THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN PAKISTAN: SAFEGUARDING RIGHTS OR LEGITIMIZING POWER?

Abstract

This article examines the theoretical purpose and role of the judiciary in Pakistan, with a focus on judicial activism and its impact on the executive, legislature, and constitutional framework. It explores whether judicial activism has effectively upheld the rule of law and fundamental human rights. The study applies Green’s two-stage approach to determine if judicial decisions in Pakistan qualify as activist, particularly in cases involving military interventions and executive overreach. Through case studies, including Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (1954) and Zafar Ali Shah v. Pervez Musharraf (2000), the research highlights how judicial rulings have influenced the country’s legal and political landscape. While some decisions have upheld judicial independence, others have legitimized military rule under the doctrine of necessity. The article also examines the judiciary’s role in balancing constitutional interpretation with political realities. It concludes that judicial activism in Pakistan has been a double-edged sword—at times reinforcing democratic values and at others undermining judicial independence. The findings underscore the need for a more consistent and principled judicial approach to safeguard democratic governance and the rule of law.