Barrister Hamid Raheem
Pakistan’s legal system, often criticized for its sluggish and bureaucratic nature, is grappling with a severe issue-a colossal backlog of cases that continues to mount. The gravity of the situation is underscored by the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan’s recent Bi-Annual Report of Judicial Statistics, which revealed a staggering 2.26 million cases pending in the country’s court system. This backlog has surged by 3.9%, with a significant chunk of cases, over 1.86 million (or 82 per cent), concentrated at the district judiciary level. The remaining 18 per cent, roughly 390,000 cases, are clogging the upper-tier courts, including the Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court, and all high courts. This urgent situation calls for immediate action and the implementation of the proposed reforms.
The report further highlighted that while courts processed a significant number of cases during the period, resolving approximately 2.3 million, the influx of new filings, totalling 2.38 million, contributed to the persistent backlog within the court system. Access to justice in Pakistan is also an economic commodity, with the cost of litigation being exorbitant and delayed prosecutions leading to an even greater increase in costs.
A study by the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) has revealed a distressing reality for litigants in civil and magisterial courts. The study found that the average case resolution time stretches to nearly four years, demanding immense patience from those seeking justice. During this period, litigants attend an average of 40 hearings, with roughly 15 of these hearings rescheduled, causing further delays. Even after enduring this lengthy process, the study suggests that an additional three years might be required for complete case disposal. These delays come at a significant financial cost, factoring in additional expenses like travel, accommodation, and meals, making the true price of justice far higher than anticipated.
To address this issue, Pakistan must introduce structural changes and reforms. The Malaysian 2009 reforms, which tackled backlogs by separating judicial workloads and creating dedicated ‘New Commercial and Civil Courts’ with a nine-month target for resolving new cases, offer a model for other countries dealing with similar problems, including Pakistan. The World Bank also noted that the changes made by the Malaysian legal system offer a model for other countries dealing with similar problems. As legal policymakers, government officials, and legal professionals in Pakistan, your role in implementing these reforms is crucial. Your expertise and commitment are key to the success of this transformation.
Pakistan could consider case classification and specialized judges to tackle different categories of cases. The Chief Justice of Malaysia met with judges and established a common goal: an average disposal of four T-Track cases per month per judge and a maximum of six A-Track matters per day. This concrete approach to case management could be a game-changer for Pakistan.
Another impactful reform was the creation of dedicated “New Commercial and Civil Courts” with a nine-month target for resolving new cases. This highlights the importance of setting clear timeframes and performance benchmarks for case resolution. Meanwhile, in Pakistan’s legal framework, there isn’t a generalized obligation for parties to preserve documents or other evidence while awaiting trial. Thus, no one is compelled to follow the time limit of the case. However, according to the Limitation Act 1908, civil cases must adhere to time limits, which specify various periods for different types of claims, most commonly ranging from three to six years. There should be strict adherence to time limits in order to resolve cases on time and clear the backlog.
Additionally, Pakistan could implement an “E-daily reporting system” for case monitoring and upgrading court IT infrastructure, including e-filing, to significantly improve efficiency and access to justice. Malaysia’s emphasis on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs, like court-annexed mediation, offers a promising approach for Pakistan to reduce court burdens and expedite dispute resolution.
Finally, specialization of courts based on subject matter such as the Intellectual Property Court, the Construction Court, the Islamic Banking Court, the Environmental Court, etc., another reform undertaken by Malaysia, could be explored by Pakistan to enhance judicial expertise and expedite case processing. For instance, the Intellectual Property Court could handle copyright and patent disputes, the Construction Court could handle construction-related cases, the Islamic Banking Court could handle cases related to Islamic finance, and the Environmental Court could handle cases related to environmental protection and conservation.
In conclusion, Pakistan’s legal system is in dire need of a significant overhaul to ensure timely access to justice and prevent societal despair. Through bold leadership, strategic planning, and a commitment to innovation, Pakistan can transform its overburdened legal system. The potential benefits of these reforms are immense-a future where justice is not delayed but delivered swiftly, where litigants are not burdened by exorbitant costs and lengthy proceedings, is within reach. By implementing these reforms, legal policymakers, government officials, and legal professionals in Pakistan can look forward to a more efficient and effective legal system, enhancing their work and the overall justice system in the country. It is high time that the necessary reforms are implemented to make this vision a reality.
Please, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com
