Qamar Bashir
The government, analysts, thinkers, and media persons have been criticizing the judiciary for incompetency, chronic delays in deciding cases, indecisiveness, and political bias. To validate their claims, they often refer to the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index-2023, where Pakistan’s judiciary ranks 129th out of 140 countries. Within the South Asian region, Pakistan’s judiciary is second last, just above Afghanistan.
Before delving into the judiciary’s dismal ranking, it is important to examine whether its performance aligns with other significant national performance metrics. A closer look reveals that the judiciary’s performance is indeed in step with other rankings. For instance, in the Corruption Perceptions Index, Pakistan ranks 133rd out of 180 countries, highlighting pervasive corruption issues. Similarly, in the Economic Freedom Index, the country is ranked 152nd out of 178, indicating severe constraints on economic freedoms. The Human Development Index places Pakistan at 154th out of 189, reflecting poor outcomes in health, education, and income.
Additionally, Pakistan struggles with press freedom, ranked 145th out of 180 countries, and faces significant security concerns, ranking 150th out of 163 in the Global Peace Index.
According to the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) by the World Bank, Pakistan performs poorly across various dimensions of governance, including political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, and control of corruption. In the Chandler Good Government Index (CGGI) 2024, which evaluates the capabilities and effectiveness of 113 governments, Pakistan also ranks near the bottom.
Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) in its 2023 ranking was downgraded by 11 places in global ranking making it the biggest regression in the Asian region — its score falling to 3.25, which downgraded it from ‘hybrid regime’ to ‘authoritarian regime.
These rankings collectively indicate systemic inefficiencies and challenges across various domains, suggesting that the judiciary’s performance is consistent with broader national issues.
To further analyze the issue, let us compare Pakistan’s performance with that of its immediate neighbor, India, which highlights the disparities and challenges. In the Rule of Law Index, India ranks 79th out of 139 countries, while Pakistan ranks 129th. On the Corruption Perceptions Index, India holds the 85th position out of 180 countries, whereas Pakistan is ranked 133rd. India’s superior rankings in economic freedom (121st out of 178, compared to Pakistan’s 147th), human development (132nd out of 189, compared to Pakistan’s 154th), and business environment (63rd out of 190, compared to Pakistan’s 147th) further illustrate the disparity between the two countries.
Now we are in a better position to dilate upon internal and external factors which are responsible for the low ranking of judiciary. The low international ranking of Pakistan’s judiciary is driven by both internal and external factors. The internal accounts for 45% of the impact including Corruption (20%), Inefficient judicial processes (10%), insufficient training for judges and court staff (10%) leads to subpar judicial decisions. Barriers to accessing justice (5%), such as high legal fees and complex procedures, also prevent many individuals from seeking legal recourse.
External factors, political interference (15%) compromises judicial independence. Inadequate resources and outdated infrastructure (10%) hinder efficient operations. Political instability (10%) and economic conditions (8%) that limit government support for the judiciary. Security concerns (5%), such as ongoing threats and internal conflicts, divert attention and resources away from necessary reforms and compromise judicial independence. Cultural and social attitudes towards corruption and the role of law (5%). Additionally, negative international perceptions and rankings (2%) impact foreign aid and investment, indirectly affecting judicial performance and reforms.
This comparison clearly reflects that the judiciary is responsible for 45% and the legislature and executive are responsible for another 45% of the low ranking of the judiciary. This implies that if external factors are addressed, the ranking could improve significantly, potentially rising from 129 to 69, which would be slightly better than India’s ranking of 79.
Let us dig deeper and try to understand the parameters used by the World Justice Project to judge countries’ performance in judiciary and peruse the ranking secured by our judiciary on each of the rankings.
The score of Pakistan for, “Constraints on Government Powers” stands at 0.38, placing Pakistan at 124th out of 140 countries. This indicates considerable limitations in the ability of the judiciary to check government authority. (External Factor)
In the area of, “Absence of Corruption”, Pakistan scores 0.28, ranking 133rd. This low score highlights pervasive corruption within the judicial system, significantly undermining its credibility and effectiveness. (Internal)
The “Open Government”parameter, which measures transparency and access to information, shows a score of 0.34, with Pakistan ranking 120th. This reflects substantial deficiencies in making laws and government data accessible to the public.(External)
For “Fundamental Rights”, Pakistan scores 0.32, ranking 126th. This indicates considerable issues with protecting basic human rights and freedoms. (External)
The country’s highest score is in “Order and Security”, where it achieves a score of 0.50, ranking 90th. While this is relatively better, it still indicates substantial room for improvement in ensuring public safety and security.(Internal)
Regulatory Enforcement receives a score of 0.30, placing Pakistan at 123rd. This low score reflects challenges in effectively implementing and enforcing regulations.(External)
In terms of “Civil Justice”, Pakistan scores 0.35, ranking 128th. This shows significant barriers in resolving civil disputes efficiently and fairly. (Internal)
The “Criminal Justice” parameter scores 0.34, with a rank of 125th, highlighting issues in the fairness, effectiveness, and integrity of the criminal justice system.(Internal).
These facts and figures undermine the government’s rationale for implementing sweeping changes in the judiciary without addressing other critical factors. Assuming that the judiciary can be reformed in isolation, while ignoring the pervasive issues in corruption, economic freedom, human development, and press freedom, might be an oversimplification. It is crucial to recognize that these systemic issues are interlinked and require comprehensive reforms across multiple sectors to achieve meaningful improvements.
This study also proves that comments of the government, political parties, media, and analysts on judiciary’s low ranking in isolation are highly misplaced. They may inadvertently convey a distorted view of the judiciary to their listeners, viewers, or followers. Their arguments would carry more weight if they compared the judiciary’s performance with other state pillars such as good governance and legislative parameters, which are also dismal. One low-performing institution, such as the executive, legislature, or media, cannot justifiably blame another pillar for its shortcomings. This is particularly unfair as the judiciary, by its nature, cannot defend itself against every accusation, whether serious or frivolous, in the media or through other means.
Such baseless and out-of-context charges could one day compel the Supreme Court to use its exclusive jurisdiction under Article 184 to summon those who are degrading, insulting, and blaming the judiciary for inefficiency and systematic defects. This could lead to those individuals tendering unconditional apologies to the Superior Judiciary, similar to recent cases involving Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal. Addressing systemic issues across all state pillars is crucial for holistic improvement, rather than singling out the judiciary alone.
Writer is Former Press Secretary to the President ,Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France ,Former MD, SRBC
