In a strong statement during the Asma Jahangir Conference in Lahore, Justice Ali Baqir Najafi of Pakistan’s Federal Constitutional Court addressed concerns over judicial independence. Speaking on Saturday, he emphasized that judiciary autonomy remains intact and has been upheld since its establishment on November 14, 2025.
Since then, the Constitutional Court has resolved an impressive total of 2,600 cases. This swift decision-making process underscores the court’s commitment to expediting legal processes. Najafi noted without a doubt that this is not seen as a negative development in the judicial landscape; rather, it signifies a step forward for efficiency and fairness.
In his remarks, Justice Najafi provided insights into the creation of the Constitutional Court. He explained that before its official formation, there was an existing bench known as the Constitutional Bench which had been operational since 2015. The new court emerged from multiple perceived issues with the earlier system: allegations of judicial activism and interference in policy-making.
Najafi elaborated on specific reasons for establishing this new court. One reason he cited was the Supreme Court’s tendency to rule on matters beyond its jurisdiction, leading to what some viewed as flawed decisions. Another concern highlighted by critics was the potential for judges to bypass legal proceedings when cases were deemed important for public interest or media visibility.
Critics also argued that the state’s authority might be at stake in certain contentious issues, suggesting a need for robust judicial oversight over government actions.
Despite these ongoing debates and controversies, Najafi remained confident about the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights. His comments underscored Pakistan’s commitment to maintaining a fair and independent judiciary amidst evolving challenges.
The Asma Jahangir Conference provided a platform for public discussion on these matters, allowing stakeholders to engage with the judges directly and explore potential avenues for strengthening legal processes while safeguarding judicial integrity.