Daily Times

Courts are just one, albeit an important institution, for dispute resolution. There are several other formal structures in a state, as part of the justice system, that operate to settle disputes. These include; tribunals, ombudsman, committees within the parliament, different grievance rederessal forums in autonomous bodies provided in special laws, including quasi-judicial powers vested under the administrative law in the Executive in all its three tiers.

Role of the courts is limited in modern societies. And they are increasing viewed, when so many other institutions are also performing judicial or quasi-judicial duties, as remedy of last resort. Most effective remedy depends on the context. The wisdom behind providing such a structure for dispute resolution is two folds. Firstly, and for obvious reasons, the courts need not be over-burdened for them to efficiently perform their duties. Secondly, the government or agencies performing functions in connection with affairs of federation, have complex structures, taking on multiple tasks simultaneously. They devise many strategies, policies, programs and schemes. This generates fairly diverse grievances. Not all of them are for courts to address or resolve. However, in Pakistan, apart from our misplaced focus on performance of courts, with little done to bring meaningful reforms by the coordinate branches; there is no developing discourse to strengthen all other mediums of dispute resolution.

It is in this backdrop, Dispute Resolution Councils (DRCs), constituted by the government of KP, are in many ways, a revolutionary measure. The DRCs, started operating after amendments were brought in the Police Order, 2002 and offer reconciliation of disputes under supervision of the local police. Subsequently, DRCs were afforded statutory protection under section 73 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act, 2017. After the establishment of the first DRC in Police Station Gulbahar, District Peshawar on 14th January, 2014; they are now operational in all the district headquarters.

Justice is too important a matter to be left to the judges alone. People must think about, discuss and contribute to the future planning of their justice system. DRC is one such initiative brought about by the collective institutional wisdom

As a case in point, DRC Abbottabad has been a success story since its constitution on 26th May, 2014. Headed by a very able and competent chairman, Lt. General (r) Ayaz Salim Rana, it comprises local notables, who have diligently and voluntarily performed their duties without any remuneration for the services they have rendered. By the numbers in 2014, 222 cases were lodged in DRC Abbottabad and all were settled amicably; in 2015, 177 cases were lodged and all were settled; in 2016, 330 cases were registered and all were settled; in 2017, 813 cases were registered and 800 of them were settled; in 2018, 879 cases were registered and 841 of them were settled and in 2019, in the four months, 299 cases were registered and out of them 237 were settled amicably. In total, 2610 cases have been settled and no challenge has been thrown to the settlement reached in any court of competent jurisdiction.

The numbers suggest growing faith reposed in the DRCs by the people of Abbottabad and its adjoining areas. And for good reason. DRC in Abbottabad works on strict timelines and seeks to settle all disputes expeditiously. The members seek to resolve the disputes within three to four hearings. Another evidence of its success is the diverse nature of claims brought before the DRC, that range from disputes arising out of fiscal matters, family disputes, property, easements to criminal complaints where compounding of offence is possible or it can be settled amicably otherwise.

Proceedings are not protracted on account of legal jargons or technicalities. Unlike the code of civil procedure; the procedure in DRC is designed for a common man to place before the bench his grievance like it affects him. There is no concept of miscellaneous applications with multiple rights of appeals. The procedure is simple, efficient and cost effective. Lawyers don’t get to appear in the proceedings. Time for introspection here, including for the writer of this column!

What is heartening to observe about DRCs is it provides a homegrown solution to the problems faced by people regarding rederessal of their grievances. The idea of amicable settlement through elders is deeply entrenched in the culture of KPK and still revered in different ethnic belts of the province. It appears that DRCs have successfully restored the old customs of dispute resolution that was for some time hijacked by Lilliputians in the province. More importantly, it is the executive that has intervened and not judiciary to address common man’s problems through policy and legislative instruments.

Justice is too important a matter to be left to the judges alone. People must think about, discuss and contribute to the future planning of their justice system. DRC is one such initiative brought about by the collective institutional wisdom. We hope the success of DRCs in KP can be emulated elsewhere in the country too incorporating solutions that stem from the cultural manifestations of the people. Rule of law also dictates that institutions which serve people should have processes that are easily comprehendible for everyone and should enable adjudication that is both fair and swift. Justice for the people, by the people!

The writer attended Berkeley and is a Barrister of Lincoln’s Inn