akistan’s legal framework continues to carry the colonial baggage of outdated laws that often obstruct justice instead of ensuring it. The Qanoon-i-Shahadat Order of 1984, derived largely from the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, remains one of the most frequently cited examples of how procedural rigidity and archaic provisions can lead to unnecessary delays and miscarriages of justice. After independence, Pakistan kept using the 1872 framework until 1984; the revision then infused Islamic terminology such as tazkiyah-al-shuhood (credibility of witnesses), but retained the core structure of a 19th-Century law. Following the rise of digital evidence, forensic science and modern investigative techniques, the procedural skeleton has not kept pace.

Talking to The News on Sunday, Advocate Saleem Ullah Sohal, a senior trial lawyer, describes how procedural gaps translate into years of delay for the litigants. “The Law of Evidence mentions three kinds of testimonies: the chief examination, the cross-examination and the hostile witness,” he says. “In the chief, a witness records the original statement; in the cross, the opposing counsel tries to extract truth or admissions in his favour. If the witness retracts his statement during the chief, he is declared hostile and his own counsel may then cross-examine him.” In principle, cross-examination should immediately follow the chief statement. In practice, the chief often is recorded on one date and the cross on the next. This is a major reason why trials get prolonged.”

He adds that many lawyers lack training: “Some lawyers, in fact many, cannot cross-examine a witness. They keep requesting adjournments and waste time. I know a senior lawyer who gets others to do it for him. This too causes unnecessary delay.” Delays are also engineered through document-submission tactics: “Technically, all relevant documents should be submitted along with the witness statements,” he says, “but delays are often sought on the excuse that the papers haven’t been received. It’s an excuse, not the truth. Some judges, reluctant to challenge the lawyers, keep granting adjournments.” Such delays, he warns, “erode the credibility of the justice system. Many people lose heart and abandon their cases. Some die before they see justice. Their heirs then have to restart proceedings, giving lawyers a golden opportunity to demand that evidence be re-recorded—even in cases five or six years old.”

Talking to TNS, Barrister Hafiz Muhammad Haseebullah says, “The QSO’s language is complex and not plain English… Even its definition clause is outdated. It doesn’t properly define a ‘person’… and says nothing about transgender individuals, despite their legal recognition. The law is silent on how to question a child witness or determine their age for rational testimony.”

He highlights further gaps: “There is no clear mechanism for persons with disabilities, such as those who are deaf, dumb or mentally challenged. Courts have filled this gap through judgments, but the statute itself remains silent.” He also draws attention to some internal contradictions: “You include privileged communication, and yet you guarantee the right to information under Article 19 of the Constitution and the 2015 Information Act. These are contradictory principles that the QSO fails to reconcile.”

He argues that the law must also evolve with technology: “Modern devices and digital evidence aren’t clearly covered. The rules about confessions, dying declarations and documents reflect a pre-digital era. We still require a magistrate, doctor and police officer to record a dying declaration. The law says nothing about the admissibility of video or digital recordings.”

More than 2.2 million cases are pending across Pakistani courts. The Law and ustice Commission of Pakistan reported about 2.26 million as of December 2023. The Supreme Court of Pakistan recently warned that such delays corrode public confidence in the judiciary, undermine the rule of law and disproportionately harm those who lack resources.

As to admissibility and relevance, he says: “The QSO is an adjectival law—it sets procedures, not rights. It lacks guiding principles and mechanisms for rebuttal or verification, especially in cases involving forged documents or manipulated digital records.” He adds that the inconsistency between civil and criminal procedure should be addressed: “In criminal law, an accused may change his plea at any stage. But in civil law, once a plea is taken it is stopped. There should be a universal principle to ensure fairness.”

On examination order he notes: “The structure of chief examination, cross-examination and re-examination is generally sound. However, there are some conflicting provisions. You allow all types of questions to test the witness’s credibility yet you restrict ‘scandalous’ questions. This limits the effectiveness of cross-examination.”

He also believes the judges should do more: “Courts themselves rarely exercise the right to question witnesses, leaving too much to the parties. The QSO should empower judges to take a more active, investigative role.” He concludes: “We are living in an age of digital technology, yet our law still operates on outdated, traditional methods. It’s time to rely on modern devices and minimise old, rigid procedures. Many cases are tried long after they were filed; evidence surfaces late and judges often deliver verdicts without firsthand familiarity with the facts. The QSO should include provisions for judicial inspection and verification of evidence in such situations. That would enhance transparency and bring the system closer to the truth.”

The need for reform is proverbial, but the scale is staggering. According to recent figures, over 2.2 million cases are pending across Pakistani courts. The Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan reported about 2.26 million as of December 2023. The Supreme Court of Pakistan recently warned that such delays corrode public confidence in the judiciary, undermine the rule of law and disproportionately harm those who lack resources.

In August 2024, Federal Law and Justice Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar announced that the government would introduce “comprehensive reforms” in both the Qanoon-i-Shahadat and the Code of Criminal Procedure. He made the comment during a meeting with the Legal Aid Society, affirming that addressing delays, witness protection and procedural flaws in the evidence law is a priority. He now heads an eight-member legal-reform committee, established by the prime minister in March 2024, tasked with modernising Pakistan’s legal framework across criminal, civil, fiscal and constitutional domains.

Meanwhile, in February 2025 the Punjab government set up a Law Reforms Committee under the Home Department to review and amend several old criminal laws — including the QSO — with special focus on crime prevention, women and children’s protection, cybercrime and law-enforcement efficiency. The panel, chaired by DIG Kamran Adil with Additional Secretary Imran Hussain Ranjha as its secretary, has been given three months to submit its recommendations. These provincial efforts reflect acknowledgement of a multi-tiered reform pathway.

Even as reform is officially on the agenda, the gap remains vast. Experts like such Sohal and Haseebullah warn that mere amendments will not suffice. The entire culture of evidence—in training, courtrooms, lawyers’ conduct, judge’s role and case-flow management—needs to change. Sohal emphasises the point: “We don’t only need amendments; we also need a rethinking of how evidence is understood. Our justice system must prioritise truth and fairness over formality and procedure.” Haseebullah echoes the sentiment: “Justice delayed is justice denied, but in Pakistan justice is often delayed because our laws are a throwback to the 19th Century.”

Unless the Qanoon-i-Shahadat is comprehensively re-imagined, the much-needed reform of our justice system will remain incomplete. Timely verdicts, modern evidence, digital records, efficient court management and meaningful access to justice cannot coexist with colonial-era evidence rules that treat form over substance.

The writer is an advocate of the High Court. He can be reached at: sufyanhameed9 @gmail.com