ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has urged the Supreme Court to withdraw the recent increase in court fees across all formats. The SCBA argues that the hike undermines the constitutional guarantee of inexpensive and expeditious justice, as outlined under Article 37(d) of the Constitution.
SCBA President Mian Muhammad Rauf Atta, along with Advocate Hafiz Ehsan Khokar, submitted a comprehensive set of reform proposals to the Chief Justice of Pakistan. This was in continuation of their letter dated August 28, 2025. Their objective is to strengthen the institutional capacity of the Supreme Court in line with constitutional mandates and international best practices.
They submitted that the Supreme Court, as the apex judicial body, is not meant to function as a revenue-generating authority. The collection of state revenue is the sole responsibility of the federal government. They further argued that excessive filing fees discourage bona fide litigants from approaching the court. This creates economic barriers to justice and obstructs the exercise of fundamental rights. Justice, they stated, is a public good and should never be reduced to a commercial service. They pointed out that in countries such as Norway and Germany, only nominal court fees are charged. The majority of costs are subsidised by the state, ensuring access to justice regardless of socio-economic background. “These jurisdictions treat judicial access as an indispensable element of democratic governance, not a privilege for those who can afford it,” they added.
To ensure efficiency and uphold constitutional guarantees of equality before the law and the right to a fair trial under Articles 10A and 25, they proposed a new timeline. All admitted petitions and appeals in the Supreme Court should be mandatorily fixed for hearing within two months of admission. They submitted that delays at the fixation stage create procedural bottlenecks. This leads to unnecessary pendency, uncertainty, and a decline in public confidence in the judicial system.
It was submitted that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. In this context, they recommended the practice of issuing short operative orders on the same day as the hearing. These should be followed by detailed reasons within a reasonable time frame, not exceeding one month.
They added, “Pakistan’s Supreme Court, exercising jurisdiction under Articles 184(3), 185, and 187 of the Constitution, may institutionalise this practice. This will reduce uncertainty for litigants and counsel.”
It was submitted that transparency and accountability are essential for strengthening judicial legitimacy. This is particularly important in the proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) under Article 209 of the Constitution. They noted that comparative international practices show that openness and time-bound accountability can coexist with judicial independence. For example, the United Kingdom’s Judicial Conduct Investigations Office publishes detailed reports of disciplinary proceedings. It also enforces strict time limits for the disposal of complaints.