After the enforcement of the National Judicial Policy (NJP) on June 1, 2009, as many as 246 officials of the subordinate judiciary of Punjab, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa faced action on the charges of moral and financial corruption and breach of “code of conduct”, whereas no such case occurred in Balochistan. However, a majority of lawyers practicing with the subordinate courts of various districts across the country believe that despite the lapse of two-and-a-half years after its enforcement, the policy had so far failed to achieve its targets at the district level, where cases were still not being disposed of in accordance with the guidelines and corruption was rampant.
They said that as far as disposal of cases was concerned, the situation was critical in almost all provinces, particularly Punjab. They said the cases at the district-level judiciary were not being decided speedily. Just after the enforcement of the policy, a cell for eradication of corruption from subordinate judiciary was established in each high court under the supervision of its respective chief justice for disciplinary action against the corrupt and incompetent judicial officers and court officials.
These cells receive complaints through the registrar of the respective high courts. Since enforcement of the policy, disciplinary actions have been taken against judicial and court officials involved in such practices. According to statistics since the enforcement of the policy, 71 officials were dismissed in Punjab, two judicial officers and 43 officials were removed, one judicial officer and 10 officials were terminated and seven judicial officers and 32 officials were compulsory retired from the service.
In Sindh, 29 officials were dismissed, six judicial officers and five officials were compulsorily retired from service and major penalties were imposed on six judicial officers and 16 other officials.
In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, eight judicial officers and six officials were compulsorily retired, two officials were removed and major penalties were imposed against two judicial officers. However, no case of corruption surfaced in the district judiciary of Balochistan.
The district judiciary is the backbone of the judicial system of the country and if it delivers to the satisfaction of the people, it inspires confidence and earns their respect. About 90 percent of litigants, at first stage, come in contact with the district judiciary, thus the impression and confidence of public in the judicial system is directly dependent on their experience at the district-level judiciary.
It is a well acknowledged and a settled fact that delay in dispensation of justice not only causes agony to litigants, but also badly affects the fabric of socio-economic activities and this has been the main issue before successive law reforms commissions and committees set up from time to time. The delay in dispensation of justice discourages the people to approach the courts for removal of their grievances. No one can deny that we have entered a new arena of paradigm shift, where we have to deliver legal rights protected by the constitution and the law.
Before the enforcement of the NJP, majority of cases were disposed of mere on technical grounds. However after the enforcement of the policy, directions were passed to the district judiciary to decide the cases on merit after providing full opportunity of hearing the parties, so that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to have been done. Transparency in the functioning of courts and eradiation of corruption in all its manifestation on the part of judicial officers and officials is the corner stone of the NJP.
The NJP suggested strict adherence to the “code of conduct” by all judicial officers and officials and initiation of disciplinary action against the corrupt ones.
According to legal practitioners of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, the short- and long-term measures for expeditious disposal of cases set in the policy have not yet been met.
They said the judicial policy envisaged that bail applications should be decided by magistrates in three days, whereas ground reality was against it, as such cases were taking weeks and months to get decided.
They said criminal cases punishable with imprisonment from one to seven years registered after January 1, 2009 were not being kept on fast track for disposal within three months, which was a violation of the provisions of the judicial policy. They added that stay matters were not being decided within 15 days of grant of interim injunction.
Besides, they said rent cases were not being decided speedily within a prescribed period of 30 days, adding that civil appeals, writ petitions and other miscellaneous review petitions regarding rent matters were also not being decided in 90 days. They said according to the judicial policy, family cases should be decided within three months, however, such cases were taking six months to a year in getting decided.
The lawyers complained that civil appeals arising out of family cases, custody of minors and against interim orders were not being decided the prescribed time of 30 days.
About submission of challans of the accused persons, they said it was a settled law that the challan of an accused be submitted in 14 days and the judicial policy also stressed upon it, however, the challans were not being produced even in months and years.
