Authored By: Laiba Zahid
Gov. Jinnah Law College
Introduction
Justice forms the cornerstone of every democratic society by safeguarding rights, maintaining public order, and upholding the rule of law. However, justice can fulfil these objectives only when it is delivered without undue delay. Judicial delay, characterised by the excessive time taken by courts to resolve disputes, has become one of the most persistent challenges confronting Pakistan’s justice system. Prolonged litigation not only delays the enforcement of legal rights but also undermines public confidence in the judiciary, reinforcing the principle that “justice delayed is justice denied.”
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan recognises the importance of timely justice. Article 10A guarantees the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process[1], while Article 37(d) directs the State to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice[2]. The Supreme Court has affirmed that access to justice and fair trial are fundamental constitutional guarantees that must be effectively protected.[3] Despite these constitutional commitments, persistent judicial delays continue to deny many litigants timely and effective remedies.
This article critically examines the principal causes of judicial delay in Pakistan, analyses its legal, economic, and social consequences, and evaluates reforms necessary to ensure the effective administration of justice.
Causes of judicial delay
Vacant Judicial Posts
One of the principal causes of judicial delay in Pakistan is the persistent shortage of judges resulting from unfilled judicial vacancies. Vacant judicial positions substantially reduce the capacity of courts to hear and dispose of cases, thereby increasing the workload of serving judges and prolonging litigation. According to the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan’s Judicial Statistics of Pakistan 2024, the superior judiciary had 200 sanctioned judicial posts, of which only 124 were filled, leaving 76 vacancies. Similarly, the district judiciary had 4,161 sanctioned posts, but only 3,044 were occupied, leaving 1,117 judicial positions vacant.[4] Such shortages significantly contribute to the growing backlog of pending cases and impede the timely administration of justice. While Article 175 of the Constitution establishes Pakistan’s judicial framework,[5] Article 175A provides the constitutional mechanism for judicial appointments.[6] Persistent delays in filling sanctioned vacancies undermine judicial efficiency, increase case pendency, and weaken the constitutional objective of ensuring timely and effective access to justice.
Judicial Backlog of Pending Cases
The growing backlog of pending cases remains one of the most significant contributors to judicial delay in Pakistan. A judicial backlog arises when courts are unable to dispose of cases at a pace sufficient to match the volume of newly instituted litigation. According to the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, more than 2.44 million cases were pending before Pakistani courts, including over 44,000 cases before the Supreme Court. Although judicial disposal improved during January–June 2025, more than 2.27 million cases continued to remain pending, indicating that the rate of case disposal remains insufficient to eliminate the accumulated backlog.[7] This persistent pendency places considerable pressure on judicial resources, prolongs legal proceedings, increases litigation costs, and delays the enforcement of legal rights. Consequently, the growing backlog not only restricts access to timely justice but also undermines the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial and due process protected under Article 10A of the Constitution.
Population Growth
Rapid population growth has significantly increased the volume of litigation in Pakistan, making judicial delay an increasingly complex institutional challenge. Pakistan’s population has grown from approximately 65 million in 1973 to over 255 million[8] in recent years, leading to a corresponding increase in disputes relating to property, family matters, commercial transactions, contracts, and criminal offences. However, judicial infrastructure, including the number of courts, judges, and supporting staff, has not expanded proportionately to meet this growing demand.[9] Consequently, courts continue to face overwhelming caseloads, resulting in prolonged proceedings and delayed disposal of cases. This disparity demonstrates that judicial delay is not merely a procedural deficiency but also a structural challenge requiring sustained investment in judicial infrastructure, human resources, and institutional capacity to ensure the effective administration of justice.
Frequent Transfer of Judges
Frequent transfers of judges constitute another significant cause of judicial delay because they disrupt the continuity of ongoing proceedings. When a judge is transferred before the conclusion of a case, the successor judge often requires considerable time to familiarise themselves with the factual background, evidence, procedural history, and legal issues involved. Consequently, hearings are adjourned, witnesses may need to be recalled, and proceedings are unnecessarily prolonged. These interruptions increase litigation costs, reduce judicial efficiency, and contribute to the growing backlog of pending cases. Although Article 175 of the Constitution establishes the judicial framework and safeguards judicial independence, administrative practices concerning judicial transfers should also promote continuity and consistency in case management.[10] Stable judicial postings are therefore essential to facilitate the expeditious disposal of cases and strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice.
Outdated Procedural Laws
Outdated procedural laws continue to contribute significantly to judicial delay in Pakistan. Although the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 have undergone various amendments, several procedural requirements continue to prolong litigation.[11] Lengthy recording of evidence, complex filing procedures, multiple stages of proceedings, and repeated opportunities for adjournments frequently delay the disposal of cases. These procedural inefficiencies increase both the financial cost and duration of litigation while restricting timely access to justice. As a result, they undermine the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial and due process under Article 10A and are inconsistent with Article 37(d) of the Constitution, which obliges the State to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice.[12] Comprehensive procedural reforms, including the simplification of court procedures and effective case management mechanisms, are therefore essential to improve judicial efficiency and reduce unnecessary delays.
Frequent Adjournments
Frequent and unnecessary adjournments remain one of the most avoidable causes of judicial delay in Pakistan. Although Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 authorises courts to grant adjournments where sufficient cause exists, the provision is often misused through repeated requests by litigants or legal counsel.[13] Such practices unnecessarily prolong litigation, increase legal expenses, create uncertainty for litigants, and contribute to the growing backlog of pending cases. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has repeatedly emphasised that adjournments should remain an exception rather than a routine practice. In Rana Tanveer Khan v Naseer-ud-Din (2015 SCMR 1401), the Court stressed that unnecessary adjournments frustrate the efficient administration of justice,[14] while in Moon Enterprises CNG Station v Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd (2020 SCMR 300), it reaffirmed that adjournments should be granted only upon the existence of sufficient cause.[15] Effective judicial case management, coupled with stricter judicial control over adjournment requests, is therefore essential to ensure the timely disposal of cases and uphold the constitutional promise of access to justice.
Consequences of Judicial Delay
Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial
Judicial delay constitutes a direct infringement of the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.[16] The right to a fair trial extends beyond the mere availability of judicial proceedings and encompasses the timely determination of legal disputes within a reasonable period. Prolonged litigation frequently deprives litigants of effective legal remedies, rendering constitutional guarantees largely ineffective in practice. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to a fair trial is a substantive constitutional guarantee that must be interpreted in a manner that ensures effective access to justice rather than merely formal compliance with legal procedures.[17] Consequently, persistent judicial delays prolong uncertainty, weaken public confidence in the judiciary, diminish the practical value of judicial decisions, and undermine the constitutional commitment to the effective administration of justice.
Financial Loss to Litigants
Judicial delay imposes a substantial financial burden on litigants by significantly increasing the cost of pursuing legal remedies. Lengthy proceedings require repeated court appearances, prolonged legal representation, transportation expenses, documentation costs, and the loss of productive working time, making litigation increasingly expensive. Businesses involved in commercial disputes often experience financial uncertainty because delayed enforcement of contractual rights disrupts commercial transactions and investment decisions. Likewise, individuals frequently suffer economic hardship arising from unresolved property, employment, and family disputes. Research published by the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) further highlights that prolonged judicial delays increase litigation costs and adversely affect economic activity by discouraging investment and reducing confidence in the legal system.[18] Consequently, judicial delay imposes not only significant financial costs upon individual litigants but also broader economic costs by reducing commercial certainty and weakening the effective functioning of the justice system.
Psychological and Social Impact
Judicial delay produces profound psychological and social consequences that extend well beyond the courtroom. Prolonged litigation subject litigants to persistent stress, anxiety, uncertainty, and emotional exhaustion while they await the resolution of their disputes. Repeated adjournments, frequent court appearances, and lengthy procedural formalities disrupt personal, family, and professional lives, often resulting in significant emotional and financial strain. In criminal proceedings, delayed adjudication may expose an accused person to prolonged social stigma and reputational harm despite the absence of a final conviction, while victims continue to experience emotional distress as they await justice. Empirical research conducted in Pakistan has further demonstrated that prolonged civil litigation adversely affects litigants’ psychological well-being and social relationships, highlighting the broader societal consequences of delayed justice.[19] Consequently, judicial delay undermines individual well-being, weakens public confidence in the judiciary, and diminishes trust in the effective administration of justice.
Recommendations and Reforms
Addressing judicial delay in Pakistan requires comprehensive institutional reforms rather than isolated procedural changes. First, sanctioned judicial vacancies should be filled promptly through a transparent, merit-based, and efficient appointment process to strengthen the capacity of courts and reduce the workload of serving judges. Secondly, judicial infrastructure should be expanded by establishing additional courts, increasing the number of judicial officers and supporting staff, and improving court facilities in proportion to the country’s growing population and rising volume of litigation.
Procedural reforms should likewise be prioritised to simplify litigation and minimise unnecessary delays. Courts should adopt stricter case management practices by discouraging unwarranted adjournments and ensuring that proceedings are conducted within prescribed timelines. Greater utilisation of digital technology—including electronic filing systems, digital case management, and virtual hearings where appropriate—can further improve administrative efficiency and reduce procedural delays. In addition, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, particularly mediation and arbitration, should be actively promoted to facilitate the timely resolution of suitable disputes outside conventional court proceedings, thereby reducing pressure on the judiciary.
Finally, continuous judicial training, effective performance monitoring, and greater public awareness of legal rights are essential to improving the overall efficiency of the justice system. Judicial reform should therefore focus not only on reducing the existing backlog of cases but also on preventing future accumulation through effective administration, modern procedural practices, and long-term institutional planning. Such reforms are indispensable to fulfilling the constitutional commitment under Article 37(d) to provide inexpensive, expeditious, and accessible justice for all citizens.
Conclusion
Judicial delay remains one of the most significant obstacles to the effective administration of justice in Pakistan. Despite constitutional guarantees under Articles 10A and 37(d) of the Constitution, prolonged litigation continues to prevent litigants from obtaining timely and effective legal remedies. Factors such as vacant judicial posts, an increasing backlog of cases, rapid population growth, frequent transfers of judges, outdated procedural laws, and unnecessary adjournments collectively contribute to delays that undermine judicial efficiency. These shortcomings not only impose financial, psychological, and social burdens on litigants but also weaken public confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law.
Addressing this challenge requires a comprehensive and coordinated reform strategy. Filling judicial vacancies, strengthening judicial infrastructure, modernising procedural laws, promoting alternative dispute resolution, and adopting technology-driven case management systems are essential measures for improving the efficiency of Pakistan’s justice system. Timely justice is not merely an administrative objective but a constitutional obligation fundamental to the protection of individual rights and the maintenance of public trust. Ensuring that justice is delivered promptly will strengthen the rule of law, reinforce confidence in judicial institutions, and contribute to a more effective, transparent, and accessible system of justice.
Reference(S):
Cases
Moon Enterprises CNG Station, Rawalpindi v Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd through General Manager, Rawalpindi and another 2020 SCMR 300 (SC).
Rana Tanveer Khan v Naseer-ud-Din and others 2015 SCMR 1401 (SC).
Reference No 1 of 2011 (Reference Re: Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto) PLD 2024 SC 411.
Shehla Zia and others v WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693.
Legislation
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973.
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Pakistan).
Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Pakistan).
Books, Reports and Articles
Gilani UI, Reflections on the Political Economy of Judicial Delay in Pakistan (Pakistan Institute of Development Economics 2024).
Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Judicial Statistics of Pakistan 2024 (Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan 2024).
Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Statement of Cases Pending, Institution and Disposal during January–June 2025 in the Superior Courts and District Judiciary of Pakistan (Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan 2025).
Mansoor and Faiz Ullah, ‘The Role of Civil Suits’ Delay in the Criminal Tendencies among the Litigants: Evidence from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan’ (2022) 3(2) Journal of Development and Social Sciences 721–728.
Websites
Worldometer, Pakistan Population (2025) https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/pakistan-population/ accessed 6 August 2026.
[1]Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, art 10A
[2] Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, art 37(d)
[3] Shehla Zia and others v WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693, 714
[4] Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Judicial statistics of Pakistan 2024 (Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan 2024)
[5] Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, art 175
[6] Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, art 175A
[7] Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Statement of Cases Pending, Institution and Disposal during January–June 2025 in the Superior Courts and District Judiciary of Pakistan (Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan 2025)
[8] Worldometer, Pakistan population(2025)
[9] Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Judicial Statistics of Pakistan 2024 (Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan 2024) 22–24
[10] Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, art 175
[11] Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Pakistan); Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Pakistan)
[12] Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, art 10A and art 37(d)
[13] Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Pakistan) O XVII
[14] Rana Tanveer Khan v Naseer-ud-Din and others 2015 SCMR 1401 (SC)
[15] Moon Enterprises CNG station, Rawalpindi v Sui Northern Gas pipelines Ltd through general Manager, Rawalpindi and another 2020 SCMR 300 (SC)
[16] Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, art 10A
[17] Reference No 1 of 2011 (Reference Re: Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto) PLD 2024 SC 411
[18] Umer Ijaz Gilani, Reflections on the political Economy of Judicial Delay in Pakistan ( Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, 2024)
[19] Mansoor and Faiz Ullah, ‘The role of Civil Suits’ Delay in the Criminal Tendencies among the litigants: Evidence from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan’ (2022) 3(2) journal of Development and Social Sciences 721-728
