In a deeply distressing incident that has reverberated throughout Pakistan, a litigant by the name of Asif Javed, aged 45, set himself ablaze on the premises of the Lahore High Court on Tuesday. This extreme act of self-immolation was reportedly the final, desperate outcry of a man who had been engaged in a prolonged legal battle over his dismissal by a private company—a dispute that had languished in the courts for over five years without a final resolution. Although the details of his case remain part of an ongoing judicial process, his tragic gesture has ignited a broader discussion about the challenges faced by the country’s legal system. Eyewitnesses described the scene with palpable sorrow. Javed is said to have arrived at the court carrying a bottle of petrol. Standing near the main entrance, he doused himself with the fuel and ignited it, suffering severe burns in the process. Despite immediate intervention by medical personnel and rescue teams, his injuries were so extensive that he ultimately succumbed to the ordeal. While the circumstances of his protest are both heartbreaking and complex, his actions have become a symbol of the immense personal cost borne by individuals caught in lengthy legal disputes.
This incident brings to mind the well-known adage, “justice delayed is justice denied,” a phrase that has, in recent years, taken on a particularly somber meaning in Pakistan. The nation’s judicial system is currently burdened with an overwhelming number of pending cases. According to the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, as of December 2023 there were approximately 2.26 million cases awaiting resolution across various levels of the judiciary. This colossal backlog comprises roughly 1.86 million cases within the district courts and another 390,000 in the upper-tier courts, which include the Supreme Court, the Federal Shariat Court, and the High Courts. The situation in the apex court further illustrates the scale of the challenge. By the end of 2023, the number of pending cases in the Supreme Court had risen to 55,971, up from 52,424 at the close of the previous year. This represents an approximate 18 percent increase in unresolved cases over the past year—a trend that, if sustained, threatens to double the court’s workload over the coming decade.
One of the most significant factors contributing to this crisis is the acute shortage of judicial manpower. With only around 4,000 judges serving a population that exceeds 200 million, the ratio stands at roughly one judge for every 50,000 citizens. This disproportionate allocation of resources makes it exceedingly difficult for the courts to manage their caseloads effectively. The resulting delays often lead to repeated adjournments and an ever-prolonged litigation process that further burdens litigants, both emotionally and financially.
With only around 4,000 judges serving a population that exceeds 200 million, the ratio stands at roughly one judge for every 50,000 citizens
The financial and emotional toll on individuals embroiled in these drawn-out legal battles cannot be overstated. A study conducted by the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) has found that the average resolution time for cases in civil and magisterial courts now approaches four years. During this period, litigants are required to attend as many as 40 court hearings, with nearly 15 of these being rescheduled for various reasons. These protracted proceedings impose significant financial burdens, including expenses related to travel, accommodation, and legal fees. For many, the cost of pursuing justice forces them to incur debt or even sell personal assets, further compounding their distress.
The case of Asif Javed died in search of justice is not an isolated incident but rather a stark manifestation of a much larger problem. His act of self-immolation reflects the deep-seated frustration and despair felt by many individuals who have found themselves trapped in a cycle of delayed justice. When legal resolutions are perpetually postponed, the promise of a fair and equitable process is undermined. This not only erodes public confidence in the judiciary but also has broader social ramifications. Prolonged delays in justice can destabilise societal norms, as citizens begin to question whether the legal system is truly capable of protecting their rights and ensuring accountability.
The challenges faced by Pakistan’s judiciary are multifaceted. Factors such as bureaucratic inefficiencies, the slow pace of administrative processes, and the reliance on outdated colonial-era laws all contribute to the current situation. While these issues are complex and deeply entrenched, they underscore the urgent need for comprehensive judicial reforms. International examples, such as Malaysia’s successful judicial overhaul in 2009, provide a potential roadmap for improvement. In Malaysia, measures such as the classification of cases, the establishment of specialised courts, and the integration of technology into case management systems helped to significantly reduce delays and improve overall efficiency. For Pakistan, similar strategies could be adapted to address its unique challenges.
Reform initiatives might include modernising case management procedures through the introduction of electronic filing systems and virtual hearings, as well as the expansion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration. These measures could help alleviate the burden on the traditional court system by offering faster, less formal avenues for dispute resolution. Additionally, efforts to enhance transparency in judicial appointments and improve resource allocation could help restore public trust and ensure that the courts are better equipped to manage their caseloads.
It is important to note that any call for reform must be balanced with respect for the independence and integrity of the judiciary. While the issues highlighted here are serious and warrant immediate attention, the focus must remain on constructive change rather than on disparaging current judicial processes. The aim should be to strengthen the system so that it can better serve the public and uphold the principles of justice and fairness, rather than to undermine the institution itself. His desperate act is a poignant reminder that timely and equitable justice is not merely a legal formality, but a fundamental human right essential for the health and stability of society.
The challenges are immense, but with concerted effort, political will, and the collaboration of all stakeholders—including the judiciary, legislature, executive, and civil society—there is hope for a more efficient and responsive legal system. Ultimately, the urgent need for judicial reform in Pakistan is undeniable. The tragic events at the Lahore High Court underscore the human cost of a system that fails to deliver timely justice. For the nation to move forward, it must embrace reforms that not only reduce case backlogs and streamline procedures but also enhance public trust in the judiciary. Only then can the promise of justice be fully realised, ensuring that the system is seen to be both effective and fair for all citizens.