AGL37.9▼ -0.09 (0.00%)AIRLINK219.1▲ 3.57 (0.02%)BOP9.75▼ -0.05 (-0.01%)CNERGY6.57▼ -0.22 (-0.03%)DCL9▼ -0.17 (-0.02%)DFML39.35▲ 0.39 (0.01%)DGKC99.4▼ -0.85 (-0.01%)FCCL37.74▲ 1.04 (0.03%)FFL15.18▲ 0.69 (0.05%)HUBC132.49▼ -1.64 (-0.01%)HUMNL13.55▼ -0.08 (-0.01%)KEL5.59▼ -0.1 (-0.02%)KOSM7.09▼ -0.23 (-0.03%)MLCF46▲ 0.13 (0.00%)NBP60.7▼ -0.58 (-0.01%)OGDC242.85▲ 10.26 (0.04%)PAEL40▼ -0.73 (-0.02%)PIBTL8.48▼ -0.1 (-0.01%)PPL208.75▲ 5.41 (0.03%)PRL40.1▼ -0.71 (-0.02%)PTC27.5▼ -0.81 (-0.03%)SEARL106.4▼ -2.11 (-0.02%)TELE8.65▼ -0.09 (-0.01%)TOMCL35.1▼ -0.73 (-0.02%)TPLP13.8▼ -0.04 (0.00%)TREET25.1▲ 0.72 (0.03%)TRG64.1▲ 2.95 (0.05%)UNITY35.4▲ 0.56 (0.02%)WTL1.83▲ 0.11 (0.06%)

SC judge expresses annoyance over Pakistani judiciary’s global ranking

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

 

Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail has expressed annoyance over global bodies’ rankings of Pakistan’s judiciary, which place it extremely low.

“I do not know where these numbers emerge from. Some place our judiciary on 120 while others on 150,” he said during a hearing conducted by the constitutional bench over litigants’ lack of access to the apex court.

World Justice Project’s Rule of Law index for the year 2024 shows Pakistan’s global ranking at number 129 out of a total of 142 countries assessed, which is a slight improvement from the previous year.

Justice Mandokhail is part of the constitutional bench formed under the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

Multiple pleas were heard by the constitutional bench Wednesday, which included a lack of petitioners’ access to SC and government employees who were not assigned duties.

A petition was also heard against declaring the Sunni Ittehad Council as a parliamentary party. The SC heard a petition regarding the lack of access for litigants to the country’s highest court.

During the proceedings, the petitioner argued that 90% of litigants are unable to approach the Supreme Court, highlighting the challenges faced by the public in seeking justice.

Responding to the claim, Justice Mandokhail remarked that the petitioner’s arguments were being heard directly, questioning what further access was required.

Related Posts

Get Alerts