JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN PAKISTAN: EVALUATING THE ROLE OF HIGH COURTS AND THE CONSERVATIVE STANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT

Abstract

This article critically examines judicial decision-making and judicial activism in Pakistan, focusing on whether High Court judges can be accused of activism and whether Supreme Court judges exhibit a more conservative approach. The discussion revolves around legal realism, judicial politicization, and the competing theories of judicial activism. The study explores the extent to which judicial activism acts as an effective check on executive power and contributes to safeguarding human rights. The role of judicial review, statutory interpretation, and suo motu actions is analyzed within the Pakistani legal framework. While High Court judges have been accused of overstepping their jurisdiction, the Supreme Court appears more restrained, particularly in cases involving military courts and executive decisions. The paper further evaluates the impact of judicial activism on Pakistan’s governance structure, including the executive, legislature, and judiciary. A comparative analysis of judicial activism in other legal systems highlights its controversial nature, showing that perceptions of activism vary based on ideological perspectives. The article concludes that while judicial activism in Pakistan has played a role in challenging executive overreach, its effectiveness remains inconsistent due to the Supreme Court’s conservative stance. This raises concerns about the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional protections, particularly in safeguarding fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan and international human rights treaties. The findings suggest a need for clearer judicial boundaries to ensure a balanced approach between judicial activism and constitutional limitations.