CONSTITUTIONALISM AND JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: TRANSFORMING AUTHORITY IN PAKISTAN

Abstract

Constitutionalism is examined here as a system for directing state operations in accordance with a supreme law known as a constitution. Constitutionalism, in contrast to authoritarian regimes, seeks to limit and restrain governmental power, laying the groundwork for democratic administration and the expression of the will of the people. Different kinds of constitutionalism are examined, including those that are explicit and others that aren't. Thomas Hobbes's view of absolute sovereignty, John Locke's idea of sovereignty as constrained by social agreement, and the Islamic view of sovereignty as ultimately belonging to Allah and transferred to the people through a sacred trust represented by a constitution are all discussed in this paper. The importance of judicial activism in upholding the rule of law and filling legislative gaps is discussed as a hallmark of a truly independent judiciary. The function of the judiciary in Pakistan is also examined, along with how it was affected by the Islamization of legislation. It also examines the connection between political regimes and the judicial system, shedding insight on how the latter might serve as an agent of the former under authoritarian regimes. To better comprehend the processes of authority, shift from regime legitimization to political liberalization, we examine the instance of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry's struggle with the government after his appointment and subsequent suspension. This research sheds light on the development of constitutionalism and judicial activism in Pakistan by pinpointing a number of influential factors.