Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court
Justice in Pakistan is not merely a legal principle it is a constitutional promise.
The Constitution enshrines equality before the law, equal protection, and the right to a fair trial as fundamental guarantees, while Article 37(d) expressly obliges the State to provide inexpensive and expeditious justice. These are not abstract ideals; they are guiding principles meant to shape the functioning of courts and ensure that justice is delivered in the daily lives of citizens.
At the heart of this constitutional framework stands the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the nation’s highest judicial authority and the ultimate guardian of fundamental rights. With its sanctioned strength recently expanded to thirty-five judges, including the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the Court has before it a historic opportunity: to introduce structural reforms that reduce backlog, eliminate delays, and restore public confidence. Comparative experience affirms that such reforms are possible. Turkey’s specialized high courts accelerated disposal rates, China’s digitized “smart courts” expanded access, while France and Germany modernized case management to control pendency. Norway, emphasizing mediation and alternative dispute resolution, eased pressure on superior courts. Together these lessons demonstrate that reforms, if grounded in constitutional principles and institutional resolve, can transform judicial efficiency and enhance public trust.
Tackling Backlog through Innovation
The mounting backlog of cases has become one of the most pressing challenges confronting Pakistan’s Supreme Court. Pendency has reached unprecedented levels, forcing litigants to endure years—sometimes decades—of uncertainty. Meaningful reform requires both innovation and resolve. Extending working hours, constituting late benches for urgent causes, and adopting flexible sittings during vacations could ease the strain. India regularly convenes late and vacation benches; in the United Kingdom urgent matters are heard beyond regular hours; while the U.S. Supreme Court holds special sittings when circumstances demand. Pakistan’s Court could adopt similar mechanisms for bail petitions, election disputes, human rights cases, and stay applications—matters where delay often translates directly into denial of justice.
Another area meriting serious consideration is the question of long judicial vacations. While the tradition of extended summer recesses has historical roots, it has become increasingly difficult to justify in light of today’s mounting backlog and the constitutional command of expeditious justice. Comparative practice is instructive: the Supreme Courts of the United Kingdom, Canada, and India observe far shorter recess periods, ensuring that the work of the Court continues almost year-round. A reassessment of Pakistan’s long vacation calendar—by shortening or restructuring it—would significantly increase sitting days, enhance productivity, and directly address pendency. Such a reform, far from undermining judicial independence, would strengthen public confidence in the judiciary’s commitment to accessibility and timely justice.
Modernizing Rules and Procedures
Equally critical is the revision of the Court’s procedural framework, which still rests on the 1980 rules—designed for a very different volume and complexity of litigation. Article 191 of the Constitution empowers the Court to regulate its practice, while the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 reinforces this authority. Reform should focus on introducing strict timelines, reducing technicalities, and embedding digital processes. Turkey’s 2010 procedural reforms nearly halved average case duration, illustrating the transformative potential of modernization. By following a similar path, Pakistan can break the entrenched cycle of adjournments and ensure timely, inexpensive justice.
Ensuring the Right to a Fair Hearing
The assurance of a fair hearing is indispensable to justice. Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution guarantee due process, which loses vitality if lawyers are curtailed from presenting full arguments. Comparative practice is instructive: Norway and France ensure structured oral arguments; Germany and Canada balance written briefs with protected oral submissions. Pakistan’s Supreme Court could likewise institutionalize safeguards to ensure advocacy is respected and heard without undue restriction, thereby strengthening deliberation and public confidence.
Instituting Time-Bound Justice
Every admitted petition and appeal should, as principle, be fixed within two months and decided within a year. Civil appeals, with direct impact on livelihoods and governance, should conclude within six months. Such timelines are realistic: Germany and Norway resolve most cases within a year, while the UK Supreme Court lists appeals within weeks of admission. Pakistan must aspire to similar standards to fulfill its constitutional command of expeditious justice.
Predictability in case management is equally vital. Once listed, cases should not be deleted except under unavoidable circumstances, and if deleted, must be re-listed the very next day. The Indian Supreme Court’s system of continuous listing and China’s AI-based scheduling show how efficiency can be institutionalized.
Transparency and Technology
Justice must not only be done but seen to be done. Many European courts issue short operative orders immediately, with detailed judgments to follow. Pakistan’s Supreme Court could adopt the same approach, issuing operative orders at the conclusion of hearings and reasoned judgments within two months.
Harnessing technology offers transformative potential: integrated e-filing, online tracking, automated cause lists, and digital notifications can streamline litigation. Singapore and Norway demonstrate how digitization reduces costs and builds trust. With training for lawyers and staff, Pakistan’s judiciary can transition from outdated manual processes toward transparency and accessibility.
Ensuring Access and Reducing Costs
Some recent measures, such as increased court fees, have inadvertently restricted access to justice. Excessive filing costs burden disadvantaged litigants, contradicting the Court’s mandate to uphold rights rather than generate revenue. Justice is a public good, not a commercial service. Many countries, including Germany and Norway, maintain nominal court fees with the State bearing costs to ensure equal access. Pakistan too must reaffirm this approach, ensuring that no citizen is excluded due to financial hardship.
Access to the Registry also requires reform. Procedural hurdles at the main and regional registries frustrate litigants and counsel. International solutions—such as liaison systems between bars and courts in France and Norway—could transform registries from barriers into service-oriented arms of the Court.
Accountability and Specialization
Judicial accountability sustains credibility. The Supreme Judicial Council must function with transparency, consistency, and timeliness. Practices in the UK, Canada, and the U.S.—where proceedings are partly public, decisions reasoned, and annual reports issued—show accountability can be ensured without undermining independence.
Specialization is equally urgent. Complex disputes in taxation, corporate law, environment, and human rights require subject-matter expertise. Models like France’s Conseil d’État and Turkey’s specialized chambers show how specialization improves quality, predictability, and consistency. Pakistan would benefit greatly from institutionalizing specialized benches.
Dialogue and Continuous Reform
Finally, reform must rest on constructive dialogue between judiciary, bar, and justice sector stakeholders. Structured consultations twice annually would allow review of reforms, identification of bottlenecks, and procedural refinement. Germany and Norway employ such collaborative models to strengthen their systems; Pakistan must do the same to ensure reform is continuous, not sporadic.
Conclusion
The Constitution enshrines the principle that justice must be equal, affordable, and timely. International experience confirms that judicial reform is both possible and proven. With enhanced strength and constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court of Pakistan is uniquely placed to lead transformation. Rationalizing fees, modernizing procedures, ensuring fair hearings, embracing technology, strengthening accountability, extending hours, revisiting vacation calendars, and creating specialized benches are practical steps within reach.
Justice must no longer remain a distant aspiration—it must become the lived reality of every citizen. The Supreme Court stands at a defining moment in its history. By embracing reform, it can set a precedent for all tiers of the judiciary and reaffirm itself as a beacon of justice, efficiency, and constitutional integrity for generations to come.
—The writers is a renowned constitutional and legal expert with more than 25 years of standing. He can be reached at 03008487161. Justice in Pakistan: From Constitutional Promise to Practical Reform.
