Barrister Usman Ali, Ph.D.
A recurring tragedy of Pakistan’s judicial history is that, at critical moments, the courts have often appeared to bend before power rather than stand as guardians of the Constitution. Doctrines such as the “doctrine of necessity” not only legitimized unconstitutional actions but also eroded the moral authority of the judiciary. In such an environment, when a judge stands firmly by the Constitution as the ultimate authority, he ceases to be just an individual, he becomes a benchmark. Among the few names in Pakistan’s superior judiciary who meet this standard, former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa stands out prominently.
If one were to distill Justice Isa’s judicial philosophy into a few words, it would be this: constitutional supremacy, institutional balance, and an unwavering commitment to fundamental rights. What distinguishes his judgments is that he does not treat the law as a mere collection of words, but as a living framework designed to ensure a fair and just relationship between the state and its citizens.
At the core of his philosophy lies a simple yet powerful principle: all institutions of the state are subject to the Constitution, not the other way around. Furthermore, in his view, no individual, no matter how powerful or celebrated, enjoys any special status before the Constitution; all are equal and accountable under it. This clarity shaped his approach in cases where the actions of powerful institutions or influential figures were tested against constitutional standards. He consistently reinforced the idea that placing any individual or institution above the law is, in effect, a negation of the constitutional order.
Another defining aspect of his judicial thought is his firm belief in the separation of powers. He emphasized that the judiciary, legislature, and executive must operate within their respective constitutional domains. Where courts were expected to step into policy-making or fill administrative gaps, he made it clear that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, not to legislate. If gaps exist, it is Parliament’s responsibility to address them. This approach strengthened institutional balance and rejected the notion that courts could reshape the Constitution to serve particular interests.
Transparency and accountability also occupy a central place in his thinking. His judgments do not merely resolve disputes; they clarify the responsibilities of state institutions and highlight their failures. On several occasions, he underscored that the failure to safeguard citizens’ rights is not just administrative inefficiency, it is a breach of constitutional duty, one that cannot be justified under any circumstances.
His decisions also reflect a deep commitment to fundamental rights. Freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, and equality before the law are treated not as abstract ideals but as enforceable guarantees. In his view, the legitimacy of the state depends on its willingness to protect these rights, not restrict them. This is why, even in cases where an ordinary citizen stood against the state, he upheld the principle that the law must treat all equally.
Another notable feature of Justice Isa’s work is his clarity of writing. His judgments are logical, accessible, and free from unnecessary complexity. He has made a conscious effort to present legal reasoning in a manner that is understandable not only to lawyers but also to the general public, an important step toward making the law more transparent and meaningful.
His refusal to conform to entrenched practices, and his willingness to move beyond the doctrine of necessity, invited sustained criticism. Organized campaigns were launched against him in both traditional and social media. Yet much of this criticism came from individuals who neither understood constitutional law nor had seriously engaged with his judgments. Instead, it often reflected political loyalties and disappointment that he did not extend the kind of extra-constitutional concessions that had, at times, been granted in the past. That pattern, to some extent, continues even today. In contrast, serious legal observers regard his work as a reflection of principled and independent judicial thinking.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s career is not merely a record of decisions, it is a story of principled resistance. The presidential reference filed against him, along with the accompanying campaigns and baseless propaganda, underscores the pressures faced by a judge committed to independence. The inclusion of his spouse in these proceedings and attempts at personal vilification only highlighted the intensity of that pressure. Yet he did not retreat from his principles. His steadfastness stands as evidence of both personal integrity and moral courage.
He never allowed his judicial responsibilities to be shaped by popularity or public pressure. His decisions reflect a consistent refusal to appease any group or yield to powerful interests. For him, the duty of a judge is to decide according to the law, not according to convenience.
For students of law, his body of work represents a complete school of thought. His judgments not only clarify constitutional principles but also demonstrate the ethical and intellectual standards required of a judge. They draw a clear distinction between judicial independence and compromise.
In light of all this, it is fair to say that Justice Qazi Faez Isa has set a defining example within Pakistan’s judiciary, one in which the Constitution is not merely a document, but a living commitment. He has shown that justice can prevail when anchored in principle, even under pressure, and that truth can be upheld despite opposition.
And that is ultimately the standard by which justice in any society must be judged, whether decisions are made in accordance with the Constitution or under the weight of pressure. Because justice is not merely delivered; it requires the courage to stand by the Constitution, no matter where the pressure comes from.
