o The delivery of justice

By Adnan Adil
February 12, 2016
Print : Opinion
Even after almost three years in office, the present government has not taken a
single step for improving the slow-moving judicial system that has not only
spawned lawlessness but also alienated the people from the state.
There are two obvious reasons for the inordinate, protracted delivery of justice in
this country: one, shortage of judges at all tiers of the judiciary, and two, delaying
tactics used by lawyers to prolong cases through adjournments. Our rulers can
address both the issues if they have a will to do so.
According to former CJ of the Supreme Court, Jawaad S Khawaja, a case
initiating at a lower court in our country on average takes 25 years for final
settlement at the Supreme Court. Only this January, a two-member bench of the
Supreme Court decided a 55-year old case of inheritance.
At the end of 2015, nearly 27,000 cases were pending at the Supreme Court and
60,000 before the Lahore High Court (LHC) and the Sindh High Court each. A
large number of these pending cases were not less than a decade old.
This is despite the fact that the pendency in the two high courts significantly
declined last year as compared to the preceding year 40 percent at the LHC and
20 percent at the SHC owing to improved management of cases. The system,
however, is so acutely ill that small measures cannot clear the backlog piled up
over the decades.
A major factor, but not the only one, behind the slow adjudication of cases is
shortage of judges in the judiciary. Former Sindh High Court CJ Justice Faisal
Arab is on record blaming the scarcity of judges for delay in dispensation of
justice.
According to media reports, at the end of 2014 the Supreme Court and five high
courts were up against 304,813 cases with no more than 130 judges on their
strength.
How the number of judges affect the pace of justice can be seen from the example
of the Sindh High Court where Chief Justice Faisal Arab appointed 10 additional

judges last year as a result of which the number of pending cases significantly
dropped in a matter of a few months.
There are strong lobbies, especially elite lawyers based in big cities, that resist
greater strength of superior courts. When the Senate recently passed a bill to raise
strength of the Supreme Court from 17 to 26, some senior lawyers, including the
executive committee of the Pakistan Bar Council, opposed this move, saying there
was a need to increase judges at lower courts and high courts not in the apex
court. The fact is that there is a need to have more judges at all tiers.
A significant number of the approved strength of judges remains vacant in high
courts. At present, the LHC is short of at least five judges against its sanctioned
strength of 60. The Sindh High Court (SHC) never worked to its approved
strength of 40. These days, there are 33 judges at the SHC. In 2014, it worked
with only 23 judges.
A common excuse for vacancies in superior courts is that competent people are
not available. It defies common sense that in a nation of 200 million with a 100year-old tradition of judicial system based on common law, there is a shortage of
capable people who can work as judges of high courts.
Appropriate people could be in short supply for high courts for the reason that
lower courts do not have adequate number of judges. If young lawyers are
recruited in the lower judiciary in large numbers, they can become experienced
enough over a certain period of time to be elevated to the high courts.
According to figures of the Law and Justice Commission, at the end of 2014,
around 1.4 million cases were pending in lower courts for which there were only
4,000 judges. There is need to enlarge this number by two to three times to make
the system work. Judges in lower courts are so overburdened that a judge has to
deal with 200-400 cases every day.
For a nation with a standing army of 600,000 and a police force of 400,000,
employing 4,000-8,000 more judges for a functional system of justice should not
be a big deal. Similarly, the government can make a law that fixes a timeframe for
the settlement of cases, and penalise those responsible for delay.
Further, our lawmakers need to serious consider establishing an alternative
dispute-resolution mechanism by amending the Arbitration Act, 1940. In his
address to the Senate last November, Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali said that
80 percent of disputes in the country are settled by the unregulated informal
justice sector such as jirgas and panchayats. This mechanism can be formalised by
placing it under certain rules and regulations.
The suggestion that the number of appeals against a court verdict be reduced from
three to two, especially intra-court appeals, also merits serious consideration. The

state also needs to consider setting up high court benches at the district level since
a majority of people cannot afford the cost of travelling and hotel for reaching out
to high courts working in big cities.
If not permanently stationed, judges of high courts can spend some fixed days
each month in a district to hear cases from that particular region. This could be a
big step towards providing justice at peoples doorsteps though this may deprive
elite urban lawyers a portion of their clientele.
A big stakeholder against judicial reforms is the powerful civil bureaucracy. An
expanded and efficient judiciary implies a larger check on the working of the civil
service, including the police. The reality is that police stations are unlawfully
involved in settling property disputes in return for money.
The vested interest against an efficient judicial system is well-entrenched. A
strong political will is needed to overcome these forces, lawyers and bureaucracy
if the people of Pakistan are to be given a fair deal.