"Containing cases decided by the Federal Court, Privy Council, High Courts of Dacca, Lahore and Baghdad-ul-Jadid, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Chief Court of Sind, Judicial Commissioner's Courts--Baluchistan and Peshawar, and revenue decisions Punjab" (varies).

At a time when ordinary courage has become rare, one has to look up to the lives of those who stood for dissent in the colonial era. Back in the 19th century, Justice Syed Mahmood, son of the great social reformer Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, became the first judge to resist colonial power by espousing the cause of judicial independence. At the age of just 32, he not only remains the youngest, but also the first Indian Muslim and first north Indian to be appointed as a High Court judge in India. Endowed with a judicial acuity ahead of his times, a number of his dissents were later accepted by the courts, and continue to be the law. This book chronicles the triumphs and tragedies of Syed Mahmood's life, and his contribution in shaping the consciousness of post 1857 India. With an impressive array of research, perception and analysis, the book succeeds in exhuming a seminal figure from the dust of history, and showcases the past speaking to the present.

This book explores the complex relationship between colonial law and the reform of legal systems in postcolonial states.

Through a detailed historical and empirical account of post-independence years, this book offers a new assessment of the role of the judiciary in Pakistani politics. Instead of seeing the judiciary as helpless or struggling against an authoritarian state, it argues that the judiciary has been a crucial link in the creation of state and political inequality in Pakistan. This rubs against the central role given to the judiciary in developing countries to fix the ‘corrupt politicians and stubborn bureaucracies’ in the World Bank’s ‘Good Governance’ paradigm and rule of law initiatives. It also challenges the contemporary legal and judicial discourse that extols the virtues of Public Interest Litigation. While the book’s core analysis is a critique of the contemporary liberal legal project, it also adds to the critical tradition of social theory by linking political economy to a social theory of law. The theoretical aspect of the study is applicable to any developing society whose judiciary is going through foreign-sponsored ‘rule of law’ judicial reforms.

Religion plays a pivotal role in the way women are treated around the world, socially and legally. This book discusses three Islamic human rights approaches: secular, non-compatible, reconciliatory (compatible), and proposes a contextual interpretive approach. It is argued that the current gender discriminatory statutory Islamic laws in Islamic jurisdictions, based on the decontextualised interpretation of the Koran, can be reformed through Ijtihad: independent individual reasoning. It is claimed that the original intention of the Koran was to protect the rights of women and raise their status in society, not to relegate them to subordination. This Koranic intention and spirit may be recaptured through the proposed contextual interpretation which in fact means using an Islamic (or insider) strategy to achieve gender equality in Muslim states and greater compatibility with international human rights law. It discusses the negative impact of the so-called statutory Islamic laws of Pakistan on the enjoyment of women’s human rights and robustly challenges their Koranic foundation. While supporting the international human rights regime, this book highlights the challenges to its universality: feminism and cultural relativism. To achieve universal application, genuine voices from different cultures and groups must be accommodated. It is argued that the women’s human rights regime does not cover all issues of concern to women and has a weak implementation mechanism. The book argues for effective implementation procedures to turn women’s human rights into reality.

The political history of Pakistan is characterised by incomplete constitution-making, a process which has placed the burden of constitutional interpretation on state instruments ranging from the bureaucracy to the military to the judiciary. In a penetrating and original study of the relationship between state and civil society in Pakistan, Paula Newberg demonstrates how the courts have influenced constitutional development and the structure of the state. By examining judicial decisions, particularly those made at times of political crisis, she considers how tensions within the judiciary, and between courts and other state institutions, have affected the ways political society views itself, and explores the consequences of these debates for the formal organisation of political power.