Written by Qurat ul lain
When people think of the authority of a judge, they often picture the shelves of heavy law books
that line the courtroom—the statutes, codes, and constitutions that define the written rules of
governance. These texts are indeed the visible sources of judicial power, but they do not cover
every challenge that arises in the administration of justice. What happens when a witness is
threatened, a lawyer behaves dishonestly, or an individual openly refuses to comply with a court
order? The books often fall silent on such matters. It is in these critical moments that the inherent
powers of the court come into play. These powers are not explicitly codified, but they exist
because a court cannot function without them. They are both the shield that preserves the dignity
of justice and the sword that enforces its authority. To deny their existence would be to strip the
judiciary of its very capacity to act.
The idea of inherent powers flows from necessity rather than from legislation. Every institution
must have the authority to protect its own integrity and carry out its essential functions. While
legislatures may establish courts and define their jurisdictions, they cannot anticipate every
disruption or attempt to undermine judicial proceedings. That is why inherent powers fill the
gaps left by legislation. Among these, the power to punish for contempt is perhaps the most
recognized. It enables judges to command respect for the law, ensure obedience to their rulings,
and protect proceedings from interference. Equally critical is the ability to manage proceedings
efficiently—whether through controlling the docket, granting adjournments when necessary, or
dismissing frivolous cases that waste judicial time. These powers are not luxuries; they are
indispensable tools. Without them, courts would quickly descend into disorder, trials would
become meaningless, and the constitutional promise of justice would remain unfulfilled.
Of course, with such powers comes an expectation of restraint and responsibility. The primary
criticism of inherent judicial powers is the potential for misuse, as they are not defined as clearly
as statutory provisions. This has led to public concern about judicial overreach. Yet, the absence
of these powers would leave courts incapable of protecting their own processes or ensuring
compliance with their orders. A system without inherent powers would reduce courts to advisory
bodies, dependent on the goodwill of parties to obey their judgments. In such a scenario, respect
for the law would erode, and justice itself would be rendered ineffective.
In reality, inherent powers are not meant to make judges supreme; they are meant to safeguard
the sanctity of judicial proceedings. They uphold the respect, fairness, and rule of law that must
prevail within courtrooms. The exercise of these powers ensures that justice is not derailed by
intimidation, dishonesty, or disorder. For citizens, they provide assurance that courts will not
only hear their grievances but will also have the authority to protect the process through which
those grievances are addressed.
As Pakistan continues to grapple with questions of institutional strength and public trust, it is
vital to recognize that the inherent powers of the judiciary are not an extravagance but a
necessity. They embody the principle that justice must be enforceable, not theoretical. If the
courts are to remain the ultimate guardians of rights and liberties, they must be equipped with the
authority to defend both themselves and the law they uphold. Respect for these powers is, in
essence, respect for the very idea of justice.
Leave a Reply