Reforms for the SC

The constitution enshrines equality before the law, equal protection, and the right to a fair trial as fundamental guarantees, while Article 37(d) obliges the state to provide inexpensive and expeditious justice. At the centre of this framework stands the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

With its sanctioned strength now expanded to 35 judges, including the honourable chief justice, the Supreme Court has a historic opportunity to introduce reforms aimed at reducing backlog, eliminating delays and restoring public confidence.

Global examples demonstrate their effectiveness: Turkey’s specialised high courts accelerated case disposal, China's digitised "smart courts" expanded access, and France and Germany modernised case management.

Norway, by emphasising mediation and alternative dispute resolution, successfully reduced burdens on superior courts. These lessons affirm that reforms grounded in constitutional principles and institutional will can transform judicial efficiency and enhance public trust.

The mounting backlog of cases has become one of the Supreme Court's most pressing challenges. Pendency has reached unprecedented levels, forcing litigants to endure years, and at times decades, of uncertainty.

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.

Comparative jurisdictions offer models: in India, late and vacation benches are routine; in the UK, urgent matters are heard beyond regular hours; and in the US, the Supreme Court schedules special sittings as needed. Pakistan's Supreme Court may consider adopting similar mechanisms.

Equally important is revising the court’s rules and procedures, still rooted in the 1980 framework, when litigation was far less complex. Reform is both timely and constitutionally sanctioned.

Article 191 empowers the court to regulate its practice, while the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, reinforces this authority. Modernisation can substantially improve efficiency. Turkey’s 2010 reforms, which nearly halved case duration, illustrate the transformative potential.

By following a similar path, Pakistan’s Supreme Court can break the cycle of adjournments.

The assurance of a fair hearing is indispensable to justice. Lawyers and litigants must be given meaningful, uninterrupted opportunities to present their case, for the guarantees of due process under Articles 4 and 10A lose vitality if advocacy is curtailed.

Comparative practice illustrates this principle: courts in Norway and France ensure structured oral arguments, while Germany and Canada balance written briefs with protected oral submissions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan may also consider institutionalising such safeguards, so counsel are heard fully and without undue restriction.

Time-bound justice must also be recognised as the standard of an effective system. Every admitted petition and appeal should be fixed within two months and disposed of within a year, while civil appeals — bearing directly on livelihoods, governance and commerce — should conclude within six months.

Predictability in case management is equally essential. Once a matter is fixed in the cause list, it should not ordinarily be deleted except in unavoidable circumstances. If deletion becomes necessary, it should automatically reappear on the next working day.

India's continuous listing system ensures steady progress, while China’s AI-based scheduling minimises adjournments. Pakistan too must adopt such discipline.

Transparency is another cornerstone of public trust. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.

Courts across Europe issue short operative orders immediately after hearings, with detailed judgments to follow. This prevents speculation, clarifies outcomes and sustains efficiency. Pakistan's Supreme Court should consider issuing operative orders the same day, with reasoned judgments delivered within two months.

Finally, harnessing technology offers transformative potential. Integrated e-filing, online tracking, automated cause lists and digital notifications can streamline litigation. With structured training for lawyers and staff, Pakistan's judiciary can move away from outdated manual processes, ensuring a more accessible and accountable system.

At the same time, certain recent measures — particularly the increase in court fees — have inadvertently restricted access to justice. The sharp rise in filing costs burdens litigants, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Supreme Court, as guardian of fundamental rights, was never envisaged as a revenue-generating body.

Excessive costs risk discouraging genuine litigants and undermine the principle that justice must remain open to all. Equally, access to the Registry must be facilitative rather than burdensome. Procedural hurdles at the main and regional registries often frustrate litigants and counsel.

International practice offers solutions: liaison systems between Bars and courts in France and Norway resolve administrative difficulties swiftly. The Supreme Court should consider adopting similar mechanisms.

Judicial accountability is also integral to credibility. The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), tasked with examining complaints against judges, must function with transparency and timeliness.

Adopting international practices in Pakistan would strengthen both public trust and judicial integrity.

Specialisation within the Supreme Court has likewise become imperative. Modern disputes in taxation, corporate governance, environmental law and human rights require subject-matter expertise. Comparative models such as the Conseil d'Etat in France and Turkey’s Constitutional Court, which use specialised chambers, show how specialisation improves consistency and judicial outcomes.

Finally, reform must be grounded in constructive dialogue between the judiciary, justice sector stakeholders and the Bar. Structured consultations held at least twice annually would allow review of reforms, identification of bottlenecks and refinement of procedures. Germany and Norway already employ such collaborative models. Pakistan too should institutionalise this practice, ensuring reform remains continuous and consultative rather than sporadic.

The constitution guarantees justice that is equal, affordable and timely. Global experience shows that reform is both possible and effective. With its expanded strength and constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court of Pakistan is uniquely placed to lead this transformation and set a precedent for all tiers of the judiciary and reaffirm itself as a beacon of justice and integrity.

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer's own and don't necessarily reflect Geo.tv's editorial policy.

The writer is a practising advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan with 25 years of legal standing. He can be reached at: [email protected]

Originally published in The News