“Judiciary” means the system of courts in the country, which apply the law of the land to the cases that they take up and to all matters that they look into. The judicial system of a country is its whole network of courts of different kinds civil, criminal, banking, administrative, family and the lawyer’s associations. The Supreme Court, which is the apex (highest) court, regulates (controls) all the judicial system.
The Supreme Court and other courts can work well only when they are independent. A court is in name only if it cannot decide cases independently, without fearing or favoring anyone. The weak operation of separation of powers and checks and balances has had destructive effects on the functioning of judicial review in our superior courts. “Judicial review” is the power of courts to review and revise decisions of government departments, agencies, and even courts. With the colossal (tremendous) increase in the powers and authority of the executive in the country, the courts of law should also have been proportionately empowered to initiate (start) judicial-review proceedings.
The conflict between the executive and the judiciary over the presidential reference to the Supreme Judicial Council against the Chief Justice on 9 March 2007 resulted from the absence of the operation of separation of powers, checks, and balances, equality before the law and rule of law. Some reasons stand out for the disappointing political, social, economic and religious situation. Firstly, the leaders or politicians at the start did not adopt a more reasonable political system of government. Our conditions justified a strong presidential federal system in an educated and well-informed country instead of the loose parliamentary system.
Secondly, the important leaders did not bring to an end the feudal system, which promoted economic inequality and social disintegration. Thirdly, no effective steps were taken to educate all the people on the right lines. Fourthly, English, which is our own Indian-Aryan language, was not taught to the masses and was not made the second national language in the constitution of the country, As a result, the nation continued to be backward in thought, expression, understanding and knowledge. Fifthly, no proper national economic programmes were prepared and implemented (put into effect) for fast agricultural and industrial development and the general progress of the poor people of Pakistan. Sixthly, the Kashmir issue and the connected water problems were not attended to properly in the early stages.
In the dismal (sad and disappointing) circumstances, the politicians, who were mostly corrupt, incapable and unwise, could not run the country suitably. They gave several chances, and even extended invitations, to the military to take over and rule the country continuously. Now the politicians and.. members of the legal profession want to introduce democracy in the country without changing the basic social order. Is it not funnily impossible? It may be possible, anyhow, to introduce democracy in stages, but unavoidably dragging behind other democratic or progressive states. We should, in any case, set about changing the political, economic and social structure keeping in view the six points above.