By Rana Muhammad Imran
Pakistan’s judiciary has long been regarded as a fundamental pillar of the state, responsible for safeguarding the Constitution, protecting civil liberties and ensuring that state institutions operate within the law. However, delays in court proceedings, mounting case backlogs, barriers to accessing justice and concerns about judicial independence have raised an important question: can Pakistan’s judicial system provide timely, effective and impartial justice to every citizen without discrimination?
The significance of this question extends beyond the legal profession. It is closely connected to democracy, economic stability, human rights and public confidence in state institutions.
What Do International Rankings Tell Us?
The World Justice Project’s (WJP) Rule of Law Index assesses the rule of law across countries using a range of indicators, including constraints on government powers, corruption, fundamental rights, open government, regulatory enforcement, civil justice and criminal justice.
According to the 2026 index, Pakistan ranks 131st among 143 countries, with an overall score of approximately 0.36 out of 1. This position highlights significant challenges in several areas associated with the rule of law and suggests a need for sustained institutional reforms.
However, it is important to interpret these figures carefully. The index does not measure judicial performance alone. It assesses a broader range of factors involving government institutions, law enforcement, civil liberties and the administration of justice. Therefore, Pakistan’s overall ranking should not be treated as a definitive verdict on the performance of its courts or individual judges.
A comprehensive assessment requires consideration of judicial statistics, case disposal rates, delays in proceedings, access to legal assistance and evidence concerning judicial independence.
Delayed Justice and Its Consequences
Among the challenges facing Pakistan’s judicial system are lengthy proceedings, pending cases and the financial burden of litigation. Delays in civil disputes, property cases, family matters and criminal proceedings can impose considerable financial and emotional pressure on individuals and families.
When citizens must spend years pursuing legal remedies, the practical value of justice is diminished. For people on low incomes, legal fees, travel expenses and repeated court appearances can make the process particularly difficult.
Justice is not simply a matter of obtaining a favourable judgment. It also requires a fair opportunity to present a case and a timely decision based on the law and the available evidence.
Reducing delays therefore requires more than increasing the number of hearings. It calls for effective case management, adequate judicial staffing, modern court infrastructure and measures to discourage unnecessary adjournments without compromising the right to a fair trial.
Judicial Independence and Constitutional Balance
Judicial independence is essential to a functioning democracy. Courts must be able to make decisions based on the Constitution, the law and the evidence before them, free from improper political pressure, personal interests or interference by other institutions.
In Pakistan, debates over judicial appointments, constitutional litigation and the distribution of powers among state institutions have continued for decades. Constitutional amendments adopted in 2024 and 2025 have further intensified discussion about the structure of the judiciary and the process for hearing constitutional cases.
The 27th Constitutional Amendment, adopted in November 2025, established a Federal Constitutional Court with jurisdiction over specified constitutional matters. Supporters regard the establishment of a dedicated constitutional forum as an institutional change intended to address constitutional disputes. Critics, meanwhile, have raised concerns about its implications for judicial independence, the separation of powers and the balance among state institutions.
These competing perspectives deserve careful examination. The central question should be whether constitutional arrangements protect judicial independence, maintain institutional accountability and uphold the fundamental rights of citizens.
Ultimately, public confidence depends not only on the formal structure of the courts but also on how independently, transparently and consistently they exercise their powers.
Equality Before the Law
A fundamental principle of the rule of law is that legal protections and obligations should apply equally, regardless of a person’s wealth, political influence, official position or institutional connections. No citizen should be denied equal protection because of their political views, identity or affiliations.
When ordinary citizens face prolonged proceedings while influential individuals appear to receive different treatment, public perceptions of inequality can undermine confidence in the justice system. However, perceptions must be distinguished from established facts. Individual cases should be assessed on their evidence, applicable legal standards and judicial reasoning rather than assumptions about the people involved.
Transparency is equally important. Court proceedings and judgments should be accessible to the extent permitted by law, and decisions should provide clear legal reasoning. Judges must uphold professional ethics, impartiality and the responsible exercise of judicial authority.
Accountability mechanisms should also be fair, transparent and consistent with judicial independence. Accountability must not become a means of exerting improper pressure on judges, just as judicial independence must not be treated as immunity from legitimate scrutiny.
The Path Towards Reform
Strengthening Pakistan’s judicial system requires practical and sustained reforms.
First, case management should be modernised, judicial staffing improved and unnecessary delays reduced. Digital case tracking and better scheduling could help courts manage their workloads more effectively.
Second, lower courts must receive adequate resources. For many citizens, these courts are the primary point of contact with the justice system, making their performance particularly important.
Third, legal aid should be strengthened so that financial hardship does not prevent people from defending their rights or pursuing legitimate claims.
Fourth, greater transparency in judicial appointments and court administration should be encouraged, alongside safeguards that protect judges from political interference.
Fifth, the constitutional responsibilities of state institutions should be clearly defined and respected. Disputes between institutions should be resolved through lawful constitutional processes rather than prolonged institutional confrontation.
Finally, reliable public data on pending cases, case disposal, court staffing and the duration of proceedings should be published regularly. Such information would help policymakers identify weaknesses, measure progress and hold institutions accountable for delivering improvements.
Conclusion: A Strong Judiciary Is Essential to a Strong State
Pakistan’s position in international rule-of-law assessments provides an important reason to examine the country’s institutional challenges. However, the ultimate objective should not simply be to improve a position on an international ranking. It should be to build a judicial system in which citizens can protect their rights without relying on political connections, financial resources or personal influence.
An effective judiciary applies legal principles consistently, protects the rights of the accused and the victim, determines guilt on the basis of evidence and ensures a fair hearing for all parties.
For Pakistan’s democratic and economic development, the rule of law must become more than a constitutional promise or a political slogan. It must be reflected in the everyday experiences of ordinary citizens seeking justice.
When justice is accessible, timely and impartial, public confidence in state institutions has a stronger foundation. Building such a system requires institutional integrity, transparent procedures, respect for constitutional limits and a sustained commitment to reform.
Ultimately, the strength of a judicial system should be judged not only by its constitutional status or international ranking, but by whether ordinary citizens can rely on it to protect their rights and deliver fair and effective justice.
