1
PAKISTAN FIRST NATIONAL PROJECT OF
ACCESS TO JUSTICE 1
SCHOOL OF GOVERNANCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, LAHORE
Maat was both the goddess and the personification of truth
and justice. Her ostrich feather represents truth.
1
Author: Mohammed Asif Mian, specialized MA degree in judicial administration, MA Degree in Politics with Major in
Public Administration and International Relations, Brock University, Canada-; Served as Civil Servant in the Ministry of
Attorney General of Ontario, Canada; Served as Trial Coordinator in the Toronto (90 days) Speedy Trial Courts; served as
consultant in Pakistan’s First National Delay Reduction Project-financed by the Asian Development Bank; former student of
Dr. Carl Baar of York University, an international renowned expert of court management systems; have done teaching for 35
years in Canada, Ecuador, mostly in Pakistani institutions of UMT, F. C. College, Punjab University, Government College
University, visiting professor to Quid-e-Azam Law college, Pakistan Administrative Staff College, Lahore, National Institute
of Public Administration, Lahore
2
PAKISTAN FIRST NATIONAL PROJECT OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE
PREFACE
Access to Justice System research paper is based on this writer’s personal participation as a
consultant in workshops of Pakistan’s First National Court Delay Reduction Reform Project
for access to justice. Most of the information is based on personal interaction with various
participants in the workshops of reform project, observation and monitoring operation of pilot
courts. The workshops were organized for ten pilot courts of the lower judiciary. The
provincial High Courts selected the pilot judges of civil and criminal courts from Karachi,
Lahore and Peshawar for training in the modern principles and techniques of case flow
management system (CFM). The experts of court management resource persons were
selected by the Asian Development Bank from Canada, the US and Australia collaboration of
apex judiciary and District and Session judges in Pakistan. This resource person, along with
other international court management experts worked under the direct supervisor of the chief
consultant, former professor this writer, Dr. Carl Baar from Canada. The entire team of
consultants provided training, and explained that how judges of the lower courts could
exercise their control, with the application of modern court management principles, over the
life of a case from the stage of filing to the stage of its final disposition. The pilot judges
participated in this project of four years; the participants started producing positive results for
court delay reduction in span of eight months training. For example, in the first eight months
of this incredible project, the criminal pilot courts increased 100% disposal rate of their cases
and on the civil side, there was 70% increase; and these positive results purely achieved with
dedication, hard work and honesty through strict application of CFM without input of
3
additional financial resources or court room staff. (See record in the Federal Judicial
Academy, Islamabad)
At the outset, this writer took up the basic task to examine more than 4000 thousand court
case files to find out causes of court delay; interviewed the various members of the judicial
staff and their judges; the interviews of the lawyers and their clients and witnesses, police
officers and witnesses of the prosecution, reasons for adjournments, and parties relating to
civil and criminal cases pending in the lower courts for final dispassion (in view of the
judicial rules and ethical constraints, this author cannot disclose or mention the names of
parties for interview). This task was imperatively required to collect the information and facts
about court delay and backlog of cases. This important information helped to analyse the
flaws in the judicial system and it was taken into the different workshops of this Pakistan’s
First National Court Delay Reduction Project (PNCDRP) for discussing and analyzing the
problems of court administration and come up with pragmatic solutions. PNCDRP lasted for
four years and its various workshops were held quarterly in Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar and
Federal Judicial Academy in Islamabad. The project produced incredible positive results as
the pilot courts’ judges demonstrated their competence, hard work with dedication. At the
end of PNCDRP, the pilot judges were taken to Singapore to visit the courts of their foreign
counter parts. Indian, Pakistani, Chinese and Malays who were working efficiently under the
modern court management system with hardly any delay in disposing of their cases and were
successfully and effectively preventing pendency of case backlog. It was rewarding for the
pilot judges from Pakistan to see the modern legal management culture and working
environment of courts in Singapore.
The Asian Development Bank provided US $350 million as soft loan to Pakistan for
reforming and modernizing the lower judicial system. It was strongly recommended to
4
computerize the lower courts, modernize their dust laden court record system and set up
public kiosks for information on court house premises. Unfortunately, the former Chief
Justice Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry and other judges probably ignored the great success of the
pilot court project, the modern management system of court delay reduction. Perhaps, he had
no time to read the report of great success of the pilot project and experimental operation of
modern court management system of his own lower courts conducted by the pilot judges. He
never took any initiative to computerize judicial system. ADB soft loan of three hundred fifty
million dollars either became a bone of contention between the judiciary and the Ministry of
Law and Parliamentary Affairs or perhaps it became dollar ridden judicial mystery, or
perhaps it was returned to ADB without spending on modernizing the lower courts or this
matter developed into some kind classified information.
While writing up on the main theme of this paper, it appears relevant to briefly add few ideas
about the concept of justice. For example we can take up John Rawls theory of distributive
justice who argues for a fair and impartial distribution of goods. Accordingly he holds that it
mayturns out to be “someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others”.
(Rawls,1999:266). However, his two principles of justice are widely appreciated when he
states that, “ social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are bothto the
greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, andattached
to
offices
and
positions
open
to
all
under
conditions
of
fair
equality
of
opportunity.”(Rawls,1999:3)
Human organizations are complex and interdependent open systems for realization of their
organizational goals; in all nation states, Judiciary is set up as a third organ of the government
for justice in the society; and courts as judicial organs are open system, as pointed out earlier,
in terms of input of disputes between the outsiders and their adjudication as output for the
outsiders. Courts under different jurisdictions keep getting cases of disputes and it is
5
extremely important to keep on disposing cases without unwanted delay; because, the court
delay results in backlog; if the delay is left unmanaged, the courts become sluggish; the
arteries for the flow of justice are clogged; and as result in the absence of modern CFM
system, the judges start wrestling skyrocketing backlog of cases. With this reason, the judicial
system becomes out dated and decadent. They start moving into the final stages of decay.
They become sluggish and closed systems because imperatively courts need continuous input
of modern management reforms for delay reduction and beat the backlog. The judges must
become masters of their house to exercise control over the life of each and every case, a
major management principle that effectively helps for eliminating unwanted causes of delay.
The judge must establish his or her control over the case file on the day when it appears in
front of the bench. At this stage, the bench can move the file into the initial court procedure
for early application of Differentiated Case Management technique (DCM) which is very
useful as a first step for delay reduction. This consultant will explain about DCM later in the
following pages.
Nevertheless, it is an international reality that court delay is a common and curable decease
in countries around the world. In view of this serious problem, British Prime Minister
William Gladstone rightly stated in the 19th century that, “Justice delayed is justice denied”
but it is equally important to hold that “Justice hurried is justice buried” because judges
cannot
manufacture
justice
on
any
kind
of
judicial
assembly
lines.
Access to justice system means that in the greater interest of justice, the bench must learn and
educate itself about the modern judicial management developments. It must refrain from
getting into isolation in the name of its independence. Because the main threat to the
independence is judiciary’s failure to deliver justice without delay.(Asif, 2013)
designing any kind of legal culture or mechanism of manufacturing justice on court room
assembly lines will, as a matter of fact, undermine the principle of due process of law; it will
6
defeat the basic concepts of justice; and instead of justice, it will result into injustice; and
instead of punishing the criminal it will punish the innocent. Moreover, if the due process is
important, it is equally important to provide timely justice depending upon the nature of case
as rated by DCM. Thus, judicial leadership must change the decadent and stinking old legal
culture. The sluggish courts become static and resultantly close systems; under such old legal
culture they lose their organizational goal, which is deliverance of justice without delay or
making the system accessible to the people including all classes of poor along with poor of
the poorest, the helpless tragic large segment of the Pakistani population.
The judicial system in Pakistan is still operating under the decadent British colonial legacy of
out-dated legal culture. The judges in lower courts are found wrestling with the court case
delay and backlog of cases.In addition to the sluggish legal culture, corruption in the lower
judiciary including large number of lawyers is wide spread. Corruption is deep rooted in the
judiciary and according to Transparency International (TI) 96 percent of the people who
came in contact with the judiciary encountered corruption and 44 percent said they paid a
bribe to a court official.(see TI Pakistan’s 2006 survey) The Pakistan chapter of Transparency
International ranks government departments, according to its survey, for example Land
Revenue and Police Department are on top in corruption and the judiciary is placed fourth
most corrupt department. (TI Pakistan’s 2006 survey) This has contributed to court delay and
inaccessibility to justice system in Pakistan, TI added.
In view of the above analytical system analysis of access to courts for justice in Pakistan,
people in millions hardly receive any timely justice in the entire judicial system. The
subordinate judiciary has almost become incapable to serve the society andthe judicial
officers are found ineffectively dealing with titanic load of cases for disposition that includes:
1225879, 144942, 18744, 7664 cases in Punjab, Sind, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan
7
respectively and the pendency keeps on rising fast with no tangible result in sight.( See
Progress Reports of the lower Court in provincial High Courts) . Therefore, the justice
system in Pakistan has entered into serious crises.
The Decadent Judiciary and Pakistani Society
As a result of sluggish lower judicial courts along with rampant corruption in the justice
system, access to justice has absolutely become inaccessible andthe people of Pakistan
continue to suffer from social, economic and political; due to these injustices, it is extremely
difficult to develop good governance, consolidate democratic institutions, hold bureaucracy
accountable, and establish government state writ in various urban and rural areas of Pakistan.
It is tragic, in observation of this author, to learn terrible forms of poverty based on total
injustice contrary to the constitution of this country and international treaties of human rights.
Millions of people are suffering from bonded slave labour, mostly in agricultural, brick kilns,
carpet weaving, fisheries and mining sectors of economy. Geographically, the most
widespread bounded labour is found in the provinces of Sind, Punjab and Baluchistan. (See
report of Coalition AgainstBounded Labour in Pakistan). The brick kilns are located on the
outskirts of most major cities and towns in Pakistan, who work long hours under inhuman
conditions almost exclusively on the basis of debt-bondage labour. The ILO estimates that
there are over one million men, women and children employed as bonded labourers in brick
kilns. The magnitude of this violation of human rights is very large. The same study
estimated that there are over 1.8 million agricultural workers who are debt bonded to
landlords in Pakistan. (see ILO report on Bonded Labour in Pakistan)
The judicial system in Pakistan is still operating under the decadent British colonial legacy of
out-dated legal culture. The judges in lower courts are found wrestling with the court case
delay and backlog of cases.In addition to the sluggish legal culture, corruption in the lower
8
judiciary including large number of lawyers is wide spread. Corruption is deep rooted in the
judiciary and according to Transparency International (TI) 96 percent of the people who
came in contact with the judiciary encountered corruption and 44 percent said they paid a
bribe to a court official.(see TI Pakistan’s 2006 survey) The Pakistan chapter of Transparency
International ranks government departments, according to its survey, for example Land
Revenue and Police Department are on top in corruption and the judiciary is placed fourth
most corrupt department. (TI Pakistan’s 2006 survey) This has contributed to court delay and
inaccessibility to justice system in Pakistan, TI added.
In view of the above analytical system analysis of access to courts for justice in Pakistan,
people in millions hardly receive any timely justice in the entire judicial system. The
subordinate judiciary has almost become incapable to serve the society andthe judicial
officers are found ineffectively dealing with titanic load of cases for disposition that
includes:1225879, 144942, 18744, 7664 cases in Punjab, Sind, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and
Baluchistan respectively and the pendency keeps on rising fast with no tangible result in
sight.( See Progress Reports of the lower Court in provincial High Courts) Therefore, the
justice system in Pakistan has entered into serious crises.
After deeply analyzing the court system in Pakistan and having examined more 4000 court
case files, this author have found several complex causes of court delay and huge pendency
of cases in the lower courts which can be summarised as follow;
1. The entire judicial system is sluggish and decadent and its arteries of justice delivery
are almost blocked;
2. The judiciary has failed to introduce modern management principles and techniques
for court delay reduction and case backlog;
9
3. There is wide spread corruption in the lower judicial system that includes judges,
lawyers, police, fake witnesses that result in continuous adjournments of cases and
input of frivolous litigation;
4. There is hardly any cooperation between the bench and bar that adversely affects the
life of court case for timely disposition;
5. In criminal cases, the police rarely submit the Challan within the required period of 14
days that becomes one of the major causes of court delay;
6. The government has not established an independent department of prosecution and as
result the courts keep getting frivolous cases with fake witnesses against the poverty
stricken innocent people;
7. The existing department of prosecution is under the executive control of a federal
civil servant
8. , for the greater interest of justice it must become independent of the executive;
9. There is shortage of judges in the lower judiciary in comparison to large input of
cases and pendency;
10. The lower court judges continue to operate under the decadent legal culture of
management system and they are not given training of modern court management
system;
11. The federal and provincial judicial academies are running without experts of modern
court management system and the existing faculty of trainers are incapable to train the
judges of lower judiciary;
12. The specialized system of judicial administration is unschooled in this country and
there is not a single research institution to develop justice system for modernizing the
courts;
10
13. The judges of upper judiciary has neither the time nor the will to learn about modern
judicial system in order to provide judicial leadership and as result the biggest threat
to judicial independence is court delay. The people are losing their trust in the existing
justice system and the decisions of the courts rarely honoured and implemented;
14. The analysis of 2009 judicial policy of the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr.
Justice Iftikhar Hussain
Chaudhry provides sermons of honesty and hard work.
During his tenure, he was more interested in executive powers through judicial
activism;
In view of the above facts, the judicial system of Pakistan is fast reaching to a point of total
collapse and in the absence of access to justice system, the society has already moved into the
state of injustice, disorder and insecurity. This author is of the strong view that it may not
become to late before this country enters into anarchy. The suggestions of the modern
courtflow (CFM) management system and differentiated case flow (DCM) are applied
successfully in other national jurisdictions and it can certainly help this judiciary to prevent
this kind of Hobbesian tragic situation.
The Principles and Techniques of Modern Case Flow Management System
1. Early and Continuous Judicial Supervision of court Case
The reform program was implemented by using Maureen Solomon findings for delay
reduction. This expert is one of the main architects of CFM system. Most of the court
reforms researchers have been developing court management system based on her major
recommendations for preventing court delay. The most important and primary principle
relates to the direct and continuous involvement of the judge. The court must take direct
control over the court case at the time of its filing. At this stage, the judicial officer must
11
analyze the case for its admissibility, early disposition in case of the nature of evidence
and guilty plea. He should scrutinize it in terms of its complexity and seriousness.
At this early intervention, it has been proved that most of the cases are disposed of before
moving for trial. In addition, he needs to supervise the progress of the case until it is
disposed off whatever the disposition is. The direct control and supervision can enable the
judge to prevent various causes of delay and case back log. Early and continuous judicial
supervision of the case progress is a universal principle for delay reduction that is being
applied both in the developed and developing countries. It has been held as essential
principle for achieving an effective and efficient case flow management system. This
particular element is proven as it has been successfully demonstrated where ever it has
been applied.
As a matter of fact in Pakistan, it produced incredible positive results during its
application by the pilot court judges in the national court delay reduction project. For
example, judges conducted case management conference with the lawyer at the time
when case was filed and appeared on the court docket. The conference also involved
prosecutor because as it proved effectively useful to prevent wastage of time, unwanted
adjournment for obtaining earlier dispositions with better overall use of their time. It is at
this stage when several cases do not end up for trials. In some of the developed legal
culture most courts just end up having 5 percent for lengthy trial. Early judicial
intervention is so effective that it helps early identification of cases that rarely require a
trial and thus result in earlier disposition. Eventually, the court list becomes short and the
court is relieved of its case load caseload and court time is utilized for trial of cases before
it.As a result, both the court’s and attorneys’ time are freed for the remaining cases that
require more time and attention for disposition. Addressing the Criminal Case flow
12
Process, it is a vital element both in planning for improvement and in sustaining
improvement.
It is now generally accepted in the criminal justice community that effective case flow
management is characterized by court supervision of the time and events involved in the
movement of each case from first appearance in the court to final stage of disposition.
Effective case flow management incorporates early judicial case management to achieve
earlier dispositions in the great majority of cases that will be disposed of without a trial
and to create a predictable process and timetable for those cases that may ultimately
require a trial. Court supervision of case progress saves the time and resources of judges,
lawyers, staff and prosecutors while achieving the ultimate goal of a fair and just
disposition in every case.
The goal of delay reduction requires that the court adopt a Case flow Management Plan
consisting of policies and practices that incorporate the essential concept of early and
continuous judicial supervision to the caseload. Creation of such a plan to establishes a
common frame of reference for case management decision-making within the court and
fosters the expectation of timeliness. The legal community must motivate and promotes
lawyer preparation and observance of deadline as set by the court.
Therefore, it is important for case movement that reasonable and predictable process
should be necessary so that lawyers understand and can depend on consistent procedures
and timetables. On the opposite side, if the court practices are not rigorous and consistent,
a lawyer’s preparation efforts may not be completed in the optimal timeframe, cases will
linger on, and dispositions will take longer than cases actually require.
13
It is not an overstatement to say that the judicial policy is pivotal to success. It is essential
that the court must commit to applying the effective practices incorporated into the judge
plan and assume an active role in assuring that cases proceed in a timely manner. While
individual specific case flow management practices have been developed to apply the
elements discussed above; where such practices are adopted and consistently applied,
backlogs and delay are avoided. Implementation of these practices requires the
consultative model advocated above. Leadership must come from the court; and this
participation of key justice principle becomes vital to success. Thus, it is unthinkable to
achieve any success, in any kind of court management system, without direct active and
continuous involvement in every process of court case. The judge must exercise his direct
control over the life of a case from the stage filing to disposition.
2. Differentiated Case Management- DCM
The early intervention and active supervision is an extremely important principle of CFM
system as it enables the judge to understand the complexity of a court case because all
cases are not of similar nature. They require different treatment, ways and means for their
timely disposal. Some cases may involve simple procedure for disposal at the outset
because the defendants may enter into guilty pleas after arraignment. Some other cases
may also be simple and need simple trial if the defendant pleads not guilty. Still, there
may be complex and complicated issues that a case may need lengthy procedure.
Therefore, it is imperative for the judge to differentiate the cases from simple to complex
and complicated. For this reason the judge must apply the technique of differentiated case
management (DCM). This technique of DCM is used in CFM system where judges can
use it in the case management process and allocate the judicial resources according to the
needs of individual cases.
14
The DCM is a simple technique. Because cases differ substantially in the time required
for a fair and timely disposition, not all cases make the same demands upon judicial
resources, as stated above. Thus, they need not be subjected to the same process
requirements. Some cases can be disposed of expeditiously, with little or no discovery
with few intermediate events. Others require extensive court supervision over pretrial
motions, scheduling of forensic testimony and evidence of expert witnesses, and
sometimes settlement negotiations. Thus, simplest cases are taken at the earliest stage and
simple one at an early point of time as they take too short time to be disposed off rather
than keeping such cases to wait for their turn and keep them behind the complicated
cases. This technique helps the court to deliver timely justice and also shorten the case
load list. In addition, the early case screening promotes DCM system and also enables a
judge to prioritize cases for disposition based on factors such as prosecutorial priorities,
age or physical condition of the parties or witnesses, or local public policy issues.
The DCM technique provides effective implementation of CFM because of its efficient
usefulness and because large number of cases can proceed through the court system at a
faster pace than others if DCM system of techniques is applied. Thus, this author
observed that under a DCM technique cases do not wait for disposition simply on the
basis of the chronological order of their filing. DCM as an effective technique has
synthesized in term of its fast movement of cases now known as technique of case flow
management
in
the
court
case
management
system.
The court list never stops increasing and as a result judges and administrators have
acknowledged the importance of active supervision of case progress, greater importance
is now given to methods for reducing delay, making the courts more accessible to the
public with improved predictability and certainty in court list management. Moreover, the
experts developed many other techniques such as process for identification of case events.
15
For example, the concept of the pre-trial conference was developed as a method to narrow
issues; it can shorten trials; it can enable the judge for settlement in advance; and the
purpose is to attempt resolutions through mandatory conferences; and the aim is to find
more useful case events in the court for rapid disposal.
3. Credible Trial Dates
The experts of CFM and DCM management emphasized that courts should set up time
standards to ensure that the scheduled case related events take place as scheduled. These
scadeules should be accommodated through consultation with the lawyers. This principle
requires that a distinction be made between time standards and time restrictions. Time
restrictions are different from time standards. Time restrictions are given in Pakistan’s
civil and criminal procedural rules and statues that are used for dismissal or default
judgments and are incorporated in CFM system for compliance. The Time standards are
required commitment of the bench, court support staff and the bar to construct deadlines
for completion of the various intermediate case events. It is emphasized that a case
conference between the judge and lawyer is imperative for implementing the case
deadlines.
Thus, the technique of effective CFM system is important for setting up credible trial
dates for hearing with strict implementation. It helps the judge to prevent scheduling
conflicts and decisions regarding initial schedules. In case of change of date for
adjournment, if requested by a lawyer, he must provide valid information advising the
court of the reason for setting a new date; the efforts of the court should be made to avoid
it; the judge should discourage it in order to demonstrate strict policy of the court for
change of date; and the case must proceed at an earliest time unless it becomes seriously
unavoidable. Because the routine requests for granting adjournments without having valid
16
reasons, it shows a lack of judicial control of case progress; it results in producing case
delays and backlogs especially in courts where the prevailing view is that dates are not
credible and adjournments are easily obtained; in such relaxed adjournment policy, the
lawyers are less likely to meet deadlines and the cases keep on lingering without judicial
control; the court then loses its control over the movement of cases in terms input and
output under both CFM and DCM; and eventually the system gets out of the control of
the judge. This kind of lenient judicial policy becomes ineffective for maximum use of
judicial resources and court cost for litigation. In addition, it may be pointed out if court
dates are not kept strictly credible, such policy affects the victims, witnesses, attorneys,
and defendants to make unwanted trips to the court and above all that may discourage
witnesses from re-appearing for the case and it delays case towards its disposition as
agreed at the outset in the conference system, as suggested under CFM policy, between
the bench and the bar. In other words, the goal of these principles is defeated. Therefore,
the research study has strongly supported the need for time standards. ( see Maureen
Solomon)
The experts further emphasise that the development and adoption of time standards for
the processing of cases through the conference primarily in the manner of the interviews
between judges and lawyers suggest strongly that time standards are generally taken
seriously by the court, even if no sanction is imposed when a case exceeds the time
allowed by the standards. (Mahoney, 1988)
In addition to an overall disposition time standard, this kind of technique of time standard
is helpful in managing case progress and it assures efficiency and effective use of time of
judge, lawyer, and court staff time. Especially, it is also beneficial for the lawyers for
timely preparation of a case and it saves his time to prepare other cases. The witnesses
17
also know that they are not returning back to the court house. The case proceeds timely
and moves without interruption towards its disposition. The time standard technique helps
to reduce both court delay and backlog of cases. In addition, it is useful for expert witness
especially if he is needed for more than one case on a particular day or days.
4. Cooperation between the Bench and Bar
One of the strongest principles of CFM and DCM is cooperation between the bench and
bar which is indispensable for any delay reduction program. The judges and lawyers must
travel in the same direction in service to the justice system. As part of the justice system,
bench and bar form the two tracks on which CFM system can run without disruption. If
one track is missing, the case management program can result in derailment. It is
imperative for both judges and lawyers that they must work in cooperation towards
similar goal of serving the interest of justice.
The cooperation between the judges and lawyers is also useful that various bar councils
can provide potential contributions to courts for identifying problems that the bench may
not be aware of them. In this country, as this author observed during the reform program,
there are many bright and reform oriented lawyers who can play their vital role in court
delay reduction program. According to the observation, most of the lawyers with regular
appearances in the pilot courts provided valuable cooperation to the pilot judges in the
delay reduction project. In realization of this important principle of CFM, the bench and
bar liaison committee were also set up which proved to be incredibly beneficial in
program. An impression was developed that throughout the country such committees
would be formed after extending the CFM/DCM system in Pakistan because these two
pillars are indispensable to run the justice program efficiently and effectively. In case of
18
non-cooperation, all other court management principles become ineffective and the delay
reduction program is defeated.
5. Court Adjournment Policy
One of the major reasons for court delay relates to lenient adjournment policy of any
court. It is vital that courts must be very careful in granting an adjournment. No court
management system can reduce delay if courts do not exercise any control over this
process. In relations with various other CFM principles, it should be a mandatory policy
of a judge not to put over the case to next date without a valid reason because court
leniency reflect its lack of commitment to case management system. For a reason of
emergency, a future date may be considered through joint review of the case status. Strict
adjournment policy of court about the case progress shall also ensure attendance of
important and expert witnesses. Thus, judges must directly supervise the operation of
their courts and limit adjournments by recording their numbers and reasons. In the
absence of computer facility, the courts can use case status indexing cards to keep such
record with the use abbreviations.
It is an established fact; all the experts of court management system from around the
world and the stockholders hold unanimous view that one of the major causes of court
delay is indiscriminate grant of adjournments. However it may be pointed out here that
this problem of delay also relates with the unmanageable number of cases fixed for trial
for a judge. Due to this reason, therefore, in most of the cases judges freely grant
adjournments because they cannot handle big docket of cases for trial.
It is also a fact of observation that sometimes the judges are willing to proceed for trial
but the parties themselves seek adjournment which can certainly be avoided if the
19
members of the bar cooperate with the bench. For example, this writer observed during
visits to the pilot courts and found out that pilot judges generally tried to have around 30
cases on their docket in daily cause list and formal cases; they followed strict policy to
implement this principle and they refuse to grant unnecessary adjournments. As a result
of this strict policy they became successful in increasing the disposal rate of their
respective court cases as mentioned earlier. It was due this strict adjournment policy that
it enabled them to implement CFM and DCM for increasing the disposal rate of their
court cases.
6. Information Technology (IT) System to Support Case flow Management
Modern application of IT is extremely effective in managing the court and implementing
CFM system with the application of DCM. It can efficiently help judges in DCM system
for disposal of cases in terms of their nature of importance. Thus, the simple cases can be
disposed of earlier rather than keeping then in line for their turn to come before the judge.
In addition, this modern technology can also enable the public to learn about the status of
their cases. An effective information system has capabilities of monitoring the judicial
daily input, output and pendency in a court and it develops the public attitude positively.
It produces daily and weekly court calendars and provides gross statistics. Courts need a
case management information system that facilitates tracking individual case progress,
provides up-to-date information on the condition of each judge’s caseload and allows
measurement of system performance against standards and goals. Without timely
information on the status and age of each case and the total caseload, it is extremely
difficult to sustain an effective CFM and DCM program and monitor their application
without modern information technology.
20
Ideally, a court case management information system helps to facilitate tracking of
individual case progress; it provides up-to-date information on the size and age of each
judge’s caseload; and it also assist measurement of system performance and its
sustainability.
7. Punctuality of Judges in Courts
While visiting the courthouse, one can see that the judges are either absent or sitting in
their chambers for reasons best known to them where as public keep waiting with
disappointment. It is a common problem in the lower courts. One can hear complaints that
lawyers are voicing that judges do not sit in their courts for required official time, as a
result, the parties keep on waiting for the judges to hear their matters. This problem when
pointed out by the court reform project members was taken seriously at least by the pilot
judges as it contributes to court delay and piling up of cases. The District judge can take
care of this problem by monitoring the punctuality of lower court judges. Their absence
from courts must be taken seriously and such judges must be required to give their
explanations. Thus, by eliminating this problem, it can certainly be convenient to the
public, members of the bar for delay reduction.
8. Timely Prosecution Submission of CHALLAN in the Court
It is imperative that for an early dispositional climate, case related parties should prepare
the case by holding meeting between the prosecution, the defendant and the lawyer as
soon as possible; this can create a structured opportunity for serious negotiations between
the lawyers directly responsible for the case and meaningful judicial participation in the
process because it may lead to, where appropriate, particularly in jurisdictions like in
Canada, the courts can dispose of 99% percent cases where most people plead guilty for
21
their offences. (Asif, 2013) .However, it is also unacceptable and unnecessary for a high
percentage of dispositions to exceed the established dispositional time goals. As a result
of this process, it creates a positive climate for early disposition and positively helps to
beat the delay and increases the monthly disposal rate of cases. According to the legal
requirement, the police must submit the complete case in the court within 14 to 17 days
where as the police takes months to file the case for proceedings. Due to this inefficiency,
the alleged criminals are kept in the prison. If the punishment for an alleged criminal is
two months for an offence there is possibility that such criminal may end up living in the
prison for months and months until the matter is produced before the court. Court delay is
caused by the police and prosecution.
9. Eradiation of Corruption in Judiciary
This author is much impressed by the historical address to the first Constituent Assembly
of Pakistan on 11th August, 1947, the address of the Quid-e-Aram Muhammad Ali Jinnah
who identified the first priority of his government as maintenance of Law and order.
He
defined
the
second
duty
in
the
following
words:-
“One of the biggest curse from which India is suffering, I do not say that other
Countries are free from it, but I think our condition is much worse, is bribery and
Corruption. That really is a poison. We must put it down with an iron hand.” (Quaid-eAzam, 11th August, 1947)
But during the last 65 years, none of the governments gave any importance to these golden
words of the Quaid. However, some efforts were made for combating the menace of
corruption but such initiates lacked the will of the government and politicians who
themselves had been enticed into these evil practices. Today this corruption has become the
22
root cause of all the causes of deep rooted extremely serious socio-economic problems and
that is affecting the entire society in this country. This corruption in terms of nepotism,
favours and bribery have ruined important public institutions of Pakistan. Institutions like
police, various security departments and judiciary instead of being responsible for providing
justice to the innocent people; they serve and protect the influential people, relatives and
friends of the ruling class. Owing to that reason, there has been a significant upsurge in
corruption during 1985-2013. (Asif, 2013)
10. Improvement of Physical Infrastructure of Court House
It is disappointing to observe the general messy and inconvenient physical conditions of
courts and their buildings. For example, most court rooms have few broken chairs. 90% of
the people keep standing in order to wait for their turn to appear before the judge. The court
room provides gloomy feelings because of insufficient light. Mostly, there is one light bulb
hanging over the judicial table. The family courts have no proper arrangements for families
and their infants for resolution of their issues such as matters of divorce or custody of the
children. Above all, medium rise court buildings have no elevators for handicap people with
physical limitations. The judicial officer along with his court staff has to come to the ground
floor leaving behind several parties to be attended for their disputes. As a result, precious
time is wasted which the delay for scheduled cases.
In the last analysis, it is imperatively important that in view of the serious crises in the justice
system of Pakistan, the government must declare judicial emergency for modernizing the
sluggish judiciary. It is already too late to address the problems of serious court delay and
case backlog. The government is losing its writ in several areas of the country and it is
evident that this nation is moving into lawlessness and anarchy. As a result, this country is
facing internal dangers to its survival.
23
Bibliography
Asif, Mian, Corruption in the scale of Justice, Lambert Publishers, Germany, 2013
Baar ,Carl Criminal Court Delay and the Charter, Bar Review, Toronto,1993
Mahoney, Barry Changing Times in Trial Courts, Justice System, USA,1988
Miller and Baar, Judicial Administration in Canada, Oxford University Press, Toronto,1980
Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (revised edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press,1999
Solomon Peter, Criminal Justice Policy from Research to Reform, Butter Worths, Toronto,
1983