Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi’s unveiling of a comprehensive judicial reform agenda under the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee could potentially be the transformative moment we have been waiting for in Pakistan’s justice system. With proposals ranging from the establishment of model criminal trial courts to fixed timelines for case disposal and ethical AI guidelines, the reform plan aspires to address both systemic inefficiencies and institutional wellbeing, particularly that of the district judiciary. At a recent symposium, the CJP rightly stressed the need to ‘humanise’ judicial reforms, recognising the emotional, psychological and professional strain faced by judges, especially at the lower levels of the judiciary. These are critical observations that warrant serious consideration from policymakers and the broader legal community. Importantly, this reform agenda places unprecedented focus on the wellbeing of the district judiciary. Addressing issues such as undue influence, performance evaluation, recruitment standards and parity in service conditions, the CJP described judicial wellbeing as a ‘structural imperative’. That recognition is long overdue. The mental and physical toll on district judges – who face daunting caseloads, minimal resources and often hostile working conditions – directly affects the delivery of justice.
Despite this promising framework, history urges us to temper hope with caution. We have heard reform pledges before. Since the historic lawyers’ movement of 2007, there have been repeated commitments to overhaul the judiciary, strengthen lower courts and improve the criminal justice system. Yet, nearly two decades later, the district courts remain the most fragile link in the justice chain: overburdened, under-resourced and vulnerable to interference. Lower courts are the first point of contact for the majority of litigants – and yet, judges operating at this level continue to face immense pressure, whether dealing with blasphemy accusations, land disputes or gender-based violence. Without adequate security, training, and institutional support, they are often left to navigate treacherous terrain on their own. Not only that, but corruption and influence peddling in lower courts are also issues that are widely acknowledged but rarely addressed with any seriousness. True reform cannot take root unless judicial appointments are made strictly on merit and judges are held to the highest standards of accountability and independence. Concerns around judicial independence, especially following the 26th Amendment, too cannot be ignored. However, they must not be weaponised to stall much-needed structural reforms. While the amendment has implications for political cases, it should not serve as a smokescreen to avoid strengthening institutions that serve the citizen.
In Pakistan, the phrase ‘thana-katchery’ encapsulates the fear and frustration most citizens associate with the justice system. For the average person, approaching the police or court means navigating a system skewed in favour of the powerful, where the ability to pay or influence often determines outcomes. It is no surprise, then, that many avoid legal recourse altogether, allowing injustice to fester and public trust in institutions to erode further. This is why judicial reforms must prioritise access and equity. That means building more courts, hiring more staff, ensuring secure and merit-based appointments and providing lower courts with both the autonomy and protection they require to function independently. It also means extending legal aid and support mechanisms to vulnerable litigants, especially women, minorities and the economically disadvantaged. CJP Afridi has made a strong start. His recognition of the human side of judicial service is rare and welcome. But the challenge now lies in implementation. Reforms must not be allowed to wither in committee rooms or remain buried in policy documents. All stakeholders must move from rhetoric to resolve. An efficient and transparent justice system is not utopia – it is the foundation of any democratic society.
