BR100 Increased By (0.1%)
BR30 Decreased By (-0.28%)
KSE100 Decreased By (-0.12%)
KSE30 Decreased By (-0.28%)
BECO 5.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-2.49%)
BML 57.79 Increased By ▲ 5.04 (9.55%)
BOP 33.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.37 (-1.08%)
CNERGY 8.16 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DCL 11.78 Decreased By ▼ -0.56 (-4.54%)
FCCL 53.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-0.35%)
FCSC 5.31 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.72%)
FFL 17.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-1%)
FNEL 1.30 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
HUMNL 11.16 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (1.45%)
KEL 8.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.25%)
KOSM 5.47 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.67%)
MLCF 88.15 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.11%)
NBP 183.50 Decreased By ▼ -2.98 (-1.6%)
PACE 11.46 Increased By ▲ 0.74 (6.9%)
PAEL 40.25 Increased By ▲ 0.31 (0.78%)
PIAHCLA 26.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.08%)
PIBTL 17.29 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.17%)
PPL 231.74 Decreased By ▼ -1.04 (-0.45%)
PRL 34.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.45 (-1.29%)
PTC 67.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-0.37%)
SEARL 91.48 Increased By ▲ 0.55 (0.6%)
SSGC 26.94 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-0.85%)
TELE 8.56 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.12%)
THCCL 64.60 Increased By ▲ 4.47 (7.43%)
TPLP 9.37 Increased By ▲ 0.61 (6.96%)
TREET 24.60 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.24%)
TRG 71.85 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.14%)
WAVES 10.98 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (10.02%)
WTL 1.27 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.79%)

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that a justice system’s credibility rests not only in the fairness of its decisions but also in the timeliness with which those decisions are rendered.

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Ayesha A Malik stated the courts must evolve into engines of timely, transparent, and citizen-focused justice.

This relates to auction of an immovable property carried out by a bank in execution of a money decree dated 26.04.2010. The auction took place in 2011. The petitioner promptly raised objections the same year, which were dismissed. He then filed an appeal before the Peshawar High Court (PHC), which remained pending for 10 years, and ultimately decision was delivered in 2021. The case then reached the Supreme Court in 2022 and was taken up in 2025.

The glaring aspect of the case is that after 14 years since the auction and due notice, neither the petitioner nor any authorised representative appeared before the apex court to pursue the petition. The bench, however, dismissed the petition on merits as well as for non-prosecution, and directed the SC office to dispatch a copy of this order to the parties for information and record.

The judgment noted that in this case the appeal of the petitioner kept pending before the High Court for 10 years. “It is beyond cavil that delay in adjudicating cases by the courts at any tier of the justice system corrodes public confidence in the judiciary, undermines the rule of law, and disproportionately harms the weak and vulnerable who cannot afford the cost of prolonged litigation. Delay in adjudication carries severe macroeconomic and societal consequences: it deters investment, renders contracts illusory, and weakens the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary.”

The judgment said that the issue of delay is not merely administrative, it is constitutional. The right to access to justice is guaranteed by Articles 4, 9 and 10A of 1973 Constitution. It encompasses within it the right to a fair and timely trial. Delay that renders a remedy ineffective; or a right illusory amount to a denial of due process. Justice, to be real, must be both just and timely.

The judgment highlighted that over 2.2 million cases are currently pending before courts across Pakistan, including approximately 55,941 cases before this Court alone, in spite of enhancing the number of judges at the Court. These figures are not abstract; they represent disputes suspended in time.

Delay in adjudication is not merely a by-product of docket congestion or branch-level inefficiencies; it is a deeper, structural challenge of judicial governance. The court, as a matter of institutional policy and constitutional responsibility, must urgently transition toward a modern, responsive, and intelligent case management framework.

Such a system must, at a minimum, ensure: the early fixation of cases on a non-discriminatory basis; the elimination of “queue-jumping” and preferential scheduling; the prioritisation of matters involving constitutional, economic, or national importance without compromising the timely resolution of individual claims; the implementation of age-tracking protocols to automatically identify dormant cases; and the judicious use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to assist in scheduling and triage while preserving the sanctity of judicial discretion.

Judicial systems across the world have recognised that delay is not an intractable inevitability but a solvable institutional challenge. Countries such as Singapore, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Estonia, Canada, China, Denmark, and Australia have undertaken comprehensive reforms combining technology, structural innovation, and procedural discipline to reduce backlog and enhance judicial efficiency. Through tools such as e-filing, real-time dashboards, automated scheduling, and transparent digital oversight, these jurisdictions have moved from being passive custodians of dockets to active managers of justice delivery.

The judgment said these international experiences underscore a basic truth: delays in justice are not inevitable; they are a product of institutional design, and can be remedied with vision, planning, and resolve.

The judiciary of Pakistan must draw upon these global lessons and commit to transformative reform that integrates technological innovation, administrative restructuring, and disciplined case management.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.