Courts drag cases against Constitution, law, own policy

ISLAMABAD: Time frames and deadlines set by the Constitution, law and the judiciary’s own National Judicial Policy 2009 for speedy justice and quick disposal of court cases, both civil and criminal, are grossly violated by the courts causing extreme delays in delivery of justice.

These delays and lingering of litigation for years and decades involve both the superior judiciary and subordinate courts. Causes of delayed justice may also involve the police and prosecution in criminal cases. But in civil cases the courts have to mainly share the blame for delays of longer span of time, which at times make generations to wait for a court case to decide.

In numerous court cases, there are deadlines, time-frames fixed either by the Constitution, law or the National Judicial Policy but hardly any of these deadlines and time-frames are met by the courts.

Under the Article 199 of the Constitution, a writ petition (where a stay order is passed) the high court is duty bound to decide the matter within six months, but this constitutional provision is also ignored and even the proceedings in writ jurisdiction continue for years.

The Article 199(4B) reads as: "(4B). Every case in which, on an application under clause 199(1) the high court has made an interim order, shall be disposed of by the high court on merits within six months from the day on which it is made, unless the high court is prevented from doing so for sufficient cause to be recorded."

There are different laws, which fix time-frame for disposal of court cases, but are generally ignored. For example under the Defamation Ordinance 2002, the court shall decide a case under this ordinance within a period of 90 days. An appeal in a defamation case against the final decision and decree of the court shall be filed with the high court within 30 days and the high court shall decide the appeal within 60 days. But practically the court take years and even then hardly gives verdict in the defamation case.

On a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, the court may direct the officer-in-charge of a police station to investigate and complete the investigation and forward it to the court within 15 days. The court will proceed with the trial from day to day and decide the case within 60 days; and if there is any delay, sufficient reasons will be given. Under the same law, the court shall not adjourn the trial for any purpose unless such adjournment is, in its opinion, necessary in the interest of justice and no adjournment shall in any case be granted for more than seven days.

Under the Family Court Act 1964, the family court shall dispose of a case, including a suit for dissolution of marriage, within a period of six months from the date of institution. Under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, a suit in which leave to defend has been granted to the defendant shall be disposed of within 90 days from the day on which leave was granted. In case the proceedings continue beyond the said period, the defendant may be required to furnish security in such amount as the banking court deems fit, and on the failure of the defendant to furnish such security, the banking court shall pass an interim or final decree in such amount as it may deem appropriate.

Similarly, the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 envisages that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, all persons accused of a scheduled offence, shall be prosecuted for such offence by an accountability court established pursuant to this ordinance exclusively as constituted under Section 5 (g) and the case shall be heard from day to day and disposed of within 30 days. In practice, many accountability cases framed 10-15 years ago are still undecided.

The National Judicial Policy (NJP) 2009, which was framed and enforced by the judiciary itself to ensure speedy justice and check mounting backlog of pending cases in courts, is also ignored grossly.

While the cases on the ground face never ending delays, the NJP 2009 envisages that writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution should be fixed for “Kachi Peshi” on the next day of institution and be disposed of as quickly as possible; write petition pertaining to service matter of the government servants as well as those relating to admissions of student in professional colleges and allied matter be decided in 60 days.

While the stay orders continue to haunt many for months and years, the NJP 2009 says that stay matter should be decided within 15 days of the grant of interim injunction and in case of delay, the judicial officer should report reasons to the concerned CJ of high court through the Registrar. Interestingly, on the ground the stay orders granted by high courts take months and years to decide.

The NJP 2009 says that the rent cases should be decided speedily within a period of four months; appeals, writ petitions and other miscellaneous petitions pertaining to rent matters should be decided in 60 days; revision petitions under CPC arising out of interlocutory orders should be decided within three months; family cases should be decided within 3-6 months; civil appeals arising out of family cases, custody of minors, guardianship cases, succession and insolvency cases shall be decided within one to four months and for any delay, reason should be furnished to the high court; cases related to public revenues should be decided within a period of six months; civil judges should decide review applications within 30 days and trial of new cases should be completed within six months; negotiable instrument cases which are decided through summary procedures should be decided in 90 days; cases related to fiscal matters should be decided on fast track for disposal to meet the constitutional requirements; the small claims and minor offences courts should be applied in earnest to facilitate resolution of minor disputes through ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanism) outside the court system; priority should be given to the disposal of trade, commercial and investment cases; to check filing of false and frivolous cases, the courts should impose compensatory costs.

Like the civil cases, the NJP 2009 also envisages detailed policy guideline for expeditious disposal of criminal cases but like civil cases these policy guidelines are also greatly ignored. Besides others, the time frame given in the policy includes that the bail applications under Section 497 of CrPC shall be decided not beyond a period of three days by the magistrate, five days by sessions court and seven days by the high court; applications for cancellation of bail under sub-section 5 of section 497 of CrPC should be decided within 15 days by the courts including High Courts; all criminal cases punishable with imprisonment for up to seven years registered after January 2009 be kept on fast track for disposal within six months; all criminal cases punishable with imprisonment from seven years and above including death cases shall be decided within a period of one year; the trial courts shall not grant unnecessary adjournments particularly on account of failure to produce the prosecution witness.

If any police officer or investigation officer of the case is found guilty of deliberate attempts to prolong the trial, the trial court may report the matter to the officer in-charge for taking necessary action. If in any case it appears that no action has been taken on the complaint, the matter may be brought to the notice of chief justice through registrar for initiating contempt proceedings against such police officer responsible for causing hindrance in conclusion of the trial.

Under the NJP 2009, transfer applications under sections 526 and 528 CrPC miscellaneous applications like Supardari of vehicle and disposal of property and other applications arising out of interim orders should be decided within seven days.