The National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC) held a meeting on March 11, 2019, in the Supreme Court chaired by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Chief Justice of Pakistan and Chairman NJPMC. The meeting was attended by top brass of judiciary that includes Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Senior Judge Supreme Court of Pakistan, members of the NJPMC including Chief Justice Federal Shariat Court Sheikh Najam-ul-Hassan, and Chief Justices of the provincial high courts. Article 37(d) of the Constitution was given special focus in that meeting; it ensures the provision of expeditious and inexpensive justice. In-lining the said constitutional mandate, the Expeditious Justice Initiative (EJI) was proposed. It was decided, inter-alia, that the SP complaints cell would be established in each district to entertain aggrieved persons’ applications for registration of an FIR. According to this proposal, an aggrieved person will be required to approach and appear before the SP Complaints who will assess the merits of facts for registration of an FIR. An aggrieved person can only go to court after exhausting an alternative statutory remedy before that SP. Prior to that policy, under section 22-A and 22-B of the criminal procedure code, people approach the ex-officio justice of peace (districts and sessions judges and additional district and sessions judges)for directions to register an FIR if the police refuse to do so. The rationale behind this decision was that the current courts of the sessions judges and additional sessions judges are laddered with cases relating to giving directions to the police authorities for registration of a case. The jurisdiction of 22A is not only tantamount to involvement of judiciary in executive functions but it also collides with the principle of separation of powers. The jurisdiction of 22A is not only tantamount to involvement of judiciary in executive functions but it also collides with the principle of separation of powers The decision has sparked some serious disagreements in the legal fraternity. Immediately after the announcement, the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) (the apex regulatory body of the legal profession) convened a Pakistan Lawyers Representatives Convention in Lahore. After thorough brainstorming on legal implications of this decision, the convention was concluded on the call of a nationwide strike. After PBC’s call for strike, lawyers boycotted proceedings in subordinate courts and in the high courts of all provinces and will be doing so every Thursday. All bar councils and bar associations demanded the immediate reversal of the decision by the NJPMC. The delegation of the representatives of the bar councils and bar associations met the Chief Justice of Pakistan but the meeting did not bear any fruit. After repelling this policy and causing robust aversion, lawyers were labelled as anti-reformist and self-centred, safeguarding their personal interests. However, the legal fraternity has a strong rationale behind this reaction in purview of its legal implications for society at large. This policy straightforwardly expands the domain and powers of the police by adding another layer of process administered by the same police. Domestic police officials and station house in-charge are already perceived to be deeply involved in illegal and bribe-wired adjudication. The additional layer of bureaucracy would only prolong the anguish of the litigant. In 2002, an amendment was made, and an ex-officio justice of peace was given the power solely on account of delays, corruption and unresponsiveness of the police system. The 2002 amendment was followed by the same rationale that rolls it back now. The public’s confidence in the system would erode further by adding more police bureaucracy in their pursuit of justice. To surprise of many, the top judicial brass of Pakistan did not bother to consult and take on board senior practising lawyers, bar associations and bar councils. Practising lawyers and leaders of bar councils and bar associations have grassroots knowledge of operability of law. Top legal fraternity and senior members of bar councils have direct exposure of dealing of diverse issues with clients. Legal community is quite familiar with the changing social dynamics and flaws in the inherited legal systems. Therefore, in order to have better and effective judicial policies lawyers have to be included in consultation. Judicial policies are deeply connected to the layman as the ultimate beneficiary or the sufferer of policy. Judicial policies have profound effects on the social affairs of society. Therefore, judicial policy-making should be taken seriously at institutional level, and legal fraternity must be consulted for effective and comprehensive policies. There are many enduring deficiencies in the justice system in the country. A judicial reform process must begin, and not just by identifying flaws and problems in the justice system but by also recommending sensible and implementable solutions after carrying thorough consultation with relevant experts. NJPMC members should acknowledge that a lawyer is an instrument to deliver the law to common man and practise the enacted law. Lawyers’ input must be sought for meaningful and effective brainstorming on legislation. Pakistan is still relying on olden laws to govern society; therefore, there is a long way to go in legislation before law becomes an effective tool against social injustice. The writer is an Islamabad-based lawyer and analyst