Pakistan’s Judicial Commission is at the center of a contentious debate over proposed amendments to its rules, aimed to overhaul its process of appointing judges to our superior courts. In a system fraught with allegations of favoritism and opaque procedures, it is becoming increasingly clear why there is a pressing need for reform.

In the most recent meeting of the JCP, the aim of injecting transparency was discussed, with the proposition that the unilateral power wielded by the CJ and HC be diluted. Bar councils and judiciary members, however, argued for the necessity of clear criteria for appointment, advocating for a collaborative selection process. On the other hand, some justices argue against amendments, arguing that parliamentary procedures are too time-consuming. How this debate unfolds is yet to be seen, but either way, reform is still imperative. We are no strangers to dissent within the judiciary, as exemplified by Justice Shaukat Siddiqui’s removal seven years ago. The former justice’s restoration to full judge status with retirement benefits by Zardari merely placed a band-aid on a leaking wound. Interference from non-democratic forces is still a reality, and despite the restoration, it is imperative that we place institutional safeguards against arbitrary removals and political influence on judicial decisions.

Even individuals like Imran Khan continue to add to the immense pressure our judiciary is under at the moment, making all kinds of demands from Adiala jail, urging the judiciary to expedite the proceedings for him and his wife, whilst also calling for the release of “innocent imprisoned workers”. These unreasonable demands are not surprising anymore, given how much they resonate with a populace disillusioned by perceived injustice within our legal system.

The judiciary is clearly in a precarious position here, but CJ Qazi Faez Isa has the opportunity to be a pivotal figure in navigating these waters and restoring integrity to a fractured system. The goals are clear – enhancing accountability, transparency, and independence within the judicial apparatus. All that is left now is to foster dialogue among the stakeholders involved and spearhead initiatives for procedural clarity. Perhaps after this ordeal is over, we can once again regain some confidence in our judiciary’s impartiality and efficacy.