Unclogging the justice system

After taking oath on December 31, 2016 as 25th Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Mian Saqib Nisar, repeatedly stressed the need for speedy justice. However, near to his retirement (January 17, 2019), things have further deteriorated, instead of improving. According to data available on the website of Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan (L&JCP), there was huge pendency of 1,810,745 cases in various courts as on September 30, 2018-if some urgent remedial steps are not taken, the figure may jump to 2.3 million by the end of 2019. In the Supreme Court itself, there was record pendency of 40,243 cases (2,367 cases per judge) as on 30-09-2018. It all proves that mere good intentions and/or impressive speeches cannot bring efficacious dispensation of justice-it requires concentrated efforts and comprehensive structural reforms.
The data by L&JCP [see Table] confirms that every month more cases are filed than disposed-choking the justice delivery system. Despite this critical situation, no emergent plan has been prepared to deal with it. No effort whatsoever has been made till today for reducing the monstrous backlog and removing the causes of unnecessary litigation. Our courts are still following the outdated procedures and methods whereas many countries have adopted e-system for filing of cases and their quick disposal through alternate dispute resolution and/or fast-tracks follow up using the offices of magistrates at grass root levels. Neither Legislature has so far reviewed/updated laws/regulations for effective/speedy justice system, nor has judiciary prepared/presented any concrete plans to discard the outdated procedures suggesting the federal/provincial governments to establish 'Fast Track Courts', as was done by many countries.
Many months back, the CJP lamentably noted that even after getting extraordinary salaries and facilities, the judges were not delivering. Speaking about inordinate delays in deciding cases, the CJP remarked that its responsibility "lay on me and all the judges collectively". The cases of higher judiciary (getting extraordinary emoluments and perquisites) and Federal Board of Revenue (with double salary package) confirm that mere extraordinary salaries and perks cannot improve the system. One needs skilled manpower, efficient network, automated procedures and strong system of checks and balances weeding out those who fail to deliver.
It is a fact that nothing worthwhile has been done by Judiciary and Legislature to bring fundamental changes in the existing exploitative, anti-people, elitist judicial structure that is the real malady. The reform agenda for Judiciary, Executive or Legislature based on patchwork here and there can never succeed, unless fundamental structural changes are made. There is an urgent need for replacing the prevalent, decayed and disintegrating structures with modern and efficient models working successfully in other countries with active people's participation. Since independence, we have failed to reconstruct/modernize/democratise our obsolete state institutions, and judiciary is no exception.
Mere cliché and rhetoric about reforms, as we have been hearing for a long time, will never serve any purpose. Mentioning about dearth of competent judges, delays in dispensation of justice, huge pendency, etc., alone is not enough-these are just symptoms of a very ailing system. The issue is that of a correct prescription for cure. Curing the symptoms without removing the root causes of illness will remain an exercise in futility.
Devising speedy justice system is a daunting challenge in Pakistan due to large pendency, frivolous cases where filers go unpunished, frequent adjournments, administrative highhandedness forcing people to go to courts, outdated procedures, and of course paucity of competent judges. The existing inefficient and outdated judicial system is exploited by money power that hires "crafty" lawyers, some of them are part of law houses of relatives of serving judges.
Table: Consolidate statement showing pendency, institution and disposal of cases during the period of 1st-30th September, 2018 in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Federal Shariat Court, High Courts and District Judiciary
Slogans such as independence of judiciary and justice for all in Pakistani milieu have proved to be mere clichés-even in the wake of restoration of pre-November 3, 2007 judiciary through popular mass campaign. The much-publicised National Judicial Policy 2009 was nothing but an attempt to cure the symptoms as no efforts has been made till today to make meaningful and effective structural changes removing the causes of illness.
In Overhauling justice system [Business Recorder, December 1, 2017], it was highlighted that: "In the process of revamping our justice system there can be two choices; reform the existing system or introduce an entirely new structure. A national debate is needed on this issue. In a democratic setup it is necessary to debate a question of such a sensitive nature having far reaching effects on dispensation of justice and independence of judiciary. A thinker rightly pointed out that: It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it - Joseph Joubert (1754 - 1824)." The following issues must be debated vis-à-vis problems faced by the present judicial system:
Prevalent Problems:
* Quality of adjudicators/judges
* Selection process
* Delays - due to heavy pendency or irrational distribution of work
* Ineffective controls and poor management
* Cumbersome and time-consuming procedures.
Objectives for change:
* Need for professional adjudicators/judges
* Selection through parliamentary process
* Simple and cost effective procedures and rapid disposal of cases".
Matthew C. Stephenson of Harvard Law School in his paper, Judicial Reform in Developing Economies: Constraints and Opportunities, aptly observed that: "....correcting some but not all market imperfections may lead to social welfare reductions, not that it necessarily will do so. And, even when partial reform does have counterproductive effects, these problems may be short-lived if the initial incremental reform efforts are followed by more extensive reform of other institutions. The important lesson is that individual reforms cannot be considered in isolation, and that we can and should draw on the tools of economic analysis, applied in a particular context, to try to identify situations in which certain institutional reforms that appear to be movements toward an unachievable first-best world will actually move us away from an achievable second best".
Article, Judicial Reforms 'under pressure' by João Paulo Dias, Conceição Gomes, published in Utrecht Law Review, provides insight for judicial reforms in a situation like faced by Pakistan for years. It says: "The reform of the judicial map, if correctly planned and executed, should also have included adequate links between the judicial services and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, such as legal advice and information, mediation and arbitration services. This would have involved not only studying and estimating the need for these services under the new geographical organisation to ensure even coverage, particularly in municipalities that would be deprived of a court or in cases where the courts were more distant, but also ensuring that information was made available on the options provided for citizens (including legal professionals). Moreover, although some services which offer mediation may be involved in court cases and therefore require special links with the courts, this was not adequately planned or resolved in the years which followed".
In our case, even the simple solutions like awarding costs to frivolous litigants, adjournment only in exceptional circumstances, appeal by leave of court only, and active case management etc, have not been adopted, what to speak of structural reforms and updating of procedures. We all know the issues faced by our decadent, near-to-collapse judicial system, namely, complexity of procedures, outdated methods, lengthy hearings, highhandedness of public functionaries that is passing of illegal/unlawful orders, lowering standards of pleading and adjudication, rich parties taking advantage of law houses of relatives of serving judges (in India in terms of Rule 6 of Advocates Act, 1961 no relative of a judge can practice where the judge is serving). Unfortunately, in Pakistan, there is no political will to remedy these shortcomings/maladies. The judges/lawyers having vested interest in the existing system will never reform it.
An efficient justice system can only be established if efforts are made to produce highly competent adjudicators at lower level, who are recruited transparently by a board of professionals and not serving judges, and trained extensively at a centre of excellence or a reputed university. It will help produce competent judges for higher courts in future. All appointments of members in all the special tribunals must be through the same procedure. The Chief Justice of Pakistan or any other Judge authorised by him or a committee appointed by him should look into appointments already made on political basis in these tribunals and incompetent members should be declared as disqualified to sit on benches.
The main aim of judicial reforms should be elimination of unnecessary litigation and facilitating smooth running of affairs between the State and its citizens. Once both learn to act within the four corners of law, there would be drastic decrease in litigation. It is painful that presently the governments are the main litigants. They usurp the rights of people and then drag the poor citizens in courts. We all know the reasons for this morbid state of affairs but nobody wants to fix it. Judicial reforms do not stipulate asking for more judges and funds but eliminating unnecessary litigation and quick disposal and to help reduce its occurrence in the first instance.
It is pertinent to mention that the Eleventh Finance Commission of India recommended a five-year scheme for creation of 1734 Fast Track Courts (FTCs) for disposal of long pending cases and provided ?502.90 crores as "special problem and upgradation grant" for judicial administration. The term of FTCs, established to expeditiously dispose of long pending, especially those of under trial prisoners, was to end on March 31, 2005. However, the Indian Supreme Court, which was monitoring the functioning of FTCs observed through Brij Mohan Lal Vs UOI & Ors that these should not be disbanded all of a sudden. The Indian Government accorded its approval for the continuation of 1562 FTCs for a further period of 5 years. According to a report of BBC, the FTCs in India working since 2001 decided till 2012 "more than three million cases". Our successive governments, military and civilian alike, have not considered any such initiative and judiciary has also not pondered about it.
No concrete proposals, executable plans and time-frames have come from the higher judiciary. Parliament and successive governments have also never tried to give priority to providing the country an efficient justice system. It is high time that we should move from clichés to pragmatism for judicial and other reforms. Competent men in each field of law can be hired as Additional Judges in terms of Article 197 of Constitution for 3-5 years to clear the entire backlog, while the permanent judges should be assigned the task of just taking up new cases and finalise the same within one year of their filing. This simple solution can go a long way to improve dispensation of justice and eliminating the mammoth backlog. Unless it is done, the justice system will remain choked and clogged.
(The writers, advocates and partners in Huzaima, Ikram & Ijaz, are Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences)

================================================================================

Superior Courts                     Pendency Institution    Disposal     Balance

                                              during the  during the

                                                  period      period

================================================================================

Supreme Court of Pakistan             40,871         988       1,637      40,243

Federal Shariat Court                    500           6          84         422

================================================================================

====================================================================================================================================================================

Name of Courts                       Old Cases Filed upto 31-12-2011            New Cases Filed from 1-1-2012                      Old + New (Grand Total)

====================================================================================================================================================================

High Courts                          Pending    Disposed     Balance     Pending  Instituted    Disposed     Balance     Pending  Instituted    Disposed     Balance

====================================================================================================================================================================

Lahore High Court                     10,300         243      10,057     151,172      14,705      10,419     155,458     161,472      14,705      10,662     165,515

High Court of Sindh                   16,254         268      15,993      76,896       3,023       3,745      76,176      93,150       3,023       4,013      92,169

Peshawar High Court                    3,426          27       3,399      26,279       1,192       1,246      26,225      29,705       1,192       1,273      29,624

High Court of Balochistan                306          11         295       6,549         342         344       6,547       6,855         342         355       6,842

Islamabad High Court                   1,403          24       1,377      15,412         818         577      15,708      16,815         818         601      17,085

Total (High Courts)                   31,689         573      31,121     276,308      20,080      16,331     280,114     307,997      20,080      16,904     311,235

====================================================================================================================================================================

District Judiciary                   Pending    Disposed     Balance     Pending  Instituted    Disposed     Balance     Pending  Instituted    Disposed     Balance

====================================================================================================================================================================

District Judiciary, Punjab            10,938         174      10,783   1,062,104     235,960     214,440   1,084,759   1,073,042     235,960     214,614   1,095,542

District Judiciary, Sindh              1,151         143       1,107     100,237      23,435      23,717      99,952     101,388      23,435      23,860     101,059

District Judiciary, KPK                  408          50         386     202,595      45,309      38,556     209,598     203,003      45,309      38,606     209,984

District Judiciary, Balochistan           96           5          92      14,203       4,134       4,460      13,877      14,299       4,134       4,465      13,969

District Judiciary, Islamabad            906           7         914      37,070      10,713      10,406      37,377      37,976      10,713      10,413      38,291

Total (District Judiciary)            13,499         379       3,282   1,416,209     319,551     291,579   1,445,563   1,429,708     319,551     291,958   1,458,845

Grand Total (Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court, High Courts and District Judiciary)                                 1,779,076     340,625     310,583   1,810,745

====================================================================================================================================================================