A fair and efficient justice system is essential in any democratic society. It not only upholds the rule of law but also protects individual rights and freedoms. In this regard, the state has a vital duty to ensure that the justice system operates quickly and effectively.
Many countries around the world have constitutional courts that perform effectively in their respective contexts. A prominent example is Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), established in 1951, which has the authority to review laws and government actions to ensure they comply with the Basic Law (Grundgesetz). The court has been instrumental in protecting human rights, particularly through landmark rulings that uphold freedom of expression and equality. Its decisions are binding on all branches of government, reinforcing the principle of constitutional supremacy. Established in 1956, Italy’s Constitutional Court (Corte Costituzionale) ensures that national laws comply with the Italian Constitution. It has the authority to annul laws deemed unconstitutional and to resolve disputes among various branches of government. Its rulings have profoundly shaped Italian law, especially concerning civil rights and liberties, making it a cornerstone of the country’s legal system.
Similarly, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, established in 1994 after the end of apartheid, plays a vital role in the nation’s democratic framework. The court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution and safeguarding human rights. The court has delivered several landmark rulings that have advanced social justice, particularly those affirming the rights of marginalized groups and addressing land reform issues. Its influence goes beyond legal decisions, often shaping national discourse on human rights and equality.
Spain’s Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional), established in 1978, has the authority to review laws and protect rights enshrined in the Spanish Constitution. It plays a key role in mediating conflicts between regional and central governments, ensuring that Spain’s decentralized structure adheres to constitutional limits. Its rulings have tackled important issues, including language rights and regional autonomy.
Taiwan’s Constitutional Court (Council of Grand Justices), established in 1949, interprets the Constitution and reviews the constitutionality of laws. The court has also made pivotal decisions regarding human rights.
Austria’s Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof), established in 1920, reviews laws to ensure compliance with the Austrian Constitution. It has the power to annul legislation and has been instrumental in protecting civil liberties and resolving constitutional disputes. Its decisions have often led to significant reforms in Austrian law and governance.
In contrast, Pakistan’s court system faces numerous challenges that affect its efficiency, credibility, and accessibility. While the judiciary is vital for upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens’ rights, systemic issues hinder its effectiveness. One major concern is the substantial backlog of cases; courts are overwhelmed with high volumes of cases, leading to long delays in the judicial process. This backlog frustrates litigants seeking timely justice and strains judicial resources, with many cases taking years or even decades to resolve, undermining public confidence in the system.
Moreover, many individuals remain unaware of their legal rights and the processes for pursuing justice, which exacerbates the number of filings and complicates cases. The backlog has serious implications for the Pakistani legal system. Prolonged delays in case resolution prevent many individuals from obtaining timely justice, particularly in urgent matters such as human rights violations, child custody, and property disputes. This growing backlog contributes to public disillusionment with the judiciary; when citizens perceive the system as inefficient, their trust in the rule of law diminishes, leading to a decline in compliance with legal norms. Prolonged litigation often leads to increased legal costs for litigants, adding an extra financial burden for those pursuing justice. Acknowledging the backlog issue, the Pakistani government and judiciary have taken steps to address this problem. Some courts have introduced case management systems designed to streamline processes and minimize delays. These initiatives include establishing timelines for case hearings and actively managing pending cases. While there have been efforts to increase the number of judges across various courts, the pace of these appointments remains slow compared to the growing backlog. Promoting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, can help ease the burden on courts by providing quicker resolutions to disputes outside the formal judicial system.
Despite these efforts, the situation in Pakistani courts remains dire. To address these issues, the establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) is essential to eliminate provincial disparities. The proposed FCC will be part of a broader legislative initiative that the government intends to introduce under the Constitutional Package. According to the reported draft, the government aims to add Article 184(A) to the Constitution, granting the FCC the authority to interpret the Constitution and hear appeals against laws passed by Parliament. Similarly, under the proposed Article 184(A)(2), the FCC would also hear appeals against decisions made by high courts. Another proposed change involves transferring all pending appeals against high court orders to the FCC once the constitutional amendment is enacted. Additionally, the government plans to amend the Constitution to grant the FCC “exclusive and original jurisdiction,” apart from the Supreme Court, to resolve disputes between federal and provincial governments.
The concept of constitutional courts is not new and exists in many countries around the world. If we aim to strengthen our judicial system, ensure speedy justice for our citizens, and eliminate disparities between provinces, the establishment of an FCC is essential.
Unfortunately, Pakistan lacks unity on core national issues from our political parties and leaders. In today’s complex and rapidly changing world, the importance of unity on fundamental national issues cannot be overstated. Whether concerning economic stability, security, education, or public health, a cohesive approach is crucial for effectively addressing challenges. Unity promotes collaboration, enhances resilience, and ultimately leads to better governance.
Regarding Pakistan’s judicial system, it appears primarily focused on political and constitutional matters, resulting in delays and frustration for the public. Courts should not prioritize political and constitutional issues at the expense of addressing citizens’ concerns. Our Supreme Court is heavily occupied with constitutional and governmental matters, making it challenging to promptly address various cases that come from high courts for review, often leading to years of delays. The proposed constitutional courts aim to alleviate this burden on the Supreme Court, allowing it to focus on resolving regular cases more swiftly. These constitutional courts will also help reduce the lengthy and delayed justice process by handling constitutional and governmental issues separately.
The people of Pakistan deserve swift justice, and it’s unfair for our courts to be bogged down by political cases while public issues are neglected. The proposed establishment of Constitutional Courts is a timely and effective solution to the current crisis and backlog in our judiciary. The citizens recognize its significance, and it is crucial for politicians to demonstrate the same commitment. They should prioritize the state’s interests over personal agendas and unite in support of this important initiative.