Supremely Fallible? A Debate on Judicial Restraint and Activism in Pakistan
-
Sanaa Ahmed
Journalist who writes on legal and political issues. She holds an LLM from the University of Warwick and an LLB from the University of Karachi
Abstract
Despite a rich history of judicial review, the activism witnessed during the tenure of former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry (2005-20131) was generally seen as unprecedented in Pakistan and eventually led to the court being accused of politicization, judicial overreach and even ‘judicial terrorism’.2 This paper examines the calls for ‘strategic judicial restraint’ in the sphere of economic decision-making within Pakistan’s broader socio-political context.
The Chaudhry court’s activism is mapped against the historic trajectory of judicial review in Pakistan, particularly the cases pertaining to military takeovers and administrative law. It is contended that the seeming expansion of the frontiers of judicial review merely mark the renegotiation of political power between the judiciary, the military as well as political and economic elite. Further, it is argued that the economy was the most convenient amphitheatre for this battle for greater political relevance by and among the political actors in contemporary Pakistan and not, as alleged, what was actually being fought over.
About the author
Journalist who writes on legal and political issues. She holds an LLM from the University of Warwick and an LLB from the University of Karachi
© 2017 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Inhalt
- Table of Contents
- Articles
- Erosion of Constitutional Rights in EU Law: A Call for ‘Substantive Co-operative Constitutionalism’
- Religious Symbols and Garments in Public Places – a Theory for the Understanding of S.A.S. v France
- Supremely Fallible? A Debate on Judicial Restraint and Activism in Pakistan
- Notes & Essays
- The Eternity Clause in the Czech Constitution as Limit to European Integration
- Drafting the Preamble for the Satversme: A New Approach to one of the Oldest Still-Functioning Republican Basic Laws
- Developments Austria
- Focus: The best Interests of the Child
- In the Child’s best Interest. A strict Age Difference between an adoptive Parent and the Child violates the Child’s Right to the best possible Development and Deployment
- Exclusion of registered Partners from Adoption Rights found to be discriminatory
Articles in the same Issue
- Inhalt
- Table of Contents
- Articles
- Erosion of Constitutional Rights in EU Law: A Call for ‘Substantive Co-operative Constitutionalism’
- Religious Symbols and Garments in Public Places – a Theory for the Understanding of S.A.S. v France
- Supremely Fallible? A Debate on Judicial Restraint and Activism in Pakistan
- Notes & Essays
- The Eternity Clause in the Czech Constitution as Limit to European Integration
- Drafting the Preamble for the Satversme: A New Approach to one of the Oldest Still-Functioning Republican Basic Laws
- Developments Austria
- Focus: The best Interests of the Child
- In the Child’s best Interest. A strict Age Difference between an adoptive Parent and the Child violates the Child’s Right to the best possible Development and Deployment
- Exclusion of registered Partners from Adoption Rights found to be discriminatory
