public and others addressed solely to the CJP, were as much political statements as judicial communications. They often carried high-minded language about the sanctity of the judiciary and the rule of law, with many seeing them as brave and necessary during a time of institutional turmoil and perceived executive overreach. In retrospect, however, they marked the beginning of a troubling precedent wherein judges feel it best to air all internal disputes in full public view rather than handling them through appropriate internal mechanisms.
Following Isa’s retirement, the letter-writing baton has passed to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, with notable additions by several judges of the Islamabad High Court. Uniting all their efforts is an attempt to wield the letters as a tool to signal virtue or claim victimhood. Defenders of the practice maintain these letters are not meant for public consumption, yet they inevitably get leaked—seemingly within minutes of having been penned—make headlines, are dissected on talk shows, and circulate widely on social media. The ultimate result is an erosion of the judiciary’s public image, increasingly rendering it less a sober, deliberative body and more a fractious political party conducting debates via press release.
The judiciary’s credibility rests heavily on the perception of impartiality and internal discipline. Public airing of grievances erodes that perception. Significantly, the substance of the letters rarely leads to meaningful reform. Issues such as corruption, interference, or institutional malaise are not resolved through op-eds masquerading as correspondence. Rather, the practice deepens divisions, encourages grandstanding, and invites political actors to exploit judicial rifts, creating a cycle of dysfunction.
Each new letter pushes the public to see the judiciary less as a guardian of justice and more just another arena for Pakistan’s endless power struggles. Ironically, many of these letters invoke the “sanctity of the judiciary” without recognizing that nothing undermines this more than public theater. Admittedly, the judiciary’s internal mechanisms for addressing internal grievances, such as the Supreme Judicial Council or closed-door deliberations, are imperfect. However, they preserve the dignity of the institution and bypassing them only weakens the collective authority of the bench.
This corrosive trend must end. Judges need to overcome the real issues plaguing their institution by pursuing quiet, disciplined reform. Justice is best served in the courtroom, not in the court of public opinion. Until this lesson is learned, every new letter will inevitably prove another nail in the coffin of judicial credibility.