ISLAMABAD:
In a ruling reinforcing the principle of institutional accountability, the Supreme Court has held that the state must organise itself in a manner that allows it to function efficiently within prescribed legal timelines, and cannot seek indulgence for delays arising from its own inefficiencies.
A division bench led by Justice Ayesha Malik rejected the finance ministry’s appeal in a service matter on account of a 20-day time bar, observing that the delay, as explained by the petitioner, did not constitute sufficient cause. “The explanation offered and that tendered in the application is essentially that the petition could not be filed in time due to internal procedural requirements and administrative challenges,” a four-page judgement authored by Justice Ayesha Malik said.
“Both explanations are totally unsatisfactory as internal procedural requirements or administrative inconveniences cannot override the legal obligation to file the petition within the given time.”
“The petitioner is fully aware of the prescribed timeframe within which the Petition was required to be filed yet it gave preference to bureaucratic process without any effort to speed up the process.”
“Such conduct amounts to a conscious disregard of the requirements of law and also reflects poor enforcement within the system of governance. Poor enforcement, in this context, refers to the failure of the state to ensure that timelines as set out in the law are treated as binding,” the judgement noted.
The court further noted that a system unable to ensure adherence to its own legal obligations reflects weakness in internal accountability.
Where delay is explained by reference to administrative routine rather than unavoidable circumstance, it indicates that compliance is dependent on convenience rather than discipline.
The ruling noted this kind of delay is inexcusable particularly when no effort has been made to reform or improve the procedure that causes so much delay.
“The state enforces the law against citizens and expects compliance within prescribed timelines. It must therefore hold itself to the same standard. If the State is permitted to disregard statutory timeframes on account of its own internal inefficiencies, it creates an imbalance in the administration of justice and undermines the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law.”
It observed that when the State fails to comply with these timelines and seeks indulgence for administrative delay, it transfers the consequences of its disorganization onto the court and the opposing party, who is often in a weaker position than the state.
“Good governance requires that institutions function through clear responsibility, internal discipline, and adherence to law. If compliance depends on convenience rather than structured systems, delay becomes routine and accountability diminishes,” it further noted.
