Pakistan’s current instability and legal challenges call for the creation of constitutional court. The existing judiciary, including the Supreme Court, is overburdened with both civil and constitutional cases, causing delays in crucial constitutional decisions. A specialized court dedicated to constitutional issues would ensure quicker and more focused resolution of dispute related to the constitution. Constitutional court is a special court that focuses on issues related to the constitution, such as interpreting laws to ensure they align with countries constitution.

Pakistan has seen frequent political turmoil, with conflicts between political parties, power struggles between the executive and judiciary and tensions within institutions. This has often led to the judiciary being dragged into political matters and increasing case load of the supreme court that the number of cases the court handle is growing too much. With so many cases it takes much longer for the supreme court to hear and decide on each one supreme court deals with all type of cases including constitutional, civil and criminal because of high number of cases important constitutional issues may not be addressed quickly.

When judges have too many cases to handle, they may not have enough time thoroughly to review each one. Let is suppose a judge has to decide 30 cases in a short period of time. If they spend too much time on one case, the others will be delayed. This rushing could lead to mistakes or unfair decisions. In this way case load can affect the quality of justice.

An example of the impact of overburdened judiciary can be seen in the Panama papers case [2017] involving former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. This case required the supreme court to carefully review complex financial documents, testimonies and legal arguments. In the Panama papers case, the supreme court had to manage not only this high-profile case but also its usual heavy load of civil, criminal and constitutional matters also. This delayed the proceedings. The delay in such an important case, shows how overburdened judiciary can slow down the critical decisions.

With too many cases the supreme court may not prioritize or focus enough on the important constitutional and public interest cases. In the 18th Amendment case, which challenged the constitutional amendment that transferred certain powers from the federal government to provinces the supreme court took several years to deliver a final judgment. This delay in such an important constitutional matter created uncertainty.

The burden of handling a wide range of cases had led to significant delays, overworked judges and sometimes lower quality decisions. This backlog not only affects Individual but also impacts national governance and economic stability. To address these challenges creating specialized courts or appointing more judges could help to reduce more cases efficiently, ensuring that important matters are handled without unnecessary delays. Alternatively, a separate constitutional court could take on complex constitutional matters, allowing the Supreme court to focus on other cases.

A constitutional court could provide a more focused, coherent approach to constitutional adjudication by doing so, it might prevent the supreme court from being over burdened with political cases preserving the sanctity of constitutional interpretation while allowing the regular judiciary to focus on its primary functions. A constitutional court could act as a buffer between the judiciary and political institutions, focusing exclusively on question of constitutional law.