Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint in Pakistan

The judicial system in Pakistan often finds itself at the crossroads of power, responsibility, and public expectations. One of the most debated issues in legal circles is the balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint. Both philosophies guide the judiciary's approach in interpreting the Constitution and delivering justice.

⚖️ What is Judicial Activism?

Judicial activism refers to when courts go beyond the literal interpretation of laws and the Constitution to address public interest matters, often stepping into policy or administrative issues. It usually arises from the court's desire to protect fundamental rights or correct perceived injustices.

In Pakistan, judicial activism gained popularity through Suo Motu actions, where the Supreme Court or High Courts take up cases on their own without a formal petition.

🧾 Key Examples in Pakistan

• Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry Era (2005–2013): Known for frequent Suo Motu notices on corruption, environment, governance, and human rights.
• Panama Papers Case (2017): Disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif under Article 62(1)(f).
• Water Pricing & Medical Colleges Cases: Courts stepped in to regulate pricing and ensure merit in admissions.

🧩 What is Judicial Restraint?

Judicial restraint emphasizes that courts should interpret laws narrowly, defer to elected bodies (Parliament and Executive), and avoid overstepping their jurisdiction. This doctrine respects the principle of separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution.

Judges following this approach believe that policy decisions are best made by those who are democratically elected and accountable to the public.

📜 Instances of Judicial Restraint in Pakistan

• Courts often refused to interfere in purely political matters like legislative debates or internal parliamentary rules.
• Deference shown to military regimes under the doctrine of necessity—though later criticized—was a form of restraint.
• Recent reluctance to take Suo Motu actions signals a return to institutional balance.

🔍 Judicial Activism: Pros and Cons

✔️ Pros

• Protects fundamental rights in the absence of executive will
• Holds public institutions accountable
• Empowers the judiciary to address urgent social issues

❌ Cons

• Can undermine democratic institutions
• Risk of judicial overreach or political bias
• Judges may lack expertise in policy matters

📊 Public Perception

In Pakistan, judicial activism is often welcomed by the public when it serves as a check on corruption or poor governance. However, there’s also criticism that activism is selective or politically motivated.

The media has played a role in both promoting and questioning the legitimacy of such actions by courts.

📚 Constitutional Context

Articles of the Constitution that play a central role in this debate include:

• Article 184(3): Suo Motu jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on matters of public importance
• Article 199: Powers of High Courts for judicial review
• Article 175: Doctrine of separation of judiciary from executive

🏛️ Role of the Supreme Court of Pakistan

The Supreme Court has oscillated between activism and restraint, depending on the leadership of the Chief Justices. While some expanded judicial powers boldly, others chose to strengthen institutional boundaries.

🔗 Related Legal Debates

• Independence of Judiciary in Pakistan
• History of Judiciary in Pakistan – 1947 to 2025
• Contempt of Court Laws in Pakistan

📣 Conclusion: Finding the Balance

Pakistan’s judiciary is at a critical juncture. While judicial activism has brought attention to pressing national issues, unchecked interference in executive functions risks disturbing democratic balance. The ideal path lies in measured judicial intervention—active enough to protect rights, but restrained enough to respect institutional limits.

As legal minds and students of law, we must remain vigilant to ensure that justice serves the people, not personalities or politics.

---

📌 About the Author

Syed Mustafa Hussain Gardezi is an Advocate High Court and founder of Lets Legislate, a platform simplifying Pakistani law for the public, legal professionals, and students alike.