Justice Mandokhail had reprimanded Hamid Khan, a senior lawyer, during a recent hearing for speaking out against the judiciary, calling it “weak.” The confrontation took place during a controversial matter, in which legal arguments had taken center stage despite the trial’s high profile. Litigation between the figures threw the country into a debate over the judiciary.
Justice Mandokhail rebukes Hamid Khan
Hamid Khan, who is known for his candid views on legal and political matters, a day earlier made remarks that implied that the courts were not performing their functions with enough strength and impartiality. Implying that some rulings and the sense of a delay in justice were eroding the public’s faith in the judicial system. Justice Mandokhail responded immediately to the criticism, accusing Khan of making baseless claims that were harming the integrity of the judiciary.
Justice Mandokhail, in reprimanding the authorities, stressed the need to respect the process of the law and said an aspersion without basis should not have been cast. He said such comments could undermine public confidence in the courts, which are integral to justice and the rule of law. His response constituted not just a defense of the judiciary, but a broader reminder that everyone involved in law — from judges to lawyers to politicians — ought to be held accountable to the same standards.
The incident has sparked debates about the fragile balance between the accountability of the judiciary and its dignity. Although these perils of the legal system are not new, how they are articulated, and their implication, will always attract scrutiny. Some, including those in academia, long have argued that public criticisms of judges or the judiciary ought to be made with caution to not erode the very field charged with administering justice.
The questions posed by Justice Mandokhail to Hamid Khan reveal the current state of contention in the legal community, in which perspectives on the courts and their functioning are far from unanimous. But it also highlights the importance of decorum in those discussions and of using such a platform for constructive criticism rather than destruction. Whether this culminates into a deeper reform of judiciary system or not, all eyes remain on how the judiciary will deal with this internal challenge.
