Judiciary’s Strength Put to the Test in Imran Khan’s Bail Rulings

ISLAMABAD:

For the first time since the 26th Constitutional Amendment came into effect, the Supreme Court has granted significant relief to PTI founder Imran Khan, approving his bail applications in eight cases linked to the violent incidents of May 9, 2023.

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi delivered what many legal observers described as a cautious yet balanced order—crafted to provide space for both the prosecution and the defense. While many expected the matter to be referred back to the Lahore High Court (LHC), which had earlier rejected Imran’s bail plea, the apex court instead chose to extend relief directly.

A Departure from the LHC’s Position

The ruling notably avoided commenting on the controversial LHC judgment that had held Imran Khan responsible for orchestrating the May 9 conspiracy. Lawyers pointed out that while the LHC denied bail on conspiracy grounds, the Supreme Court refrained from endorsing such findings and instead granted Khan temporary protection.

Former Additional Attorney General Tariq Mahmood Khokhar criticized the LHC’s approach, arguing that it had exceeded its jurisdiction by recording “definite findings” on disputed facts during a bail hearing—something bail jurisprudence does not permit. He noted that courts worldwide disapprove of such practices, as they compromise the presumption of innocence and prejudice the trial process.

Khokhar went further, stating that the LHC’s ruling reflected “a mix of ignorance, incompetence, or mala fides,” but added that the Supreme Court’s muted response was equally troubling. While acknowledging the LHC’s overreach, the SC did not issue any corrective remarks, leaving its silence open to interpretation. According to him, the court had an opportunity to assert judicial independence and strengthen public trust, but chose instead to “play it safe.”

Public Perceptions and Institutional Weakness

Delays in earlier hearings and the lack of strong judicial rebuke to the LHC fueled perceptions that the Supreme Court was operating in quiet alignment with the prosecution. Although the eventual grant of bail was widely welcomed both domestically and among overseas Pakistanis, critics saw it as a shift in state policy rather than a bold assertion of judicial authority.

PTI leader Chaudhry Fawad Hussain, also facing charges from the May 9 events, stressed that while the Supreme Court had corrected the LHC’s excesses by allowing bail, it stopped short of disciplining judges who repeatedly treated themselves as an appellate authority over the apex court’s rulings. He warned that failure to curb such practices could erode the judicial hierarchy.

A Weak but Welcome Relief

Commenting on the order, senior lawyer Sarwar Muzaffar Shah likened it to the philosophy of American judge Frank Caprio, who believed that law must serve people rather than remain rigidly blind. Shah felt that while the outcome was correct, the order itself was “too safe and too weak,” falling short of demonstrating judicial courage at a time when executive interference and weakening trust in the judiciary are major concerns.

He argued that the country needs judgments reflecting both legal expertise and boldness. “Playing it safe is becoming dangerous for the justice system,” Shah remarked.

The Challenge Ahead for Chief Justice Afridi

Since the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, doubts have grown over whether superior courts can truly safeguard the rights of citizens against executive overreach. Legal analysts note that CJP Afridi and other senior judges—seen as beneficiaries of the amendment—face a perception crisis. Restoring institutional credibility, they argue, will not come from reforms designed with the executive but through fearless judgments that assert judicial independence.