Judicial accountability or systemic crisis? Supreme Court’s verdict on subordinate judge’s dismissal sparks new debate

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has issued a major ruling establishing strict ethical standards for members of the subordinate judiciary, declaring that removal from service becomes legally justified when a judge’s conduct compromises integrity or erodes public confidence.The three-judge bench, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, overturned a Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal decision. On January 17, 2025, the tribunal had modified the penalty of an Additional District and Sessions Judge from Mailsi, Vehari district, from removal to compulsory retirement, on the grounds that evidence of corruption was insufficient though the charge of a tarnished reputation was upheld.

The Lahore High Court registrar had challenged this leniency before the Supreme Court, while the judicial officer sought complete reinstatement. The court clarified that a judge cannot be equated with a common civil servant — a judge’s standard must be entirely beyond reproach. Once public confidence in a judicial officer’s integrity is fractured, the court held, the entire structure of the rule of law is undermined.

The court maintained that allowing a judge with a poor reputation to retire with benefits suggests reputation is negotiable, defeating the purpose of the penalty. Removing an ill-reputed or corrupt judge, it noted, allows the judicial institution to heal — comparing the process to excising a tumor. Drawing on Islamic principles, the judgment stated that keeping a corrupt or unfit official constitutes a betrayal of the divine trust associated with authority.

Reflecting on the ruling, Islamabad-based High Court lawyer Adv Habib Kabreem, who closely monitors judicial and socio-political issues, offered an alternative perspective to Voicepk.

“A former judge of the Supreme Court would tour the subordinate judiciary and slam judges’ mobile phones onto tables, but his own remarkable deeds are now open for everyone to see,” he said. “Instead of making access to justice transparent and better, the gentleman became busy campaigning for water conservation across the country. Whether the taxpayers’ donations went down the drain or not is one thing, but they certainly lost access to justice. The history of judicial activism in this country is not new. From the decisions of the apex court to the glamorous presence of honorable Justices in the media, this activism has continued in one form or another. The only activism they failed to show was to check what goes on right under their noses within their own institution.”

He said that the Islamabad Bar Council had recently held a press conference where office-bearers expressed serious concerns over complaints of corruption in the District Courts and even the High Court. As far as this case is concerned, we need to examine what the actual charges against this judge were. But the point remains that corruption is not limited to the lower judiciary. When the fish rots from the head down, the judges at the bottom will have no fear either. And this is exactly what we are witnessing now.”

Advocate Riasat Ali, former President of the Islamabad High Court Bar, supported the verdict but expressed deep reservations about the system.

“People usually do not possess concrete evidence of bribery or favoritism against judges; what judges possess is their general conduct, and that itself forms their reputation — whether good or bad, it becomes the cause of a judge’s good name or infamy. This decision is absolutely correct that if such allegations exist against a judge, action must be taken. We lawyers always want the judiciary to provide justice to the people. However, ever since the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments were passed, the judiciary as an institution has ceased to exist. People are ruined, people are being humiliated, human rights violations are taking place, and what is happening to the people right now has no precedent. We only want that action must definitely be taken against those judges whose reputation is not clean and whose conduct is not good.”

The ruling has also sparked debate on social media. Commenting on X (formerly Twitter), a user named Muhammad Danyal wrote: “This way entire judiciary should be removed because public have no trust in judiciary and judicial officers since a very long time.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling comes at a time when a broader rift has emerged among legal experts and bar councils regarding the conduct of the subordinate judiciary and the overall role of the apex court.