On November 5, Chief Justice Yahya Afridi of Pakistan’s Supreme Court will convene the first session of the newly reconstituted Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). This inaugural meeting, following the passing of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, marks a significant juncture, as the JCP will consider reforms in the appointment of constitutional benches and discuss the establishment of a dedicated Judicial Commission Secretariat. Among the attendees are some of Pakistan’s most senior judges, including Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, and Aminuddin Khan. The commission also includes high-profile representatives from both government and opposition, reflecting a newfound balance that the amendment has sought to inject into judicial affairs.
With the 26th Amendment, Pakistan’s Judicial Commission now includes five parliamentary representatives—two from the National Assembly, two from the Senate, and one female technocrat appointed from outside Parliament. This structural overhaul introduces equal representation from both ruling and opposition parties, in theory aligning judicial nominations more closely with broader legislative scrutiny. However, the amendment has not been without its detractors. Critics argue that it compromises judicial independence, a concern echoed internationally by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), which has expressed apprehension about the potential impact on the functioning of Pakistan’s judiciary.
Pakistan’s political culture often reduces complex reforms to partisan skirmishes, where governance takes a backseat to short-term political maneuvering. Although reservations about the amendment are valid, it is equally true that Pakistan’s judicial system has long required modernization, transparency, and reform to ensure its credibility both domestically and internationally. The inclusion of parliamentary representatives within the JCP is a step—albeit tentative—toward an institutional accountability that may ultimately be beneficial. Furthermore, including opposition members in the commission tempers concerns over undue influence, lending some credibility to the claim that both sides of the political spectrum have a voice.
Encouragingly, Chief Justice Afridi has already initiated a series of reform efforts, particularly in prison administration—a sector where Pakistan faces acute challenges, particularly in Punjab. In a recent consultation, Chief Justice Afridi underscored the urgency of addressing Pakistan’s overcrowded and under-resourced prison system. This move follows his establishment of a subcommittee dedicated to inspecting Punjab’s prisons and formulating actionable recommendations for improvement. The issues plaguing these institutions are emblematic of the broader challenges facing Pakistan’s justice system: systemic inefficiencies, inadequate resources, and a general disregard for equitable treatment under the law.
This amendment is not a panacea for the complex web of issues facing Pakistan’s judiciary. However, it signals the beginning of a reformative wave that should be embraced with caution, diligence, and foresight. Rather than rushing headlong into a new era of judicial oversight, Pakistan must tread carefully to preserve the autonomy and integrity of its courts while embracing constructive changes that enhance judicial accountability. As Chief Justice Afridi spearheads these initiatives, there is hope that his leadership will not only strengthen the functioning of the JCP but also address deeper-rooted judicial reforms that are crucial to Pakistan’s democratic health and public trust in its institutions.
