Burden on SC increasing as other state organs fail

On one hand, the burden on the Supreme Court is correspondingly increasing by the day as other organs of the state are falling either faulty or dysfunctional, and on the other, when the SC exercises its jurisdiction to settle the matters arising out due to ineligibility of other institutions, it is criticised of going beyond its parameters, jurisdiction and domain.
The Supreme Court had to interfere in matters like the National Insurance Company Limited scam, Bank of Punjab loan scam, Steel Mills’ corruption case, Rental Power Projects scam, Reko Diq case, unjustified promotions of 54 bureaucrats, appointment of convicts and NRO beneficiaries on lucrative posts, illegal car racing case, eunuchs’ case, registration of children having unknown parentage, existence of over 37 million fake votes in the electoral rolls, illegal conversion of public parks into commercial centres etc due to the inefficiency and misuse of powers by other concerned institutions and authorities.
It is an acknowledged fact that where other organs of the state are faulty or dysfunctional, the burden on the superior courts correspondingly increases. The Supreme Court has powerful tools in the shape of judicial review, their jurisdiction to interpret the law and the constitution, which if exercised with judicial restraint can certainly benefit the nation.
According to Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, in the present contemporary world in which value-added knowledge is the currency, the task of a superior court was both difficult and exciting. The courts’ function appropriately and productively when other institutions of the State are similarly performing their respective functions and duties.
In any democratic setup, the judiciary has to act as an independent institution exercising jurisdiction within its constitutional domain. Similarly, the legislature and the executive are also independent in their respective fields subject to the constitutional limitations.
The judiciary as a custodian of the constitution has to check constitutional deviations and arbitrary exercise of power by other institutions so as to ensure rule of law and fair administration of justice.
Chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has repeatedly said that in the present democratic setup, judiciary was trying to buttress democratic and parliamentary norms.
It has never tried to assume the role of the executive or the legislature, rather it respects the integrity and independence of every other institution. It has always played its part within the parameters of its constitutional domain. The role of judiciary is not that of an opposition to the legislature or the executive, however, in cases of unauthorised actions in utter violation of legal or constitutional norms, the judiciary has to exercise its power of judicial review.
The judiciary as an institution does not comprise only of judges or presiding officers of the courts rather the prosecutors, practitioners and the lawyers are all integral part of the same. The judges, prosecutors and the lawyers play special roles in ensuring peace and stability in a society.
Although the implementation of the National Judicial Policy (NJP) enforced in mid 2009 for providing speedy justice at the grassroots has reduced the pending old and frivolous litigation to a great extent, much needs to be done, as the judicial system faces problems of corruption, protracted litigation and procedural flaws.
Over times, notions change about what a legal system should deliver, thus the Supreme Court has always welcomed and appreciated the recommendations of the bar councils and legal experts in making the NJP more effective and up to date.
Corruption is a vice that is impinging upon the process of fair dispensation of justice by the judiciaries of developed as well as under developed countries. No matter how much prudence is poured in analysing the problems, complete and instant cure is very unlikely to be achieved. However, adherence to the high standards of impartiality, integrity and accountability can at least minimise opportunities for corruption.
Unnecessary adjournments and resulting delay in the disposal of cases are problems persisting in the judicial setup even after the introduction of procedural changes from time to time. Especially in civil litigation, the parties have to wait for years to get their grievances redressed.
Protracted litigation not only lowers the confidence of the parties in the judicial process but also overburdens them financially. It also opens gates for further interlocutory applications and legal complexities.
The judges as well as lawyers can overcome the evil of unnecessary delays in civil and criminal litigation by setting deadlines for completion of cases and enforcing those deadlines. The proper and sound case management can facilitate early disposition of cases and trials.