Off-the-cuff remarks from judges during court proceedings have once more attracted the ire of Parliament.
While hearing a petition seeking a halt to the conduct of the 2025 CSS exams until the results of last year’s exams are released, Islamabad High Court’s Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani reportedly said “the judiciary, parliament, and executive have all collapsed.” In a sharp reaction, National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq condemned the remarks, describing them as an “attack” on Parliament. He urged the law minister to take up the matter, asserting no one has the right to cast aspersions on the legislative body.
Pakistan is no stranger to judges’ remarks sparking controversy, particularly if those comments appear to overstep the judiciary’s mandate. Such incidents, including criticisms of Parliament, have often sparked tensions between the pillars of the state. At times, the remarks do not align with the final verdicts, leading to public confusion and criticism. A recent example is a two-member bench’s indication of seeking contempt charges against fellow judges of the Supreme Court before forwarding the matter for further consideration to the Chief Justice of Pakistan.
The controversy over remarks primarily stems from media coverage, which highlights controversial statements, amplifying tensions between state institutions. This is not a new occurrence. In 2012, Human Rights Watch criticized Pakistani judges for using contempt of court powers to prevent media from airing programming critical of the judiciary despite reportage relying on reported remarks.
The prevailing situation underscores the delicate balance required between judicial independence and its interactions with other state organs. While judges have the prerogative to express their views during proceedings, these remarks must remain measured and pertinent to the case at hand. Unwarranted comments can lead to perceptions of bias, undermine public confidence in the judiciary, and strain relationships with other state institutions.
Similarly, parliamentarians should exercise restraint when responding to such remarks. Publicly challenging the judiciary can erode the separation of powers enshrined in the constitutional framework and lead to institutional conflicts.
Maintaining the sanctity of Pakistan’s separation of powers necessitates restraint and mutual respect from both judges and parliamentarians. By adhering to their defined roles and refraining from overstepping boundaries, these institutions can ensure a harmonious balance of power, uphold the rule of law, and serve the nation’s best interests.