Authored By: Abdul Hakeem
Denning Institute of Technology and Entrepreneurship
Abstract
What does justice mean to a person who must wait years for a final decision? Pakistan’s courts decide millions of cases, yet the constant arrival of new litigation continues to place enormous pressure on the judicial system. At the end of 2023, approximately 2.26 million cases were pending before Pakistani courts, with around 82 per cent of them lying before the district judiciary. These figures reveal an important truth: increasing the number of decided cases alone may not solve the problem unless suitable disputes are also directed towards faster and less confrontational methods of resolution.
Alternative Dispute Resolution, commonly known as ADR, offers such an opportunity. Through negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration, parties may resolve disputes without undergoing a complete court trial. ADR can reduce cost and delay, protect confidentiality, preserve relationships and allow courts to focus on matters that genuinely require judicial determination.
Pakistan has recognised ADR through section 89A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2017, provincial legislation and different court-based initiatives. However, ADR remains underused because of limited awareness, weak institutional support, uneven implementation, inadequate professional training and continued dependence on outdated arbitration legislation.
This article argues that ADR should neither be treated as a replacement for courts nor as a minor procedural experiment. It should be developed as a permanent and credible part of Pakistan’s justice system. With proper safeguards, trained professionals and effective institutions, ADR can help transform access to justice from a constitutional promise into a practical reality.
Keywords: Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR, Pakistan, Mediation, Arbitration, Access to Justice, Judicial Delay, Legal Reform
1. Introduction
Can justice truly be called justice when it arrives after the dispute has consumed a person’s savings, damaged a business or destroyed a family relationship?
This question is no longer theoretical in Pakistan. According to judicial statistics reported for the second half of 2023, approximately 2.26 million cases were pending before the country’s courts. About 1.86 million—roughly 82 per cent—were pending before the district judiciary. During the same six-month period, around 2.38 million new cases were instituted while approximately 2.30 million were decided. The courts were therefore working at an enormous scale, but new litigation continued to arrive faster than the system could permanently reduce the backlog.¹
More recent figures also show the scale of judicial effort. Between 1 September 2025 and 31 May 2026, district courts reportedly disposed of more than 1.31 million cases falling within prioritised categories.² This achievement demonstrates commitment from the judiciary. At the same time, it exposes a wider problem: courts cannot be expected to carry every disagreement through the full structure of pleadings, evidence, hearings, adjournments and appeals.
The answer is not to weaken the courts. Nor is it to deny citizens their right to litigation. The better answer is to recognise that different disputes require different forms of justice.
A constitutional challenge must be decided by a court. A serious criminal charge requires a lawful trial. A case involving public rights may demand a reasoned judicial judgment. However, a disagreement between business partners, a contractual payment dispute, a family property conflict or a workplace misunderstanding may often be resolved more effectively through structured dialogue.
This is where Alternative Dispute Resolution becomes important.
ADR refers to methods through which disputes are resolved outside a full conventional trial. Its main forms include negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration. These processes differ from one another, but they share a common purpose: resolving disputes in a manner that is fair, efficient and appropriate to the needs of the parties.
Pakistan has already taken legislative steps towards ADR. Section 89A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allows suitable civil disputes to be referred to alternative processes. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2017 created a more organised framework for ADR within the Islamabad Capital Territory. Provincial laws and court-annexed mediation initiatives have further supported its development.
Nevertheless, a gap remains between recognising ADR in law and making it effective in practice. Pakistan does not merely need more provisions mentioning mediation or arbitration. It needs accessible institutions, qualified neutrals, enforceable standards and a change in legal culture.
The central argument of this article is therefore simple: ADR should operate alongside the courts as a serious pillar of justice. Properly developed, it can reduce unnecessary litigation, protect relationships, improve commercial confidence and allow citizens to obtain remedies before the dispute itself becomes more damaging than the original wrong.
2. Understanding Alternative Dispute Resolution
ADR is an umbrella term covering different methods of resolving disputes without completing a traditional court trial. It does not represent one fixed procedure. Instead, it provides a range of processes that can be selected according to the nature of the conflict.
Litigation is mainly rights-based. Each party presents its legal position, and a judge determines which argument succeeds. ADR can be more interest-based. It allows parties to discuss not only what they are legally entitled to receive, but also what practical outcome would allow them to move forward.
This distinction is important. A court may decide that one party must pay damages. A mediator, however, may help the parties agree upon payment by instalments, continued commercial cooperation, replacement of defective goods or another solution that a court may not ordinarily impose.
ADR is therefore not informal justice without rules. When properly regulated, it is structured, principled and legally recognised. Its flexibility does not require the abandonment of fairness.
2.1 Negotiation
Negotiation is the most direct form of dispute resolution. The parties communicate with one another and attempt to reach a voluntary agreement. They may negotiate personally or through lawyers and other authorised representatives.
No third party is required to impose or recommend a result. The parties remain responsible for deciding whether to settle and on what terms.
Negotiation is attractive because it is generally private, flexible and inexpensive. It allows parties to control both the process and the outcome. It may be especially effective where the facts are clear but the parties disagree over payment, timing, performance or responsibility.
Its weakness is equally clear: negotiation may fail where there is extreme hostility, unequal bargaining power or a complete breakdown in communication.
2.2 Mediation
Mediation introduces an independent third person known as a mediator. The mediator assists communication, identifies the real issues and helps the parties explore possible solutions.
A mediator does not normally act as a judge. The mediator does not determine guilt, impose liability or force either party to accept a settlement. The final decision remains with the parties.
This feature gives mediation its greatest strength: ownership. Parties are often more willing to comply with an agreement they have helped create than with a judgment imposed upon them.
Mediation is especially useful in family, employment, neighbourhood, partnership and commercial disputes. In such cases, the relationship between the parties may continue after the legal disagreement ends. Litigation may produce a winner, but it can permanently destroy the relationship. Mediation attempts to resolve the dispute without necessarily destroying the human or commercial connection behind it.
2.3 Conciliation
Conciliation resembles mediation but usually permits the neutral person to play a more active role. A conciliator may suggest terms, identify possible compromises and propose practical solutions.
The parties still retain control over whether to accept the outcome. However, the conciliator may guide them more directly towards settlement.
Conciliation may be valuable where the parties are willing to settle but cannot independently develop workable terms. It can also help where communication has collapsed and each side requires a neutral person to restore constructive discussion.
2.4 Arbitration
Arbitration is more formal than negotiation, mediation or conciliation. The parties submit their dispute to one or more arbitrators, who hear the arguments, consider the evidence and issue a decision known as an arbitral award.
Unlike a mediator, an arbitrator performs a decision-making role. The award is generally binding and may be enforced through the courts.
Arbitration is widely used in commercial, construction, investment and technical disputes. Parties may select an arbitrator with specialised knowledge of the relevant industry. They may also agree upon the place, language and procedural rules of arbitration.
Its privacy and expertise make it attractive to businesses. However, arbitration is not automatically cheap or fast. Poorly managed proceedings, expensive tribunals and repeated court challenges can make arbitration nearly as burdensome as litigation. Its success therefore depends upon modern legislation, competent arbitrators and limited but effective judicial supervision.
3. ADR and Pakistan’s Tradition of Dispute Resolution
The idea of resolving conflicts outside formal courts is not foreign to Pakistan.
For generations, local communities relied on elders, panchayats, jirgas and informal councils to settle disputes. These systems often valued compromise, restoration of social peace and collective participation. They show that negotiated settlement has deep roots within the region.
However, tradition must not be confused with justice.
Certain informal bodies have been criticised for excluding women, reinforcing social hierarchies, imposing unlawful punishments and deciding matters without proper evidence or procedural safeguards. Any modern ADR system must therefore remain entirely separate from practices that violate constitutional rights, human dignity or the authority of law.
The lesson from traditional dispute resolution is not that informal bodies should replace courts. The lesson is that communities often value accessible, understandable and peaceful methods of resolving conflict. A modern ADR framework can preserve those positive qualities while rejecting discrimination, coercion and illegality.
After independence, Pakistan retained a judicial structure based substantially upon the common-law model. As the population, economy and volume of litigation grew, courts faced increasing pressure. Complex procedures, repeated adjournments, shortages of judges and staff, weak case management and frequent appeals contributed to delay.
ADR gradually entered Pakistan’s formal legal framework as a response to these difficulties. The objective was not merely to dispose of files. It was to create a system in which an appropriate dispute could be directed towards an appropriate forum.
4. The Legal Framework Governing ADR in Pakistan
Pakistan’s ADR framework is not contained in one complete national code. It is spread across federal and provincial laws, procedural rules, arbitration legislation and court-based initiatives.
4.1 Section 89A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908
Section 89A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is one of the most important legal foundations for court-referred ADR in civil matters. It permits courts, where appropriate and with the involvement of the parties, to use alternative processes for achieving an amicable settlement.
Its importance lies in changing the role of the civil court. The court is not required to treat trial as the only possible destination of every suit. It may identify a dispute that is capable of settlement and encourage the parties to resolve it through an alternative process.
Yet a legal power is valuable only when it is consistently used. Courts require trained mediators, proper referral standards and administrative support. Otherwise, section 89A remains an impressive provision with limited practical effect.
4.2 The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2017
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2017 provides a statutory framework for ADR in civil and commercial matters within the Islamabad Capital Territory. It recognises processes including mediation, conciliation, neutral evaluation and arbitration, and provides for the appointment of neutrals and the settlement of listed disputes.³
The Act is an important federal reform, but it must be described accurately. It does not by itself create one uniform ADR system operating identically throughout every province. Its direct territorial operation is connected to the Islamabad Capital Territory, while the provinces have developed or may develop their own legal arrangements.
This distinction matters because the future of ADR in Pakistan requires coordination without ignoring the constitutional distribution of legislative and judicial responsibility.
4.3 Provincial Developments
The provinces have also taken measures to promote ADR, including legislation, amendments to procedural law and court-annexed mediation programmes.
Provincial reform is necessary because a large proportion of ordinary civil disputes are handled by the district judiciary. A citizen should not have meaningful access to mediation only because that person happens to live in a major city or within the federal capital.
Pakistan therefore requires minimum national standards for quality and ethics, combined with implementation that responds to the needs of each province and district.
4.4 Domestic Arbitration
Domestic arbitration continues to be governed mainly by the Arbitration Act 1940. The very age of this legislation reveals the urgency of reform. The Act was enacted decades before modern electronic commerce, complex infrastructure projects and the present structure of international business.
Pakistan has considered replacing this framework. A proposed Arbitration Bill 2024 was developed to modernise procedures, reduce unnecessary court intervention and strengthen enforcement.⁴ Until comprehensive reform is enacted and effectively implemented, however, domestic arbitration remains tied to a law created for a very different commercial age.
4.5 Foreign Arbitral Awards
The Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2011 gives effect to Pakistan’s obligations concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention framework.
This legislation is commercially significant. Foreign investors and international businesses require confidence that arbitration agreements will be respected and lawful awards will not become trapped in endless enforcement litigation.
4.6 The Constitutional Foundation
ADR also reflects the constitutional objective contained in article 37(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan, which directs the State to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice.
Although the Principles of Policy operate differently from enforceable fundamental rights, article 37(d) expresses a clear constitutional ambition. Justice should not become so slow or expensive that only the powerful can pursue it.
ADR can help advance this objective, but only when participation is genuine, procedures are fair and weaker parties are protected. A fast settlement produced through pressure or inequality is not meaningful access to justice.
5. Why ADR Matters for Pakistan
5.1 Speed
Delay can turn a legal remedy into an empty victory.
A business that receives payment after years of litigation may already have collapsed. A family property dispute may divide relatives for a generation. An employee may win compensation only after prolonged unemployment and hardship.
Negotiation and mediation can sometimes resolve disputes within weeks or months. Even where settlement is not achieved, ADR may narrow the issues and make any later trial more focused.
Speed must not come at the cost of fairness. However, where both can be achieved, unnecessary delay serves no legal or social purpose.
5.2 Lower Cost
Litigation involves lawyers’ fees, court expenses, transport, lost working hours and repeated appearances. The indirect cost may be greater than the amount originally disputed.
ADR generally uses fewer formal hearings and less complex procedure. It can therefore make dispute resolution more accessible to individuals, small businesses and parties who cannot sustain years of legal expenditure.
5.3 Confidentiality
Court proceedings may place commercial information, family conflict and reputational concerns within a public setting. Mediation and arbitration usually offer greater privacy.
Confidentiality is particularly valuable in business disputes involving trade practices, internal records or commercially sensitive relationships. It may also encourage parties to communicate openly because settlement discussions are not ordinarily treated as public admissions.
Nevertheless, confidentiality must not be used to hide criminal conduct, corruption or matters requiring public accountability.
5.4 Preservation of Relationships
Litigation asks which party is legally right. Mediation can ask a second question: how can both parties continue after the dispute?
This makes ADR valuable where parties share an ongoing relationship. Business partners may wish to preserve a profitable venture. Parents may need to cooperate after a family disagreement. Employers and employees may prefer a workable arrangement over public confrontation.
Not every relationship should be preserved, especially where abuse or exploitation exists. But where continued cooperation is both possible and desirable, ADR can resolve the legal conflict without deepening the personal one.
5.5 Flexibility and Party Control
Courts are bound by rules concerning jurisdiction, pleadings, evidence and remedies. These rules protect fairness but may limit the range of outcomes.
ADR allows parties to develop practical solutions. A settlement may include revised delivery dates, structured payments, apologies, replacement services, future business terms or other arrangements tailored to the dispute.
This flexibility can produce remedies that are lawful, realistic and more useful than a simple award of damages.
5.6 Reduced Pressure on Courts
The purpose of ADR is not to hide judicial backlog by moving cases elsewhere. Its purpose is to ensure that courts spend their limited time on matters that require judicial authority.
When suitable disputes settle through ADR, judges can devote greater attention to criminal trials, constitutional questions, complex civil cases and disputes involving public rights.
ADR therefore strengthens rather than weakens the courts. A judicial system becomes more effective when it does not insist on using its most formal process for every form of disagreement.
6. The Major Barriers to ADR in Pakistan
6.1 Limited Public Awareness
Many citizens remain unfamiliar with the meaning and legal effect of ADR. Some believe that settlement represents weakness or that justice is possible only through a final judgment.
Public awareness cannot be built through legislation alone. Information about mediation must be available in clear Urdu and regional languages. Litigants should understand the process, the role of the neutral person, the voluntary nature of settlement and the legal effect of any agreement.
6.2 Lack of Trained Professionals
A mediation framework is only as credible as its mediators.
A poorly trained neutral may pressure a weaker party, misunderstand the dispute or fail to maintain confidentiality. An unqualified arbitrator may conduct proceedings inefficiently and produce an award vulnerable to challenge.
Pakistan needs transparent accreditation, practical training, ethical rules and continuing professional development for mediators, conciliators and arbitrators.
Training should extend beyond lawyers. Effective neutrals may also require knowledge of psychology, communication, finance, construction, technology or family dynamics, depending upon the dispute.
6.3 Resistance within Legal Culture
Litigation remains central to legal education and professional identity. Students are trained to argue, cite authority and defeat an opponent. They receive far less practical training in listening, identifying interests and building settlement options.
Some lawyers may also fear that ADR will reduce professional income. This concern is based upon a narrow view of legal practice. Lawyers remain essential in ADR. They advise clients, prepare cases, protect legal rights, draft settlements and conduct arbitration.
The profession should not measure success by the number of hearings attended. It should measure success by the quality and timeliness of the result obtained for the client.
6.4 Unequal Bargaining Power
ADR is not appropriate merely because a dispute appears capable of settlement.
A financially powerful company may pressure an individual into accepting an unfair amount. A victim of domestic abuse may be unable to negotiate freely with an abuser. A worker may fear retaliation from an employer.
Courts and mediators must therefore screen cases carefully. Parties should have access to independent legal advice, and vulnerable persons must not be pushed into private settlement when judicial protection is necessary.
Consent must be real, not manufactured.
6.5 Weak Institutional Support
Many districts lack dedicated mediation centres, trained staff, private rooms and effective referral systems. Without infrastructure, judges may have nowhere reliable to send suitable cases.
A functioning ADR centre requires more than a signboard. It needs case intake procedures, appointment systems, ethical standards, digital records, confidentiality protections and methods for monitoring outcomes.
6.6 Enforcement Difficulties
ADR loses credibility when a party can ignore the outcome without consequence.
Mediated settlements must be properly drafted and capable of recognition or enforcement under the relevant law. Arbitral awards must not become the beginning of another lengthy round of litigation.
Courts should supervise ADR where legally necessary, but intervention should support the integrity of the process rather than defeat its purpose.
6.7 Fragmented Development
Pakistan’s ADR landscape is spread across different laws and jurisdictions. Variation is not always harmful, but inconsistency can create uncertainty about referrals, accreditation, procedure and enforcement.
Reform should respect provincial authority while developing shared principles concerning competence, neutrality, confidentiality, fairness and protection of vulnerable parties.
7. Comparative Lessons
7.1 The United Kingdom
The United Kingdom demonstrates the importance of judicial encouragement. In Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust, the Court of Appeal held that an unreasonable refusal to engage in ADR could be relevant when costs were determined.
The modern position has developed further. In Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, the Court of Appeal confirmed that courts may lawfully stay proceedings or order parties to engage in a non-court dispute resolution process, provided that doing so does not impair the essence of the right to a judicial hearing.
The lesson for Pakistan is not that settlement should always be forced. It is that courts can actively manage cases and require parties to take ADR seriously rather than treating mediation as a decorative option.
7.2 Singapore
Singapore has built internationally respected institutions for mediation and arbitration. Its success rests upon modern legislation, professional administration, trained practitioners, judicial support and confidence in enforcement.
Pakistan cannot simply copy Singapore. The countries differ in resources, population and legal administration. However, Pakistan can adopt the underlying principle: ADR institutions must be dependable enough that parties choose them because they work, not merely because the law mentions them.
7.3 India
India offers a useful comparison because it shares aspects of Pakistan’s legal history and faces similar pressures of population and judicial backlog.
Section 89 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure promotes referral to ADR. In Salem Advocate Bar Association v Union of India, the Supreme Court of India supported the practical development of court-referred settlement processes.
India has also enacted the Mediation Act 2023, reflecting an effort to provide mediation with a more complete statutory identity.
Pakistan can learn from both India’s progress and its difficulties. Passing a law is only the beginning. Implementation requires trained mediators, public trust and cooperation from judges and lawyers.
8. A Practical Reform Agenda for Pakistan
First, court-annexed mediation centres should be established and properly staffed across district courts. Access to ADR should not depend upon living in Islamabad, Lahore or Karachi.
Second, national minimum standards should govern the accreditation and conduct of neutrals. These standards should address competence, impartiality, confidentiality, conflicts of interest and disciplinary accountability.
Third, the Arbitration Act 1940 should be replaced with modern legislation suited to domestic and international commerce. Reform should clarify tribunal powers, restrict unnecessary intervention and provide efficient procedures for enforcement.
Fourth, law schools should treat negotiation and mediation as core professional skills. Students should participate in mediation simulations, client counselling exercises and negotiation competitions alongside conventional mooting.
Fifth, judges should receive practical guidance on identifying suitable cases. Referral should occur early, before the parties have spent years and substantial sums on litigation.
Sixth, legal aid should extend to ADR. A poor litigant should not be required to negotiate against a powerful party without advice merely because mediation is presented as informal.
Seventh, Pakistan should develop secure Online Dispute Resolution systems. ODR could be particularly useful for small commercial claims, consumer disputes and parties living far from urban centres. Technology, however, must supplement rather than exclude people who lack digital access.
Eighth, the performance of ADR programmes should be measured honestly. Institutions should collect data on settlement rates, time, cost, compliance and participant satisfaction. Success should not be judged only by the number of cases referred. A referral that produces delay, coercion or an unenforceable agreement is not a success.
Finally, public education should explain that settlement is not surrender. In many disputes, reaching a fair solution quickly is a stronger form of justice than winning after years of hostility.
9. Conclusion
The question posed at the beginning was whether justice can remain meaningful when it arrives only after the dispute has consumed the lives and resources of the parties.
The answer is no.
A judgment delivered after years of avoidable delay may still be legally correct, but for the person who lost a business, an income or a relationship during that period, the remedy may arrive too late to repair the real harm.
Pakistan’s courts continue to perform an immense public duty. The disposal of more than 1.31 million prioritised district-court cases between September 2025 and May 2026 demonstrates substantial judicial effort. Yet effort alone cannot permanently solve a structural problem in which new disputes constantly enter a system expected to resolve almost every conflict through formal litigation.²
ADR offers a different path—not away from justice, but towards a more suitable form of it.
It can turn confrontation into communication, reduce cost and delay, protect privacy and produce solutions shaped by the actual needs of the parties. It can also allow judges to focus on cases requiring the authority, transparency and protection of a court.
However, ADR must not become a shortcut for denying rights. It cannot be allowed to pressure vulnerable persons, conceal public wrongs or replace judicial determination where legal principle demands it. Its legitimacy will depend upon consent, equality, professional competence and enforceability.
Pakistan therefore faces a choice. It can continue treating ADR as a secondary idea mentioned in statutes but inconsistently used in practice. Or it can build a justice system in which courts and ADR institutions perform complementary roles, each resolving the disputes for which it is best suited.
With millions of cases passing through the courts, the future of justice cannot depend only upon deciding disputes faster. It must also depend upon deciding how each dispute should be resolved.
The courtroom will always remain essential. But justice should not begin only when its doors open.
Footnote(S):
Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Bi-Annual Report of Judicial Statistics, July–December 2023. The reported figures showed approximately 2.26 million pending cases, of which around 1.86 million were before the district judiciary.
Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, ‘National Judicial Policy Making Committee—Performance of District Courts’ (2026). The reported figures cover prioritised categories between 1 September 2025 and 31 May 2026.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2017. The federal International Mediation and Arbitration Center describes the Act as providing an ADR framework for civil and commercial disputes in the Islamabad Capital Territory.
Associated Press of Pakistan, ‘CJP Forms Arbitration Law Review Committee’ (11 June 2024), discussing the proposed Arbitration Bill 2024 and the review of the Arbitration Act 1940.
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, art 37(d).
Arbitration Act
Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act
Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ
Salem Advocate Bar Association v Union of India (2005) 6 SCC
UNCITRAL, Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (2018).
Bibliography Cases
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416.
Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576. Salem Advocate Bar Association v Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344.
Legislation
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2017. Arbitration Act 1940.
Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973.
Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2011.
International Materials
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958.
UNCITRAL, Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (2018).
Reports and Secondary Materials
Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Bi-Annual Report of Judicial Statistics, July–December 2023.
Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Judicial Statistics of Pakistan 2024.
Nadja Alexander, Global Trends in Mediation (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2006).
