When should authorities intervene to restrain or incarcerate a perpetrator, particularly in cases of harassment? In instances of physical assault or intimidation, the signs of harassment are clear. Similarly, property grabbing with the help of gangsters has a visual and thus the injustice gets noticed. A more insidious but nebulous area of property rights violations and bullying exists, where aggressors exploit legal procedures and a lawyer/unregistered barrister, rather than a gangster, facilitates the crime. In this framework, under the garb of a civilised enlightened system, the harassment of the victim beings, paradoxically, on receipt of court summons, which blurs the line between justice and persecution.
In Islamabad, even properties under Capital Development Authorities (CDA) custodianship are vulnerable to attacks. Frivolous litigants can easily file baseless lawsuits and petitions against the Authority often aiming to secure stay orders against targeted properties. At times they obtain court decrees referencing properties without notifying their owners. This malpractice enables criminals to blackmail legitimate property owners through prolonged court hearings. While the civil courts and superior judiciary are blessed with brilliant judges who demonstrate exceptional competence and unwavering integrity, the presence of unscrupulous individuals which may unfortunately involve a judge as well, erodes trust in the system. Typically, the mastermind behind such legal travesties is some opportunistic group seeking easy gains aided by lawyers/unregistered barristers.
This orchestrated harassment escalates into a psychological battle between predator and prey. Many innocent individuals succumb to the relentless pressure, while others, although resilient, are left with lasting anxiety and trauma from being dragged through courts to defend themselves against baseless allegations of the litigant. Whereas Honorable judges, lawyers, and compulsive litigants navigate the courtroom dynamics with ease, genuine petitioners and innocent respondents yearn for swift justice unencumbered by delays and prolonged litigation – Unfortunately, the stressful atmosphere of courtrooms often exacerbates the trauma, contributing to the development of post-traumatic stress disorder. (PTSD).
FOSPAH’s mandate should be expanded to protect women’s rights and provide relief from harassment in malicious property litigation
This collusion between property grabbers, lawyers/unregistered barristers exploits a judicial system that prioritises complainant-based cases, enabling malicious litigation to thrive. This flawed system entraps victims, empowering the predators to hold innocent property owners hostage through litigation. The situation is particularly dire for women. Although Pakistan's Federal Ombudsperson for Harassment of Women at the Workplace (FOSPAH) provides a safeguard against workplace harassment and protects women’s inheritance property rights, a significant loophole remains: A woman's rightful ownership of property can be challenged by strangers, yet FOSPAH lacks a clear jurisdiction to address this specific vulnerability.
To address this gap, FOSPAH’s mandate should be expanded to protect women’s rights and provide relief from harassment in malicious property litigation. Robust protection mechanisms must be placed to support women in these situations. By strengthening FOSPAH’s role Pakistan can ensure that women’s property rights are safeguarded against exploitation and harassment.
A pervasive social issue warrants attention: the gratuitous use of the title barristers by lawyers, which instantly commands reverence and conveys notions of competence, and ethics - when unregistered barristers engage in unethical conduct, it exposes the reverence as a mere relic of our post-colonial mindset. Interestingly, in contrast to the UK, where unregistered barristers are barred from using the title or practicing law Pakistan imposes no such restriction. This enables unregistered barristers to exploit the title for undue advantage undermining the credibility of locally qualified lawyers reinforcing a social hierarchy that respects 'Barrister Sahib' over a 'Vakil'.
The bar associations must act to address such issues, initiating a nationwide cleansing exercise to promote accountability and integrity within the legal profession. A crucial first step would be to prohibit unregistered barristers from using the title "barrister" with their name unless they are ‘registered barristers’. This step would restore the title’s integrity ensuring that only qualified professionals benefit from its associated prestige.
In Conclusion, the judicial system urgently needs to identify and eliminate frivolous litigation at its inception conserving valuable time for genuinely meritorious cases. To eradicate this systemic virus, first and foremost, the judiciary must establish a robust disciplinary framework, modeled after the military court system. To address misconduct among judges, lawyers, and the court civil servants, severe penalties, ranging from imprisonment to mandatory community service, for those found guilty of misconduct must be introduced to purge the system from these malignant elements.
Furthermore, integrating psychiatric evaluation services and trauma centers with court cases is crucial. These facilities should provide accessible support for victims to recuperate from trauma and suppressed rage caused by malicious litigation. Additionally, these centers can offer mandatory rehabilitation programs for compulsive chronic litigants struggling with underlying mental health issues. Lastly, women targeted in property disputes by property grabbers must have the facility to file complaints against these miscreants with the Federal Ombudsperson for Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace (FOSPAH)