Areez Tariq
Independent Political Analyst
Email: [email protected]
Abstract: Judicial intervention has been a persistent and defining characteristic of Pakistan’s political evolution. Rooted in early constitutional crises and the judiciary’s use of the “Doctrine of Necessity,” courts have long shaped political outcomes by validating military takeovers, resolving power struggles, and influencing governance during institutional turbulence. In the 21st century, a rise in judicial activism—driven by public interest litigation and high-profile political rulings—has expanded the judiciary’s authority and deepened its role as an arbiter in political affairs. This intervention is shaped by weak political institutions, complex civil–military relations, public demand for accountability, and the judiciary’s internal drive for independence. While judicial involvement has sometimes promoted accountability and upheld constitutional principles, it has also raised concerns regarding overreach, politicization, and instability in democratic processes. Strengthening parliamentary sovereignty, ensuring transparent judicial appointments, fostering political stability, and enhancing internal judicial accountability are essential reforms for restoring institutional balance. Overall, Pakistan’s experience illustrates both the necessity and the risks of judicial engagement in politics, highlighting the need for clearer constitutional boundaries and cooperative governance to support democratic consolidation.
Keywords: Judicial Intervention; Pakistan Politics; Judicial Activism; Doctrine of Necessity; Civil–Military Relations.