A Hollow Judicial System:

A Hollow Judicial System: When Even the Hope of Timely and Fair Justice from the Highest Courts Appears to Be a Distant Dream

By Muhammad Tariq Azhar

Originally Written in Ottawa, Canada on 14 January 2020
Updated on 8 June 2026

Introduction

Unfortunately, we are citizens of a country whose judicial system has gradually become hollow, inefficient, and increasingly disconnected from the fundamental objective of justice. Speedy and effective justice has become a rarity. In many cases, even judgments delivered by superior courts appear unable to achieve their intended purpose because their implementation is delayed, diluted, or frustrated through prolonged litigation and procedural obstacles.

There are situations where even decisions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan do not appear to be implemented in their true spirit. At times, one gets the impression that even the apex court struggles to ensure effective enforcement of its own judgments. As a result, public confidence in the justice system has steadily eroded.

Cases of relatively minor importance often continue for years or even decades. Adjournment after adjournment is granted, and after hearings are concluded, judgments may remain reserved for months or years. In many unfortunate instances, litigants pass away while waiting for decisions that never arrive during their lifetimes.

While such delays were once associated primarily with subordinate courts, the same tendency now appears increasingly visible in the superior judiciary as well. Among ordinary citizens, it has become a common saying that one needs the lifespan of Prophet Noah (Hazrat Nuh A.S.) to witness the final conclusion of litigation in Pakistan.

In contrast, some politically sensitive or influential cases receive extraordinary urgency, with hearings conducted and judgments announced within days, sometimes even during judicial vacations. Such inconsistency naturally raises questions in the minds of citizens and weakens confidence in the rule of law.

Many people feel that some judges, consciously or unconsciously, may no longer be guided solely by law, evidence, and merit. Whether such perceptions are entirely justified or not, the mere existence of these perceptions damages the credibility of judicial institutions.

Allah Almighty commands in the Holy Quran:

“Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people, judge with justice.”
(Surah An-Nisa, Verse 58)

Similarly, the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ taught that among the seven fortunate persons who will receive the shade of Allah’s Throne on the Day of Judgment is a just ruler and a just judge.

Justice means giving every individual his lawful right. Throughout Islamic teachings, justice occupies a central position because nations that uphold justice prosper and endure, whereas societies built upon oppression and injustice ultimately decline and collapse.

The Holy Quran further instructs believers not to allow personal interests, hatred, prejudice, fear, or pressure to divert them from justice. Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:8) specifically commands believers to remain steadfast in justice even against those whom they dislike.

As Muslims, we are duty-bound to follow these principles. Whenever we are entrusted with authority over the affairs of others, we must decide matters honestly, courageously, and solely on the basis of facts and evidence.

Hazrat Ali (R.A.) is famously reported to have said:

“A society may survive with disbelief, but it cannot survive with injustice.”

Delayed justice is itself a form of injustice. Sadly, this fundamental principle often appears forgotten within our legal system.

The Historical Role of the Judiciary in Weakening Democracy

In my opinion, the judiciary has also played a significant role in bringing Pakistan to its present constitutional and political condition.

Had the superior judiciary consistently upheld constitutional principles without yielding to pressure, democracy in Pakistan would likely have become firmly established decades ago.

The earliest and perhaps most damaging example emerged in the famous Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan case. Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad dissolved the Constituent Assembly and dismissed the government of Khawaja Nazimuddin.

Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan challenged this action before the Sindh Chief Court and succeeded. However, under Chief Justice Muhammad Munir, the Federal Court overturned the judgment and validated the Governor-General’s action.

That decision later became the foundation of the notorious Doctrine of Necessity, a doctrine repeatedly used to justify unconstitutional actions and military interventions.

In the famous State v. Dosso case, the Supreme Court validated General Ayub Khan’s martial law, thereby strengthening authoritarian rule.

Subsequently, General Ayub Khan appointed Justice Munir as Pakistan’s Law Minister. In my view, few judicial decisions have inflicted greater long-term damage upon Pakistan’s constitutional evolution.

The transfer of power from Ayub Khan to General Yahya Khan eventually culminated in the tragic dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971, while the judiciary remained largely unable to effectively challenge military dominance.

Similarly, following General Zia-ul-Haq’s military takeover on 5 July 1977, the Supreme Court again validated martial law under the Doctrine of Necessity in the Begum Nusrat Bhutto case.

Chief Justice Yaqub Ali Khan, who had accepted constitutional petitions challenging martial law, was effectively removed after changes were made to judicial retirement provisions. Justice Anwar-ul-Haq subsequently became Chief Justice and later headed the bench that upheld the death sentence of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

In October 1999, General Pervez Musharraf overthrew an elected government and suspended the Constitution. Once again, the judiciary validated the takeover under the Doctrine of Necessity.

After retirement, Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan was appointed Chief Election Commissioner during General Musharraf’s regime.

In my opinion, repeated judicial validation of unconstitutional seizures of power prevented democratic institutions from maturing and encouraged future interventions.

Pressure on Judges and Declining Public Confidence

Many observers believe that judges in Pakistan often operate under visible or invisible pressures exerted by powerful institutions and interests.

The case of Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court is frequently cited as an example. After publicly alleging interference in judicial affairs, he was removed from office.

Whether one agrees with his views or not, the episode raised serious concerns regarding judicial independence.

Recent controversial decisions have further contributed to public skepticism. In some cases, appellate courts have appeared to perform functions traditionally associated with trial courts, thereby creating legal complexities concerning the right of appeal and due process.

Nevertheless, Pakistan’s judicial history is not without distinguished figures. Great judges such as Justice A.R. Cornelius, Justice Dorab Patel, Justice Bhagwandas, Justice Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Qazi Faez Isa, and Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui have demonstrated courage, integrity, and commitment to constitutional principles.

Without such individuals, Pakistan’s judicial history would undoubtedly appear far darker.

PTCL Pensioners and the Long Struggle for Justice

In my view, the saga of PTCL pensioners represents one of the most painful illustrations of the weaknesses within Pakistan’s justice system.

For more than nine and a half years, PTCL pensioners remained entangled in continuous litigation despite obtaining favorable judgments from both the High Courts and the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Yet even after securing clear judicial victories, many pensioners were unable to obtain the practical relief that those judgments were intended to provide.

The scale of litigation became so extensive that PTCL reportedly established a dedicated legal department under an Executive Vice President (Legal) specifically to handle the growing number of cases involving employees and pensioners.

The central dispute concerned pension increases announced by the Government of Pakistan for pensioners who originally served in the Telegraph & Telephone Department (T&T), were later transferred to the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), and subsequently became employees of PTCL.

Historically, PTCL pensioners received pensions through the postal system, and whenever the Government increased pensions, those increases automatically reached PTCL pensioners as well.

However, in 2010, PTET allegedly instructed the postal authorities not to pay the Government-announced 20% pension increase without prior approval from the PTET Board of Trustees. PTET later approved only an 8% increase.

As a result, former Director General Development Mr. Muhammad Arif and approximately thirty other pensioners filed constitutional petitions before the Islamabad High Court in January 2011.

On 21 December 2011, Chief Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman of the Islamabad High Court decided the matter in favor of the pensioners and ordered payment of Government-notified pension increases together with arrears.

PTET and PTCL challenged the decision through multiple appeals that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

On 12 June 2015, a three-member Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, with Justice Mian Mushir Alam and Justice Gulzar Ahmed as members, dismissed the appeals and held that employees transferred from T&T to PTC and subsequently to PTCL were entitled to Government-announced pension increases.

The judgment authored by Justice Gulzar Ahmed was unanimous.

PTET and PTCL subsequently filed review petitions, which were ultimately dismissed.

Yet despite these clear judicial pronouncements, disputes concerning implementation continued.

Particularly controversial was the treatment of employees who retired under the 2008 Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS-2008).

In my opinion, subsequent proceedings, interim orders, administrative interpretations, contempt petitions, and litigation under Section 12(2) CPC created unnecessary confusion regarding the rights of VSS retirees.

Importantly, the original Supreme Court judgments did not expressly exclude VSS pensioners from Government-announced pension increases.

The Human Cost of Delayed Justice

The most tragic aspect of this prolonged litigation is its human cost.

Thousands of PTCL pensioners and widows have passed away while waiting for implementation of judicial orders and realization of their lawful entitlements.

In many neighboring countries, cases involving pensioners, widows, and senior citizens receive priority because of their age and financial vulnerability.

Courts in such jurisdictions often act firmly against institutions that deliberately delay compliance with lawful orders.

Unfortunately, in Pakistan many pensioners continue waiting years for relief even after obtaining favorable judgments.

June 2026 Update: Why This Article Remains Relevant

When I originally wrote this article in Ottawa, Canada on 14 January 2020, I hoped that meaningful improvements would eventually emerge.

However, on 8 June 2026, after reading a litigation update circulated by Mr. Sadiq Ali regarding the proceedings before the Islamabad High Court concerning the Section 12(2) CPC cases of VSS pensioners, I was reminded of the concerns expressed in this article.

The reported proceedings indicate that litigation surrounding PTCL pensioners continues even after numerous judgments, reviews, contempt proceedings, constitutional petitions, CPC applications, and appeals.

Many affected pensioners now fear that further delays, additional appeals, and procedural complexities may continue for years.

As elderly pensioners and widows continue to age, the greatest concern is whether justice will arrive during their lifetimes.

The continuing uncertainty reinforces the perception that our legal system often prioritizes procedure over substance and delay over timely relief.

Final Reflections

Society expects judges to decide cases solely on the basis of law, evidence, and justice because judicial decisions directly affect the lives, dignity, reputation, and economic survival of citizens.

Judges are human beings and may face institutional pressures and practical realities. That is precisely why judicial independence, accountability, integrity, and moral courage are indispensable components of any credible justice system.

In my opinion, the treatment experienced by PTCL pensioners reflects many of the structural weaknesses that continue to affect Pakistan’s judicial framework. Even after obtaining clear Supreme Court judgments, complete and timely implementation remained elusive for years.

The current state of public confidence in the justice system appears deeply concerning. Many citizens believe that some decisions are influenced by power and pressure rather than by justice alone. Whether entirely accurate or not, such perceptions are dangerous for any democratic society because public trust is the foundation upon which judicial legitimacy rests.

At this point, I am reminded of a statement commonly attributed to Winston Churchill:

“Nations are not destroyed only by wars; they may also perish when their courts fail to deliver justice.”

May Allah Almighty protect Pakistan and guide all state institutions toward justice, integrity, constitutional supremacy, and the rule of law.

Muhammad Tariq Azhar
8 June 2026