ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has called for transformative reforms that integrate technological innovation, administrative restructuring and disciplined case management to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases.
In a four-page judgment authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, delivered while hearing a case challenging the auction of an immovable property, the apex court stressed that the judiciary must draw upon the global lessons and commit to the transformative reforms.
“Courts must evolve into engines of timely, transparent, and citizen-focused justice,” the ruling stressed.
The auction in question occurred in 2011, and the petitioner raised objections the same year, which were dismissed. An appeal was filed before the high court, where it lingered for ten years, culminating in a decision in 2021.
The matter then reached the SC in 2022 and is being addressed now, three years later, in 2025.
The judgment noted that judicial systems worldwide 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,” the court observed.
“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. 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.”
Justice Shah observed that delay in adjudication carries severe macroeconomic and societal consequences. “It deters investment, renders contracts illusory, and weakens the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary.”
“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.”
It further noted that the issue was not merely administrative, but was also constitutional, highlighting that the right to access to justice was guaranteed by Articles 4, 9 and 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
“It encompasses within it the right to a fair and timely trial. Delay that renders a remedy ineffective or a right illusory amounts to a denial of due process. Justice, to be real, must be both just and timely.”
The judgment further highlighted the scale of the problem. “It is pertinent to highlight 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.”
The court noted that delay is not merely the result 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 prioritization 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.”
In the present case, the court noted that the petitioner’s appeal remained pending before the high court for ten 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,” the judgment cautioned.
