Enforcing Justice: Steps Needed.

By Barrister Ali Mehdi

Pakistan’s justice system stands at a decisive moment. While the Constitution guarantees due process and fair trial, the lived reality of litigation for most citizens remains marked by delay, expense, and procedural abuse. Justice is not denied outright; it is postponed until it loses meaning. Over time, delay has become normalized, adjournments routine, and non-compliance with court orders an accepted litigation strategy. Although the last five years have witnessed notable reform efforts, these initiatives have not yet transformed the structural foundations of civil justice. Without deeper procedural reform particularly enforcement mechanisms that compel compliance the promise of justice will remain largely symbolic.

Recent reforms deserve acknowledgment. The creation of Model Courts demonstrated that backlog could be reduced when institutional focus and administrative will converge. Alternate Dispute Resolution was formally incorporated into procedural law, reflecting a recognition that courts should not be the default forum for every dispute. Case Flow Management Rules were introduced in several jurisdictions to regulate timelines, and digitization initiatives expanded access to filings, hearings, and case information. These measures reflect genuine reform intent. However, their primary limitation lies in their failure to alter litigation behavior. Model Courts emphasize disposal statistics without restructuring how cases are prepared or managed. ADR remains optional and is often bypassed due to lack of incentives and enforceability. Case management rules are inconsistently applied, and digitization has modernized form rather than substance. Most critically, none of these reforms adequately addressed the culture of non-compliance with court orders that lies at the heart of delay.

A compelling domestic example illustrates how procedure, when properly designed, can radically transform justice delivery. The Federal Insurance Ombudsman and particularly the Banking Laws have succeeded in resolving disputes that previously lingered in civil courts for years. Banking recovery and customer grievance matters are now resolved within months. This success stems from an inquisitorial, enforcement-driven model. The forum actively seeks records from banks, compels production, limits hearings, and penalizes non-cooperation. Court-like authority is exercised with clarity and consequence. Compliance is not optional. The result is speed, predictability, and public confidence. This experience proves that Pakistan does not lack institutional capacity to enforce justice; it lacks willingness to extend such enforcement to mainstream litigation.

The Civil Procedure Code remains the principal structural obstacle. Designed for a different era, it presumes cooperative litigants and equal access to evidence. In reality, evidence is frequently controlled by powerful parties or public authorities, adjournments are sought as a matter of course, and court directions are routinely ignored without consequence. Costs provisions exist but are weak and inconsistently applied. As a result, delay has become inexpensive, and disobedience has become rational. Litigation is no longer a search for truth but a contest of endurance.

Comparative experience offers a corrective. The Woolf Reforms in England and Wales were introduced to address similar problems of delay, expense, and adversarial excess. By empowering judges with active case management powers, enforcing proportionality, and introducing pre-action protocols, litigation culture was reshaped. Crucially, non-compliance with court directions attracted immediate and meaningful sanctions. Deadlines mattered because consequences followed their breach. Pakistan’s failure is not that it lacks procedural rules, but that it lacks enforcement discipline.

This enforcement deficit is especially visible in the routine disregard of court orders. Directions to file pleadings, produce documents, lead evidence, or adhere to timelines are frequently violated without serious consequence. Adjournments are granted repeatedly. Evidence is withheld strategically. Costs, when imposed, are nominal. Such tolerance erodes judicial authority and rewards obstruction. Procedural reform without strict penalties merely rearranges inefficiency. For justice to function, court orders must be binding commands, not polite suggestions.

Here, jurisprudential philosophy provides moral clarity. In his letter appointing Malik al-Ashtar as governor of Egypt, Hazrat Ali ibn Abi Talib articulated a vision of justice grounded in responsibility and vigilance. He distinguished between wrongs against the State, where mercy and restraint are appropriate, and wrongs between individuals, where justice must be strict and uncompromising. He warned against negligence in authority and emphasized that tolerating injustice through inaction is itself injustice. This philosophy speaks directly to procedural enforcement. When courts allow repeated defiance of their orders, they fail in their duty to protect the weak from the strong. Mercy toward procedural abuse becomes cruelty toward the diligent litigant and as warned will result in a failure of the state.

Enhanced inquisitorial powers are therefore not a departure from justice but its fulfillment. Courts must be empowered and expected to actively enforce compliance, compel disclosure, summon records, and penalize obstruction. Such powers already exist in fragments but are rarely exercised due to institutional culture and lack of procedural clarity. A reformed system must normalize judicial intervention where imbalance or defiance threatens fairness. Inquisitorial authority, carefully calibrated, ensures that justice does not depend on who controls documents or who can afford delay.

Strict penalties must accompany this shift. Non-compliance with court orders should trigger immediate, escalating consequences. Unjustified failure to comply with disclosure orders should result in adverse inferences and exclusion of evidence. Repeated disregard of timelines should lead to closure of rights, striking off pleadings, or dismissal of claims or defenses. Persistent defiance should attract exemplary costs and, where appropriate, civil contempt sanctions including fines, attachment of property, or limited detention. Officers of public authorities and corporations must be held personally accountable where institutional non-compliance is deliberate. Legal practitioners who enable delay without justification must face professional and financial consequences. Without personal accountability, institutional disobedience will persist.

Safeguards against arbitrariness are essential, but proportionality must not become paralysis. Penalties should follow reasoned orders and allow explanation, but genuine impossibility must be distinguished from strategic defiance. The key is certainty. When litigants know that orders will be enforced, compliance becomes the norm rather than the exception.

Costs reform complements enforcement. Costs must reflect conduct, not merely outcome. Unnecessary adjournments, frivolous applications, refusal of ADR, and suppression of evidence should carry predictable financial consequences. Costs should be sufficient to deter abuse and, where appropriate, imposed personally on those responsible. A justice system where delay is cheap will always be slow.

Recent reforms show that Pakistan is capable of innovation, but piecemeal initiatives cannot succeed without structural coherence. Model Courts must operate within a disciplined procedural framework. ADR must be supported by mandatory pre-action responsibility. Case management rules must be enforced, not merely announced. Digitization must serve accountability rather than convenience. Above all, judicial authority must be restored through enforceable orders.

The experience of the Banking Laws demonstrates that when procedure prioritizes truth, access to evidence, and enforcement, justice becomes real. That model should no longer be treated as an exception reserved for financial disputes, but as a blueprint for broader reform. Pakistan’s legal tradition rooted in common law and enriched by Islamic jurisprudence is well suited to a hybrid system that preserves advocacy while empowering judges to prevent abuse.

Justice delayed is not merely inefficient; it is unjust. A system that tolerates disobedience to court orders abdicates its constitutional and moral responsibility. As Hazrat Ali cautioned, authority that fails to act against injustice becomes complicit in it. Procedural reform must therefore move beyond aspiration and embrace enforcement. Only when court orders carry certainty of consequence will litigation culture change, delay diminish, and justice regain public trust. 

We at the PakistanPost are willing to assist in drafting any Laws and Amendments which will further implement these proposed reforms as the time to implement them was day before yesterday.

Regards

Barrister Syed Mohammad Ali Mehdi Bukhari 

A public service message