EDITORIAL: The Supreme Court’s reminder that procedural law exists “to give voice to human suffering, not to silence it” should never have been necessary.
Yet the fact that the country’s highest court found itself correcting lower courts for refusing to rectify obvious inaccuracies in a witness’s testimony speaks to a deeper malaise within Pakistan’s justice system.
Nearly eight decades after independence, courts should hardly require instruction on one of the most fundamental principles of justice: procedure exists to facilitate justice, not frustrate it.
The case itself illustrates the problem with uncomfortable clarity. A prosecution witness sought correction of discrepancies in her recorded testimony after discovering that her statement had not been accurately transcribed, including an incorrect date of the alleged offence.
Rather than exercising powers already available under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to verify the video recording and rectify any inaccuracies, both the trial court and the Sindh High Court declined to do so.
The Supreme Court rightly concluded that this was an illegality, set aside both orders and directed the trial court to undertake the exercise that should have been performed in the first place.
The legal principle reaffirmed by the Supreme Court is neither novel nor controversial.
Courts exist to administer justice fairly, impartially and according to law. Procedural rules are indispensable because they protect due process, safeguard the rights of all parties and ensure consistency in judicial proceedings. They were never intended to become barriers preventing courts from correcting obvious mistakes that threaten the fairness of a trial. A justice system that becomes excessively preoccupied with technicalities risks losing sight of the very purpose for which it exists.
This is reflected in one of the oldest principles associated with the administration of justice: justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Public confidence depends not merely upon correct legal outcomes but upon the visible willingness of courts to ensure fairness at every stage of the judicial process. When litigants encounter rigid procedural formalism instead of a genuine effort to resolve legitimate grievances, confidence in the justice system inevitably suffers.
Unfortunately, this case points towards a broader institutional concern.
Pakistan’s judiciary continues to struggle with delayed proceedings, inconsistent application of procedural safeguards, mounting case backlogs and persistent public perceptions regarding integrity and accountability. While many judges discharge their responsibilities with professionalism and independence, the institution as a whole continues to face criticism that cannot simply be dismissed as public cynicism. Repeated surveys over many years have consistently shown that confidence in the administration of justice remains fragile. That should concern the judiciary as much as it concerns the public.
The Supreme Court’s judgment therefore deserves to be viewed beyond the immediate facts of this particular case. It serves as a reminder that judicial authority carries with it a corresponding obligation to exercise statutory powers whenever justice requires it. Declining to correct an apparent error simply because procedure appears inconvenient undermines both fairness and public trust.
Equally important is the emphasis placed by the Supreme Court on timely disposal of the matter. Justice delayed has long been recognised as justice denied, particularly in criminal cases where victims, witnesses and accused persons all remain trapped within prolonged legal uncertainty. Directing the trial court to complete the verification exercise within fifteen working days and conclude the case thereafter reflects an appreciation that procedural fairness and judicial efficiency must operate together.
The judiciary occupies a unique constitutional position. It serves as the final guardian of fundamental rights and the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes. That role demands not only independence from external influence but also an unwavering commitment to fairness, transparency and practical justice within its own processes.
The Supreme Court has now restated a principle that lies at the heart of every credible legal system. The real challenge is ensuring that this principle is applied consistently throughout the judicial hierarchy. Courts should never lose sight of the simple truth that the law exists for people. People do not exist for the law.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026