WHEN JUSTICE FAILS AT FIRST INSTANCE: AN APPELLATE ANATOMY OF VOID JUDGMENTS IN PAKISTAN’S LOWER JUDICIARY

Abstract

Judicial blunders pose the greatest threat to the integrity, equity, and efficacy of the legal system, and I set out to analyze these from as many angles as possible, categorizing them into ten distinct but related themes: blunders pertaining to jurisdiction, violations of fundamental rights, deficiencies of due process, and the absence, or misinterpretation, of evidence; law, one error, or record; coram non judicie; the abuse or surrender of jurisdiction; the finding of malafade/perspective ambiguity, the providing of unreasoned conclusions, and the lack of legal finality or the breach of statutory bars. Most of these, such as the error of domicile or subject-matter jurisdiction, violations of the right to due process, and the imposition of unreasoned, arbitrary, or selective bias, entail the violation of at least one of the judicial themes I suggested/identified. The judicial arena is encouraged to reconsider and redefine its role within the system as these inconsistencies (or errors) go far beyond mere technical or administrative issues, operational errors, or administrative oversight. These inconsistencies (or errors) touch each individual within the judicial ecosystem; lawyers, judges, court administrative staff, policymakers, regulators, and the like. The study's contribution to judicial accountability, compliance with procedure, and bolstered legal reasoning is in identifying and classifying judicial errors.