by Umair Javed in Dawn: Whereas previously factionalism and groupings were confined to internal bench and bar politics, one can argue that the amendment will enhance the role that political parties and party leaders play in judicial careers.
These concerns have been raised by opposition politicians from the PTI, civil society, and significant segments of the legal community. Those invested in the independence of the judiciary as a constitutional and political ideal are within their right to argue against the amendment.
In my view, a different type of critique can be based on the political situation in which these drastic changes have taken place. In other words, one needs to look past what has happened ‘on paper’ and place it in the context of hybrid regime dynamics that began in 2018 and have accelerated to an unprecedented degree in the last two years. Here, four context-specific issues are worth mentioning.
The first issue is the urgency with which this was passed through. It is clear this was because the seniority principle needed to be set aside because it worked in the favour of someone who wasn’t favoured by the state. So this amendment carries the element of being person-specific, at least in the current moment.
The second issue is the nature and political importance of cases that will now be heard by a constitutional bench. These include litigation on the status of election tribunals and the functioning of the ECP, both of which have a direct bearing on the viability of the ruling coalition.
More here.
