FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW IN PAKISTAN: TOWARD A PROCEDURAL CONSTITUTIONALISM FRAMEWORK

Abstract

This article critically examines the evolution, implementation, and judicial enforcement of fundamental rights in Pakistan through the mechanism of judicial review. Drawing upon Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi's seminal analysis of Articles 184(3) and 199 of the Constitution, this study argues that effective rights protection requires "procedural constitutionalism"—faithful adherence to textual mandates, procedural safeguards, and institutional hierarchy. Through qualitative doctrinal analysis of constitutional provisions, landmark Supreme Court decisions (1973–2024), and Rizvi's jurisprudential contributions, this research demonstrates that while Pakistan's Constitution provides comprehensive fundamental rights guarantees, their realization depends on moderating the tension between judicial activism and procedural regularity. The Supreme Court's expansion of suo motu jurisdiction and public interest litigation has democratized access to justice but simultaneously disrupted the constitutional scheme of concurrent jurisdiction, concentrated excessive power in the Chief Justice's office, and compromised due process protections. The article proposes a framework for reform that prioritizes: (a) statutory clarification of the High Court-Supreme Court jurisdictional relationship; (b) formal procedural rules for public interest litigation; (c) constitutional amendment regarding suo motu powers; and (d) institutional mechanisms for implementation monitoring. These reforms, grounded in Rizvi's textual methodology, offer a pathway toward sustainable rights protection that balances accessibility with legitimacy.