Judicial activism in Pakistan: An assessment of the elected governments from 1993 to 1999

Abstract

There is a correlation between the institution of the judiciary, political executive, legislatures, a democratic system, the constitution's superiority and the state's citizens. In a democracy, the government needs to develop a harmonious and friendly relationship with the opposition and the non-political institutions so that the military does not have a chance to interfere. Different schools of thought differ over the role of the superior judiciary in maintaining checks and balances on the elected government. One school believes that non-elected judges shall not exercise the power of judicial review. However, others believe that if the elected government does not perform their duties in the required manner, the judiciary must look closely at its work. This study focuses on how apparent judicial activism, the struggle for supremacy of parliament, and apparent efforts to establish a check and balance system were misused by all the stakeholders to enhance control over political affairs rather than strengthen state institutions. It also analyses how the military in Pakistan maintained a check on the elected governments during the second term of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. The findings revealed that the military controlled the government through the powerful president or with the help of the judiciary.