SC judge expresses annoyance over Pakistani judiciary's global ranking

**ISLAMABAD:** Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail has criticized global rankings that place Pakistan’s judiciary at a low standing, expressing frustration over the unclear origins of such assessments.  

"I don’t know where these numbers come from. Some rank our judiciary at 120, others at 150," Justice Mandokhail remarked during a constitutional bench hearing on litigants’ limited access to the apex court.  

The World Justice Project's 2024 Rule of Law Index ranked Pakistan 129th out of 142 countries, showing a slight improvement from the previous year.  

### **Constitutional Bench and Its Mandate**  
The constitutional bench, formed under the 26th Constitutional Amendment and led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, includes Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Ayesha Malik, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Musarrat Hilali.  

The bench addressed multiple petitions, including those related to litigants’ access to the Supreme Court, government employees’ roles, and the political status of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC).  

---

### **Key Petitions and Observations**  

#### **1. Litigants’ Access to the Supreme Court**  
A petitioner argued that 90% of litigants face barriers in approaching the Supreme Court.  

Justice Mandokhail dismissed the claim, stating that the petitioner’s case was being heard directly, and questioned what further access was needed. He added that such petitions risk undermining the judiciary’s reputation.  

Referring to international rankings, Justice Mandokhail criticized the lack of transparency in their methodology. The bench ultimately dismissed the petition.  

---

#### **2. Status of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)**  
The bench reviewed a petition challenging the SIC’s declaration as a parliamentary party.  

The petitioner argued the plea was filed on time, though a related review petition was still pending. Justice Mandokhail questioned the intent behind seeking an unconstitutional action from the court, emphasizing that candidates are free to align with any political party.  

Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan reminded the petitioner that similar arguments had previously led to restrictions. The bench upheld objections from the Registrar’s Office and dismissed the petition.  

---

#### **3. Petition Against Government Employees**  
A plea sought the dismissal of government employees accused of failing to perform their duties or remaining unassigned.  

Justice Ayesha Malik noted that the request effectively called for the dismissal of all government employees, urging the petitioner to identify specific officials and follow proper procedures.  

Justice Mandokhail made a pointed remark, asking, "What do you mean? Should we dismiss the president, prime minister, speaker, and all members of the assembly?”  

The petitioner claimed the system had collapsed and that no one was addressing the truth. However, the bench declared the petition inadmissible and dismissed it.  

---

#### **4. Time Frames for Court Trials**  
The Supreme Court also heard a petition seeking defined time frames for completing trials.  

Justice Ayesha Malik noted that existing laws already include timelines for various cases. She suggested the petitioner approach Parliament for further legislation.  

The petitioner argued that trials often take decades. Justice Malik acknowledged systemic inefficiencies but warned against making sweeping allegations, emphasizing that reforms are underway.  

Justice Mandokhail and Justice Hilali reiterated that judicial reforms should be pursued through constitutional means, not court directives. They encouraged the petitioner to work with the Law and Justice Commission for improvements.  

The bench deemed the petition inadmissible and dismissed it.  

---

### **Judicial Integrity and Reform**  
Throughout the proceedings, the bench emphasized adherence to constitutional boundaries and encouraged petitioners to engage with appropriate reform channels. Justice Mandokhail reiterated that the judiciary operates within the framework of the Constitution and existing laws, while Justice Ayesha Malik highlighted the Law and Justice Commission as the proper forum for addressing judicial reform.  

The dismissal of these petitions underscores the court’s commitment to maintaining judicial independence while fostering systemic improvements through legislative and administrative avenues.