Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building, in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
Nearly five months after the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), lawyers remain unconvinced that the sweeping constitutional overhaul has delivered on its main promise – faster justice – with backlogs still stubbornly high in the two highest courts.
Despite the government’s claim that the FCC would ease the burden on the Supreme Court (SC) and speed up relief for ordinary litigants, legal circles say the reform has so far been little more than a reshuffling of cases rather than a significant reduction in pending cases.
The federal government had indicated that one of the primary goals of the FCC was to facilitate the process for ordinary litigants whose cases had been delayed due to the SC’s judicial activism. Even the senior bars, led by the Independent Group, had fully supported the 27th constitutional amendment under which the Supreme Court – FCC – was established in November last year.
Before the FCC began operating on November 13, 2025, a total of 56,608 cases were pending in the SC, of which 22,910 were transferred to the FCC, while 33,698 remained pending in the SC. Currently, seven judges work at the FCC, while 18 serve at the SC.
Despite the increase in state funding for judges after the 27th Amendment, there has been no significant impact on pending cases, as more than 56,000 cases are still pending in the two highest courts.
Some lawyers accuse the executive of being responsible for this situation, arguing that the appointment of junior judges to the highest court (FCC), without following established criteria and with high salaries, has harmed the morale of senior judges of the SC.
They also point out that the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Yahya Afridi, benefited from a constitutional amendment specific to him and is now recognized as Chief Justice after the 27th Amendment, while still being required to follow the FCC’s judicial orders under Article 189 of the Constitution.
However, there have been improvements in the handling of criminal cases before the Supreme Court over the past two years.
Furthermore, the CS published a press release on Tuesday in which it was indicated that “over the last three months, 3,600 files were opened while 5,383 files were settled, bringing the total pending to 34,083 files”.
The status of prison motions and death sentence appeals was also reviewed. It was noted that the number of pending death penalty cases has been reduced from 384 at the time of assumption of office (October 2024) to 60 cases.
“In order to ensure speedy decision in cases involving the right to life, it was decided that all pending death penalty appeals would be disposed of within the next 30 days. It was further decided that cases filed up to 2018 would be prioritized in order to reduce the annual backlog,” the statement said.
Former Additional Attorney General Tariq Mahmood Khokhar says the “26th and 27th constitutional amendments” lack legitimacy because they were not adopted democratically. “A fortiori, the resulting consequences, including before the Federal Constitutional Court, also lack legitimacy. The FCC embodies a parallel judicial hierarchy of questionable necessity. Its stated goal, the reduction of litigation, is contradicted by the empirical data.”
Khokhar noted that before the “27th Constitutional Amendment”, 56,608 cases were pending in the Supreme Court. Currently, there are 33,850 pending cases in the SC and 22,325 cases in the FCC.
“Clearly, this is a simple redistribution, not a solution to systemic congestion. Such a transfer of cases reflects an administrative shift rather than judicial efficiency. The FCC, with 7 judges, has failed to reduce the backlog of cases. The Treasury bears a significant and recurring financial cost without any significant benefit to the ordinary litigant,” he adds.
Former jurist Tariq Khokhar says the lack of constitutional jurisprudence is glaring: barely 15 reported cases, devoid of significant constitutional substance.
“Citizens, who are supposed to benefit from the constitutional judgment, have derived no discernible benefit from this structural experiment.
On the contrary, the executive no longer has to be held accountable. Worse still, its decrees of dubious constitutionality are maintained and validated. »
“The appointment mechanism, now under the effective influence of the executive, has eroded the independence of the judiciary. The resulting judiciary undoubtedly bears the imprint of control rather than independence.”
He said public allegations, including those of a compromised conscience for personal gain, remain unaddressed jurisprudentially. “The validation of the military trial of civilians is a permanent scar,” he notes.
Similarly, lawyer Umer Gilani says the overhaul of the highest level of the judiciary by the 26th and 27th amendments has not brought any significant improvement in the speedy disposal of cases.
“This is hardly surprising. The only sustainable way to reduce the backlog of cases is to deter those who file false and frivolous claims – and to create incentives for parties with weak cases to concede early in the court cycle. No serious progress has been made in this direction,” observes Gilani.
Attorney Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad observed that while the 26th and 27th Amendments and the creation of the FCC are important steps toward strengthening the justice system, the practical impact on pending cases remains an ongoing challenge.
The reforms aimed to reduce the burden on the higher judiciary and ensure faster resolution of constitutional and public issues. However, despite these positive intentions, ordinary litigants continue to face delays in accessing justice in a timely manner.
He noted that under the Practice and Procedure Act, important cases should be scheduled for a first hearing within 15 days, but this deadline has not been consistently met, contributing to persistent delays.
Hafiz Ehsaan pointed out that the current strength of the FCC is not enough to handle its huge expectation and hence a timely decision remains a challenge.
He stressed that the judicial strength of the Court should be increased to the same level as that of the SC, to ensure that it has sufficient capacity to effectively deal with its large caseload. Aligning resources with caseload is essential to achieving the constitutional goal of access to justice under Section 37(d).
Finally, he suggested that a structured national dialogue on justice between Parliament and the judiciary be initiated. Such a dialogue would aim to develop a ten-year forward-looking strategy for implementing reforms, drawing lessons from other countries that have successfully prioritized judicial reforms.
By working collaboratively, setting clear priorities and implementing reforms in a progressive and realistic manner, Pakistan can ensure that the justice system becomes more efficient, more responsive and more accessible to all citizens.
