Civil servants and clerks are appointed by the Supreme Court with the consent of the Presidents of the Supreme Courts and the President and may issue rules providing for appointment through their conditions of service provided for in the Constitution.  The Supreme Court`s independent jurisprudence is seen by legal observers as an attempt at a fair, speedy, and public trial against authorities accused of violating basic human rights.  Commenting on the suo motu question, Justice K.M. Sharif stated critically: “[The Supreme Court`s] jurisprudence will take note of any case in which the executive is negligent.”  The Supreme Court is the only federal court with jurisdiction to hear direct appeals from Supreme Court decisions, as constitutionally conferred powers as an appellate body.  Over the past fifteen years, however, the senior judiciary has evolved beyond the mere resolution of political disputes to its own guardianship role within the political system: limiting authority and vetoing the policies and actions of elected institutions in order to shape policies and policies in accordance with their own preferences. This new initiative has led the judiciary to frequently reject, restrict and undermine elected and non-elected institutions. Opposition parties and state officials hoping to challenge civilian and military governments have turned to increasingly assertive courts. As a Supreme Court justice, Malik ruled on the application of international arbitration in Pakistan and sat on the green bench in charge of environmental affairs. Last year, before being summoned to the Supreme Court, she issued a landmark ruling banning the use of virginity tests in rape cases, writing that the practice “violates the dignity of the female victim” and discriminates on the basis of gender. Following Malik`s ruling, the governments of Punjab and Sindh ordered an end to the use of virginity tests in cases of sexual assault against women, and Pakistan`s Supreme Court followed suit in a similar case that has become a binding precedent for all Pakistani supreme courts.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan is the country`s highest court of appeal and a court where all other options have been exhausted. It is the last resort in legal and constitutional matters. Its orders and decisions also affect other courts in the country. All administrative and judicial bodies are likely to act with the support of the Supreme Court. The Constitution defines in detail the establishment, judiciary, powers and functions of the Supreme Court. The requirements and manner of appointment of judges, the date of retirement, the grounds and manner of dismissal and the conditions of service of judges are closely linked to this situation. The pressure exerted by Khan`s effective mobilization since his ouster, combined with the judiciary`s persistent distrust of established political parties, particularly the PPP and PML-N, and a continued legal interest in limiting political discretion and holding politicians to account, means that the new PML-N government cannot expect much relief from the courts. The Supreme Court responded to Khan`s requests, ordering that there be no retraction or government interference in corruption cases against members of the new government. The Supreme Court also ruled that the votes of party members who disagree with their party`s leader – known as party defection – cannot be counted in a vote of no confidence, meaning that a prime minister with a party majority can never be removed from office.
The judges who issued the ruling argued that it would discourage elected politicians from exchanging votes for personal gain, illustrating judges` persistent distrust of politicians` motives. Parliament has been weakened as the Court has limited the parliamentary accountability of the political executive and weakened the model of parliamentary representation by constituency. Military and judicial leaders seem interested in steering the state towards a political regime with a reformed institutional structure, perhaps with a new troika better suited to their preferences. If the current government is replaced by an interim government before new elections, the courts will likely receive petitions about the actions of the interim government from across the political spectrum, providing another opportunity for judges to steer political momentum in the direction they prefer, but at the risk of angering political elites hurt by their decisions. The attitude of the judiciary towards the political interventions of the military and its interference in the civilian executive and legislative branches are the essential elements of its jurisprudential strategy aimed at playing the role of legitimate intervening authority of the country.