Daily Times

Dissent and reforms go hand in hand with each other. In more developed and civilized societies, dissensions and highlighting of an issue should suffice to bring reform. But if we talk about Realpolitik, we don’t live in such a part of the world. Do we? Here protests go unheeded, what to talk of dissensions and disagreements. That’s so because the approach of our ruling class or Borgias for that matter, to an issue, has always been reactive rather than proactive. For example, censure and pressure by the general public, after the Peshawar attack, paved the way for the posthaste decision of lifting the moratorium on the Death penalty and establishing Military courts.

The unfortunate incidence of 16/12 in Peshawar did what a number of rape cases and attacks on minorities couldn’t do: it shook our leaders out of their stupor and nudged them towards passing the 21st amendment to the constitution which stipulated the formation of Military Courts. But was this decision really a solution to the woes of the judicial system and reformed this important pillar of the state? We are some two years down the line after the end of Military courts, so we can certainly say these courts were a short term formula to punish the hardcore terrorists only. The current PTI led government has created some rumblings, time and again, by claiming that a vigorous reform plan is on cards to reform the Judiciary of Pakistan. But, until now, the solution given by them is the addition of more judges.

Unfortunately, the idea of the addition of more judges to the present strength has been published so much, for so long and in such a way that now it is being considered as the only solution to the problem and they seem to have become oblivious to other important factors. Before any addition, it must be seen if the present capacity is being fully utilized or if there is a waste, can its productivity be increased. It cannot be refuted that if inefficiency is added to inefficiency, it will not bring efficiency, it may rather multiply it. So far as the view that the increased number of judges can improve their performance, one might be tempted to verify the effect of the substantial increase of judges made in the past. The backlog is not much affected by such addition but corruption has increased proportionately or much more and the quality and efficiency have decreased likewise.

The increase in the number of judges also affected the budget earmarked for their training which led to poor quality decisions of junior judges. That’s why, before adding any judges, it should be seen if the present capacity is fully utilized or if there is a waste. In experts’ opinion, if we make endeavors to reduce the waste to the extent of just 40%, we can achieve at least double the results with the present strength.

To reduce the waste, one proposal suggested by political experts is that lower court judges with less experience should only record the evidence but send the case up to their senior colleagues who will hear the case and decide. It will also reduce the problem of corruption, which is being complained about. The second suggestion is to take a leaf out of other countries’ book which has more vibrant and responsible judiciary.

In this regard, we can learn from Saudi Arabia’s experience. There, after receiving education through specially designed syllabi, a selected candidate has to work as a helper judge for at least 3 years. This period may, however, be extended if the candidates fail to achieve the necessary skills and proficiency. Thereafter, he can sit independently but under the watchful eyes of the committee specially meant for it which monitors the working of all the judges directly to ensure that they are neither corrupt nor incompetent and inefficient.

The solution to judicial woes doesn’t lie in mere adding the number of judges, that’s just one dimension of the problems that our justice system is faced with. A comprehensive reform plan encompassing all aspects of the problem, especially reducing the time a case takes to reach the verdict, is required. It is high time that our political elite undertook the judicial chemotherapy, so the justice seeker’s woes don’t worsen because of the court’s shoddy infrastructure. Only then we will be inching towards becoming ‘Riasat-e-Madina’.

The writer is a Financial and Political Analyst