Pakistan’s Judicial Crisis: Backlogs, Political Struggles, and Reform Challenges

Amid rising case backlogs, politicised bar councils, and eroding public trust, Pakistan’s judiciary grapples with the need for urgent reform to restore efficiency and credibility.

Sat Sep 20 2025
author image

Ameer Ali Hashmi

icon-facebook icon-twitter icon-whatsapp

Key Points:

  • Case Backlog Crisis: Over 2.15 million cases pending, with delays of 3 to 10 years, eroding public trust.
  • Politicised Bar Councils: Political strikes and internal power struggles disrupt judicial processes.
  • Weak Accountability: Inadequate oversight of judges and lawyers fosters inefficiency and unethical practices.
  • Tech Reforms: E-filing, video hearings, and the e-Affidavit System are steps toward modernizing the judiciary.
  • Need for Reform: Urgent reforms required in digital infrastructure, adjournment rules, and alternative dispute resolution to tackle inefficiencies.

Pakistan’s judiciary stands at a crossroads. Tasked with interpreting the constitution, protecting fundamental rights, and upholding the rule of law, it is also struggling with mounting case backlogs, politicised bar councils, and fragile public trust. Pakistan ranks 129th out of the 142 countries in the 2024 World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index—a sobering indicator of systemic shortcomings.

A strong, transparent, and effective judiciary boosts public confidence and encourages political participation by citizens. Yet, a review of Pakistan’s judicial history reveals a complex legacy—at times independent, at other times subservient to political or military influence. The ambiguous relationship between de jure (in accordance with legal recognition) and de facto (in practice) powers has often undermined judicial impartiality.

Inconsistencies in constitutional interpretation, particularly when the same judges rule differently on similar petitions, coupled with selective accountability, have eroded trust. This has left a chequered past marked by periods of democratic backsliding and authoritarian interventions—a story of one step forward, two steps back.

Efforts by powerful actors to undermine judicial independence have left institutions fragile, often unable to check abuses of power, with consequences that directly affect citizens’ lives.

Courts buried in backlog

One of the judiciary’s most persistent challenges is the mounting case backlog. By 2023, over 2.15 million cases were pending nationwide. This number includes over 56,000 at the Supreme Court, nearly 300,000 in the High Courts, and more than 1.7 million in the subordinate judiciary at the district and tehsil levels.

These statistics represent more than just numbers—they reflect the lives of individuals and families enduring prolonged uncertainty. Think of a small business owner awaiting a contract decision, a family entangled in an inheritance dispute, or a marginalized worker forced into an unfair settlement by endless delays—trapped in red tape with no light at the end of the tunnel.

For many, it is a clear case of “justice delayed is justice denied.” The Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan cites frequent adjournments, judicial shortages, outdated procedures, and administrative inefficiencies as key drivers. As a result, civil cases can take three to 10 years to resolve—justice that moves at a snail’s pace, undermining public trust and disproportionately harming the poor and vulnerable.

Solidarity at public cost

The legal profession itself often contributes to judicial delays and inefficiency. This is a two-fold problem.

First, weak entry standards and inadequate training mean many new lawyers are poorly prepared, resulting in sloppy paperwork and unnecessary delays that clog the courts. Bar associations, meanwhile, have grown highly politicized, with their internal power struggles spilling into courtrooms.

Cases are frequently adjourned or disrupted to support political strikes or protests led by bar leaders. This prioritizes political grandstanding over the daily administration of justice, adding fuel to the fire of public mistrust.

Accountability mechanisms for both judges and lawyers are weak. This creates a system where young lawyers often find limited opportunities for advancement based on merit. In frustration, some resort to violence or exploitative politics, further weakening the profession’s credibility.

The prevalent reason for these actions is a misplaced sense of solidarity. Pakistani bar councils operate on the principle that an attack on one lawyer is an attack on the entire profession. A strike in Peshawar over an incident in Tharparkar, Sindh, is, therefore, seen as a powerful show of unity to demand action, like arrests or better security.

This practice, however, directly denies justice to the public. Courts shut down, hearings are postponed for months, and people who may have traveled far at great expense are turned away. Their right to a speedy trial is sacrificed for the bar’s political leverage. While exact numbers are scarce, studies show that strikes are frequent. For example, one analysis found over 400 strike days across Pakistan between 2009 and 2015, averaging more than one strike per week. Both the Pakistan Bar Council and provincial bar councils regularly call for them.

Chambers shaping the bench

The judicial appointment process, despite reforms, remains plagued by opacity and favoritism. For example, Justice Qazi Faez Isa is one of the most senior and renowned judges of the Supreme Court. His former law chamber in Karachi was famously considered a prime source for judicial talent. A significant number of lawyers who worked as juniors in Justice Isa’s chamber were elevated to various High Courts, particularly the Sindh High Court (SHC).

While many are undoubtedly competent lawyers, the sheer number of appointments from a single chamber fuels the perception of a “network” or “guild” where recommendation from a powerful benefactor is a key factor. Critics argue this sideline equally talented lawyers from less-connected backgrounds.

Limited access, limited trust

Structural deficiencies compound these problems. The lower judiciary—the foundation of the justice system—struggles with a shortage of resources, inadequate courtrooms, and outdated record systems.

Access to justice remains geographically and financially limited, especially in Balochistan, southern Punjab, the merged tribal districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Areas), and interior Sindh. Perceptions of judicial independence are fragile, as allegations of selective accountability in politically sensitive cases continue—making it an uphill battle for justice.

A 2023 Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT) survey found that only 34 percent of respondents expressed confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Militants filling the void

Frustration with Pakistan’s formal judicial system is not a new issue. In the late 1990s and 2000s, militant groups like the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Sufi Muhammad’s Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM) exploited public discontent with the slow pace of justice. They gained support in Swat and other parts of Malakand by promising swift “Sharia courts” that could resolve disputes in days, a stark contrast to the decades-long delays in mainstream courts.

The promise of quick, decisive rulings was appealing to poor families trapped in endless land or inheritance cases. Many joined the militants not for their ideology but because the state had failed to provide them with timely justice. By establishing a parallel, albeit brutal, justice system, these groups filled a critical void left by the formal courts, proving that when push comes to shove, people will clutch at straws to find justice—no matter the cost.

Technology enters the courts

Despite these obstacles, reforms are underway. The 26th Constitutional Amendment, passed in October 2024, introduced three-year fixed terms for the Chief Justice, established constitutional benches at all High Courts, and strengthened judicial appointments through parliamentary oversight measures designed to reduce politicization and promote continuity.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a significant commitment to reducing the backlog. Under Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, the Supreme Court’s “100-Day Performance Report,” published in February 2025, highlights the disposal of 8,174 cases against 4,963 new filings, with weekly disposals exceeding 600 in some months—a rare silver lining in an otherwise gloomy picture.

The era of Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Chief Justice Yahya Afridi (September 2023 to date) has seen a significantly higher number of net case disposals compared to the previous period.

Under Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial (from February 2022 to September 2023), the backlog increased from around 54,000 to 57,000 cases, meaning disposals were lower than new filings. Under Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, the Supreme Court not only disposed of more cases than were filed but also reduced the overall backlog by 3,211 cases in just 100 days.

Technology-driven initiatives have also been introduced. The Supreme Court and some High Courts now offer e-filing, digital cause lists, and online certified copies. Additionally, pilot programs for video-link hearings and mobile case tracking are expanding. The e-Affidavit System, launched in 2024, streamlines affidavit submissions, while a new Case Management System in Islamabad allows instant access to certified copies of case files.

These innovations mark important steps towards modernization, though implementation across the country remains uneven—showing that old habits die hard.

Judiciary and economy

The importance of a strong judiciary extends beyond legal fairness. Efficient courts build investor confidence, support economic growth, and ensure contract enforcement and property rights. As highlighted in a 2019 World Bank study, improving court efficiency significantly increases annual GDP per capita growth.

By addressing delays and ensuring predictability, Pakistan’s judiciary can become a driver of economic stability alongside its role as a guardian of rights. To achieve this vision, Pakistan must commit to bold and strategic reforms.

Key steps toward judicial reform

First, digital infrastructure should be extended beyond superior courts to the subordinate judiciary, supported by staff training and information technology (IT) investment. Online dispute resolution and case management must become standard practice.

Second, reducing the backlog requires stricter rules on adjournments, the creation of fast-track benches, and time-bound judgments.

Third, district courts, the trial courts where most citizens first encounter the justice system, must be strengthened with more judges, better infrastructure, and greater funding.

Fourth, institutionalizing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration will ease the caseload of civil and commercial disputes.

Interestingly, the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1898, which is the main law for criminal investigations and trials in the country, also provides for Alternative Dispute Resolution. It does this by giving courts the power to send cases to mediation, conciliation, or arbitration for an out-of settlement.

Fifth, state-supported legal aid services should be expanded to ensure access for marginalised groups. International examples provide valuable guidance. Singapore’s judiciary, consistently ranked among the world’s most efficient, emphasises rigorous case management and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

India’s digitisation of its vast district court system demonstrates how technology can scale in large, complex jurisdictions. Adapting such lessons to Pakistan’s context can accelerate reform and avoid costly missteps.

Transparency, accountability, and public trust

Public trust building Judicial transparency is equally essential. Publicised criteria for appointments and independent third-party audits covering judicial productivity, delay statistics, and public satisfaction would strengthen confidence in merit and diversity. Accountability within bar councils is also critical; they must enforce ethical standards, punish misconduct, and support professional development. Without bar reform, judicial reforms will remain incomplete.

At this defining moment, the path forward demands collective will. The government must allocate resources to modernise infrastructure and appoint sufficient judges. Bar councils must reform themselves to rebuild professional integrity. Equally important, the public must stay engaged, demanding transparency and fairness as ultimate stakeholders in the justice system. By combining modernisation, accountability, and civic participation, Pakistan can transform its judiciary into the true bedrock of democracy and a catalyst for national growth —turning the tide after decades of missed opportunities.

Ameer Ali Hashmi

The writer is a lawyer from Lahore with a strong passion for justice and legal advocacy.

icon-facebook icon-twitter icon-whatsapp