Malice Towards None & All: Unclogging Of Clogged Judicial System

*Click the Title above to view complete article on https://thefridaytimes.com/.

A reforms agenda for the judiciary, executive, or legislature based on patchwork here and there, can never succeed unless fundamental structural changes are made

2024-09-21T22:07:00+05:00 Dr. Ikramul Haq

The available data confirms that every year, more cases are filed than disposed of—choking the justice delivery system. Despite this critical situation, there is no emergent plan to deal with it. No concrete efforts whatsoever have been made to remove the causes of unnecessary litigation and reducing and eliminating backlog. Our courts are still following outdated procedures and methods whereas many developing countries have adopted e-systems for filing of cases and their quick disposal through fast-track follow-ups using information technology tools and taking e-courts or mobile courts at grass root levelsMalice Towards None & All: All-pervasive Judicial Reform (Part I), The Friday Times, September 30, 2023

The lawmakers (sic) of the ruling government, on the dictates of those who matter in the land are bent upon destroying the existing judicial system—if we really have one! In the garb of providing “free”, “speedy” and “fair” (sic) justice, an effort is underway to pave the way for the trial of civilians in military courts even on the flimsy charges of maligning the armed forces through verbal or written criticism on their perpetual interferences in politics and ever-increasing economic interests by indulging in commercial ventures.

The issues in the tepid dispensation of justice in Pakistan, and the non-fulfilment of the fundamental right to fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan [“the Constitution”] were discussed in a two-part series in these columns and various articles. However, as expected, no attention whatsoever was paid by those sitting in the federal and provincial law ministries, what to talk of initiating an open public debate on these vital issues to ascertain remedies.

For preparing a pragmatic reform agenda for all-pervasive judicial reforms—the prime challenge is dismantling of the outdated and anti-people colonial structures prevailing in all spheres of governance, and judiciary is no exception. Many proposals were discussed in two-part series about reconstructing a modern, fully automated judicial system after dismantling the existing one. Those who matter in the Land of the Pure did not even bother to read—they boast of having ready-made solutions for all ills of society!

Any society that lacks an efficient judicial system which cannot ensure effective dispensation of justice, cannot progress. Undoubtedly, the pathetic state of the dispensation of justice in Pakistan needs serious attention—there is a consensus that our choked and costly justice system—primarily serving the rich and mighty—is at the brink of collapse. This calls for an urgent need to reform the entire system. This entails the preparation of an emergent plan for expeditious disposal of pending cases and removing the causes of excessive and frivolous litigation. None of these is, unfortunately, present in various versions (drafts) of the proposed 26th Constitution Amendment Bill circulating in the media.   

After taking oath as the 29th Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) on September 17, 2023, Justice Qazi Faez Isa has repeatedly stressed the need to substantially reduce the pendency of cases in the highest court of the country. Now, he is on the verge of retirement (October 25, 2024, will be his last day in office), but things, instead of improving, have deteriorated further as far as the pendency of cases is concerned—this is despite the record disposal of cases during his tenure.

The issue is that of greater inflow—filing of cases—than outflow—disposal of cases. On the  Supreme Court of Pakistan's website, the latest figures of disposal of cases contained in the Weekly/Fortnightly Disposal Report (Registry-Wise Summary) for the fortnight September 2, 2024 to September 13, 2014 show that out of 811 cases fixed at the principal seat, only 126 were decided.

According to a new report, “in the initial tenure of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the apex court witnessed a commendable reduction in pending cases...from September 17, 2023, to December 16, 2023 ….the number of pending cases dipped from 56,503 to 55,644”. The reports added, “However, the situation took a downturn in the subsequent three months. As per the fortnightly report, the total number of pending cases surged to 57,181 by March 31, 2024. Alarmingly, an additional 1,537 cases were added to the overall backlog during the first quarter of this year”.

There is a need for replacing the prevalent, decayed and disintegrating systems with modern and efficient models working successfully in other countries. Since independence, we have failed to reconstruct/modernise/democratise our obsolete state institutes

The above pattern of increase in backlog is not confined to the Supreme Court alone. In fact, it is the case with every court and tribunal working in Pakistan. The Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, in its Bi-Annual Report of Judicial Statistics for the period July to December 2023, noted with concern that “the overall pendency of cases has increased by 3.9 percent, reaching a staggering 2.26 million cases”.

The report contains comprehensive information about the statistics of cases from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Federal Shariat Court, all High Courts and the District Judiciary. It reveals that 82% of pending cases (1.86 million) are at the district judiciary level, while the remaining 18% (0.39 million cases) are at the upper tier, which includes the Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court, and High Courts.

According to the report, “2.38 million new cases were filed during the period, while the courts managed to resolve 2.3 million cases. Despite this significant resolution, the backlog of pending cases remained high due to the continual filing of new cases”. The report presents a detailed analysis of the pending cases in the High Courts and District Judiciary—civil cases constitute 81% of the cases pending in the High Courts, while criminal cases account for 19%. On the other hand, at the level of the district judiciary, civil cases constitute 64% of the pending cases, while the remaining 36% comprise criminal cases. 

It is a fact that the judiciary and the legislature have done nothing worthwhile to bring fundamental changes in the existing exploitative, anti-people, elitist structure that is the real malady.  

The reform agenda for the judiciary, executive, or legislature based on patchwork here and there, can never succeed unless fundamental structural changes are made. There is a need for replacing the prevalent, decayed and disintegrating systems with modern and efficient models working successfully in other countries. Since independence, we have failed to reconstruct/modernise/democratise our obsolete state institutes.

Neither the legislature has so far reviewed/updated laws/regulations for an effective/speedy justice system, nor has the judiciary prepared/presented any concrete plans to discard the outdated procedures suggesting the federal/provincial governments to establish ‘Fast Track Courts’ as was done in India way back in 2001

Mere cliché and rhetoric about reforms, as we have been hearing for a long time, will not serve any purpose. Mentioning about the dearth of competent judges, delays in dispensation of justice, huge pendency, etc., alone is not enough—of course, these are symptoms of a very sick system, but where is the prescription for a cure? Curing the symptoms without removing the root cause of illness would be just an exercise in futility. No concrete proposals, executable plans with definitive timelines have come from the incumbent CJP during his tenure, as was the case with his predecessors. Parliament and successive governments have never tried to provide an efficient justice system. It is high time that we should move from clichés to pragmatism for reforms.

The data by the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan (L&JCP) confirms that every month, more cases are filed than disposed of—choking the justice delivery system. Despite this critical situation, there is no emergent plan to deal with it. No effort whatsoever has been made to remove the causes of unnecessary litigation and reducing/eliminating backlog.

Our courts are still following the outdated procedures and methods whereas many countries have adopted e-system for filing of cases and their quick disposal through fast-track follow-ups using the offices of magistrates at grass root levels. Neither the legislature has so far reviewed/updated laws/regulations for an effective/speedy justice system, nor has the judiciary prepared/presented any concrete plans to discard the outdated procedures suggesting the federal/provincial governments to establish ‘Fast Track Courts’ as was done in India way back in 2001.

It is pertinent to mention that the Eleventh Finance Commission of India recommended a five-year scheme for the creation of 1,734 Fast Track Courts (FTCs) for the disposal of long pending cases and provided INR502.90 crores as a “special problem and upgradation grant” for judicial administration. The term of FTCs, established to expeditiously dispose of long pending, especially those of under-trial prisoners, was to end on March 31, 2005. However, the Indian Supreme Court, which was monitoring the functioning of FTCs, observed through Brij Mohan Lal Vs UOI & Ors that these should not be disbanded all of a sudden.

The Indian government accorded its approval for the continuation of 1,562 FTCs for a further period of five years. According to a report of BBC, the FTCs in India working since 2001 decided until 2012 “more than three million cases”. Our successive governments, military and civilian alike, have not considered any such initiative, and the judiciary has also not pondered about it.

An efficient justice system can only be established if efforts are made to produce highly competent adjudicators at lower levels. It will help produce competent judges for higher courts in future

On December 15, 2017, the Indian Supreme Court approved a scheme prepared by the Indian government to set up FTCs for pending criminal cases against all the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs). Around 12 FTCs started working from March 1, 2018, to ensure that 13,500 pending cases against 1,581 MPs and MLAs end within a year so that they can continue as public officeholders or leave the Houses after conviction. In Pakistan, there is no data about the criminal cases against elected members, what to speak of their taking them up on a priority basis.

Devising a speedy justice system is a daunting challenge in Pakistan due to large pendency, frivolous cases where filers go unpunished, frequent adjournments, administrative highhandedness forcing people to go to courts, outdated procedures and paucity of judges. The existing inefficient and outdated judicial system is exploited by money power that hires crafty lawyers to get justice “delayed/destroyed/manoeuvred.

Slogans such as the independence of the judiciary and justice for all in the Pakistani milieu have proved to be mere clichés—even in the wake of the restoration of the pre-November 3, 2007, judiciary through popular mass campaign. The much-publicised National Judicial Policy 2009 was nothing but an attempt to cure the symptoms as no efforts have been made till today to make meaningful and effective structural changes removing the causes of illness.

An efficient justice system can only be established if efforts are made to produce highly competent adjudicators at lower levels. It will help produce competent judges for higher courts in future. All existing appointments of members in all the special tribunals created under Article 212 of the Constitution must be placed before the chief justice of the provincial high court in which the members are performing their duties. The chief justice himself or any other judge authorised by or committee appointed by him may look into such appointments to approve or disapprove the same, which would be binding on the federal government. All existing and future appointments in appellate tribunals must be screened by the judicial organ of the state.

The main aim of judicial reforms should be the elimination of unnecessary litigation and facilitating the smooth running of affairs between the state and its citizens. Once both learn to act within the four corners of the law, there would be a drastic decrease in litigation. It is painful that presently the federal and provincial governments are the main litigants. They usurp the rights of people and then drag the hapless citizens in courts. We all know the reasons for this morbid state of affairs, but nobody wants to fix it. Judicial reforms, in any civilised and law-abiding society, would not require more judges, buildings and vehicles, perks and perquisites, but eliminating unnecessary litigation and quick disposal would help reduce the occurrence of backlog in the first instance.

View More News