Mudassir Rizwan
The Supreme Court of Pakistan recently reaffirmed a principle that should have required no reminder: procedural law exists to protect justice, not to defeat it. By declaring that legal procedure is meant “to give voice to human suffering, not to silence it,” the Court highlighted a concern that extends far beyond a single criminal case. The judgment reflects a larger challenge facing Pakistan’s judicial system, where technical procedures are sometimes treated as ends in themselves rather than instruments for achieving justice.
A legal system earns public respect not because it follows rules mechanically but because it applies those rules fairly and wisely. Procedure is essential in every court because it protects the rights of victims, accused persons, witnesses and society alike. However, when procedure becomes more important than justice itself, the legal system loses its moral purpose. Courts exist to resolve disputes fairly, not to create additional obstacles for those seeking justice.
The case before the Supreme Court demonstrates this concern with remarkable clarity. A prosecution witness discovered that important parts of her recorded testimony had not been accurately transcribed. Among the errors was an incorrect date regarding the alleged offence, an inaccuracy that could influence the credibility of evidence and the fairness of the entire trial. She requested the trial court to compare her testimony with the available video recording and correct the mistakes. The law already provides courts with sufficient authority to undertake such verification whenever necessary.
Despite these clear legal powers, both the trial court and the Sindh High Court refused to grant the request. Instead of determining whether the record truly reflected the witness’s statement, the courts allowed procedural rigidity to prevent a straightforward correction. The Supreme Court rightly held that both decisions were unlawful, set aside the previous orders, and directed the trial court to verify the video recording and correct any inaccuracies. It also instructed that the exercise be completed within fifteen working days so that the criminal proceedings could move forward without unnecessary delay.
The importance of this judgment lies not in introducing a new legal doctrine but in reaffirming a principle that has guided justice systems throughout history. Courts possess procedural powers precisely because mistakes can occur during legal proceedings. Human beings prepare records, record testimony and conduct trials. Human error is therefore inevitable. A fair judicial system recognises this reality and provides mechanisms to identify and correct mistakes before they result in injustice.
Justice requires accuracy. A witness’s testimony forms one of the most important components of a criminal trial. If that testimony is incorrectly recorded, every subsequent stage of the proceedings may be affected. Decisions about guilt, innocence or sentencing must be based upon what was actually said in court rather than what was mistakenly entered into the written record. Refusing to correct obvious inaccuracies simply because a procedural objection exists undermines confidence in the judicial process itself.
This principle has long been reflected in one of the most respected maxims of the common law: justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Citizens judge the fairness of courts not merely by final judgments but by the manner in which judges conduct proceedings. They expect courts to demonstrate impartiality, openness and a genuine willingness to discover the truth. When litigants observe courts refusing to correct visible mistakes, they naturally begin to question whether justice is receiving the attention it deserves.
Pakistan’s judiciary continues to face serious institutional challenges that extend well beyond individual cases. Delayed trials remain one of the most persistent problems. Criminal cases often continue for many years before reaching conclusion. Witnesses lose memory, evidence weakens, victims lose hope, and accused persons remain under prolonged uncertainty. Such delays damage confidence in the rule of law and reduce the effectiveness of the justice system.
Case backlogs also continue to burden courts across the country. Thousands of pending cases place enormous pressure upon judges, lawyers and court staff. Under these circumstances, procedural shortcuts or rigid formalism may appear administratively convenient. However, convenience cannot replace justice. Every litigant deserves careful consideration, regardless of the pressures created by an overloaded judicial system.
Public confidence in the judiciary depends not only upon constitutional independence but also upon everyday courtroom experience. Most judges perform their duties honestly, independently and professionally. Nevertheless, public surveys over many years have repeatedly shown that confidence in the administration of justice remains fragile. Citizens frequently express concerns regarding delays, inconsistency, accessibility and accountability. These concerns deserve careful institutional reflection rather than dismissal as mere public dissatisfaction.
The Supreme Court’s judgment therefore carries significance beyond its immediate legal consequences. It reminds every court that judicial authority brings with it the responsibility to exercise legal powers whenever fairness requires intervention. Statutory discretion is not granted merely for exceptional situations; it exists so that justice may prevail whenever circumstances demand flexibility. Ignoring available legal remedies simply because they require additional effort weakens both judicial credibility and public trust.
The Court’s direction requiring completion of the verification process within fifteen working days deserves particular appreciation. Timely justice is an essential component of fair justice. Speed should never come at the expense of accuracy, but unnecessary delay serves no one’s interests. Victims deserve closure, accused persons deserve certainty, witnesses deserve respect, and society deserves confidence that criminal proceedings are conducted efficiently and lawfully.
The constitutional role of the judiciary places unique responsibilities upon every judge. Courts are entrusted with protecting fundamental rights, interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that executive and legislative power remains subject to law. Such authority requires more than legal knowledge. It requires wisdom, fairness, compassion and the courage to place justice above technical convenience.
Ultimately, laws are created to serve society. They exist because human dignity, liberty and fairness require organised legal protection. Procedure gives structure to justice, but it can never replace justice itself. Whenever technical rules begin to overshadow fairness, courts must restore the proper balance. The Supreme Court has reminded the country of this timeless truth. The lasting value of the judgment will depend upon whether every court, at every level, embraces the same philosophy. A justice system commands respect not because it follows procedure blindly, but because it never forgets that behind every case stands a human being seeking fairness, dignity and the protection of the law.
