A BARRAGE of cases filed under various laws against lawyers working on issues the state wants silence on where the law and Constitution are being undermined shows how defending rights by those under oath to uphold it has seemingly become criminal. Worse, a bar divided much like the bench is also involved in registering trumped-up charges against their own members to make the disposal of these cases difficult.

The right to representation, due process and fair trial are enshrined in the Constitution and lawyers` oaths, but there seems to be an unannounced policy of punishing those who work on issues that the state wants silence on: enforced disappearances, defending the political opposition, media censorship, arbitrary inclusion of names on no-fly lists, false blasphemy charges and criticising the controversial 26th Amendment that gave expanded powers to the executive in the appointment and transfer of judges.

Most lawyers and several judges contend that the 26th Amendment has undermined judicial independence by giving the executive more control over the judiciary as well as the allocation of court cases.

Resultantly, the exclusion of the more independent judges from constitutional cases has led to more decisions in favour of the executive.

Two recent issues have highlighted the rifts between the judges of the Islamabad High Court as well as overall issues in the dispensation of justice. First, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri was barred from carrying out his judicial duties until the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) decided on the case of his allegedly fake degree.

Second, Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz was stripped of her powers to entertain harassment complaints after she took cognisance of a complaint filed by lawyer Imaan Hazir-Mazari alleging harassment by IHC Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar.

In the aftermath of these and other controversies, five IHC judges took the extraordinary step of filing petitions in the Supreme Court, asking it to declare that administrative powers could not be `deployed to undermine or trump judicial powers`, and to rule that a chief justice of a high court `cannot exclude available judges from the roster at will and use the power to issue a roster to oust judges from performing judicial functions`. The apex court has returned the petitions by the justices without admitting them, and has also not listed the cases challenging the 26th Amendment for undermining judicial independence. The irony.

It must be noted that the same judges had written a letter to the SJC in 2024 ask-ing for guidance in the face of `brazen meddling` by the executive in judicial matters at the IHC. This included a case of surveillance cameras being found in Justice Jahangiri`s residence, and the brother-in-law of a lower court judge being disappeared for a few days to influence a court decision. The 26th Amendment was passed a few months after these grievances were made public by the judges, with the elevation of one of the judges Justice Kayani to the chief justice`s position blocked by Justice Dogar`s transfer from the Lahore High Court to Islamabad.

Lawyers at the IHC decided to protest last week against the bar on Justice Jahangiri`s judicial duties as a violation of constitutional principles. However, a scuffle broke out between some lawyers and the president of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association, who was accused of letting his voters down. This led the IHCBA president to register an FIR against all the protesting lawyers under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Pakistan Penal Code on charges of attempted murder.

Such a disproportionate response against members of one`s own bar on a minor brawl and implicat-ing all lawyers, including women lawyers and others who were nowhere close to the scene of the scuffle, speaks volumes for the cracks within Pakistan`s bar associations. And, it exposes the state`s willingness to take any opportunity to persecute anyone including lawyers who doesn`t toe the line.

In light of these divisions, it is of utmost importance that lawyers across the country unite in favour of judicial independence for the sake of preserving their profession if nothing else. Short-term personal gains must not blur the larger crisis of justice in the country, where public trust in the courts is eroding by the day. At the same time, if judges are serious about maintaining independence and want to disprove allegations of being controlled by the executive, they must demonstrate it through actions that do not include dismissing petitions, disempowering fellow judges and writing three-word verdicts.

Last, the state must take its newfound external validation to start internal political processes to rectify matters rather than stoking more divisions. • The wúter is director of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital ághts.

X: @UsamaKhilji