Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
Nearly five months after the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), lawyers remain unconvinced that the sweeping constitutional overhaul has delivered on its central promise — speedier justice — with case backlogs still stubbornly high across the top two courts.
Despite the government’s claim that the FCC would ease the burden on the Supreme Court (SC) and speed up relief for ordinary plaintiffs, legal circles say the reform has so far amounted to little more than a reshuffling of cases rather than a meaningful reduction in pendency.
The federal government had conveyed that one of the primary purposes of the FCC was to facilitate common law cases whose cases were delayed due to judicial activism by the SC. Even superior bars, led by the independent group, had fully backed the 27th Amendment, under which the Supreme Court – the FCC – was created last November.
Before the FCC began operations on November 13, 2025, a total of 56,608 cases were pending in the SC, of which 22,910 were transferred to the FCC, while 33,698 remained pending in the SC. At present, seven judges work in the FCC, while 18 perform their duties in the SC.
Despite increased public funding for judges following the 27th Amendment, there has been no significant impact on pendency, as more than 56,000 cases are still pending across both Supreme Courts.
A section of lawyers blames the executive for the situation and claims that the appointment of junior judges to the Supreme Court (FCC), without following set criteria and on high salary packages, has adversely affected the morale of senior SC judges.
They also point out that the Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi has been accommodated through a person-specific constitutional amendment and is now recognized as the Chief Justice under the 27th Amendment, while remaining bound to follow FCC judicial orders under Article 189 of the Constitution.
However, there has been some improvement in the processing of criminal cases in the Supreme Court over the past two years.
Meanwhile, the SC on Tuesday issued a statement saying that “during the last three months, 3,600 cases were filed while 5,383 cases were disposed of, bringing the total pendency down to 34,083 cases”.
The status of prison applications and death sentence appeals was also reviewed. It was noted that the pendency of death sentence cases has been reduced from 384 at the time of accession (October 2024) to 60 cases.
“In order to ensure a timely decision in cases dealing with the right to life, it was decided that all pending death sentence appeals must be determined within the next 30 days. It was also decided that cases filed up to 2018 must be rectified on a priority basis in order to clean up the annual backlog,” the announcement states.
Former Additional Attorney General Tariq Mahmood Khokhar says the “26th and 27th constitutional amendments” lack legitimacy because they were not passed democratically. “A fortiori, their resulting consequences, including the Federal Constitutional Court, also lack legitimacy. The FCC embodies a parallel legal hierarchy of dubious necessity. Its stated goal, the reduction of litigation, is contradicted by empirical data.”
Khokhar noted that before the “27th Constitutional Amendment”, there were 56,608 cases pending in the Supreme Court. Currently, there are 33,850 cases pending in the SC and 22,325 cases in the FCC.
“Obviously, this is a case of mere redistribution, not solving systemic congestion. Such transfer of cases reflects administrative drift rather than judicial efficiency. The 7-judge FCC has not been successful in reducing the backlog of cases. The national treasury bears a significant and recurring financial cost without any meaningful benefit to the ordinary court process,” he adds.
Former lawyer Tariq Khokhar says the lack of constitutional jurisprudence is stark: only 15 reported cases, with no significant constitutional substance.
“The citizens, their intended recipients of constitutional judgment, have not benefited appreciably from this structural experiment.
On the contrary, the executive power is no longer held accountable. Worse still, its fiats of dubious constitutionality are upheld and given validation.”
“The appointment mechanism, now effectively within executive influence, has eroded the independence of the judiciary. The resulting judiciary bears the unmistakable stamp of control rather than independence.”
He said public allegations, including those alleging compromised conscience for personal gain, remain legally unanswered. “The approval of the military trial of civilians is a permanent scar”, he notes.
Likewise, lawyer Umer Gilani says that the reshaping of the top tier of the judiciary by the 26th and 27th amendments has not brought any significant improvement in the speedy disposal of cases.
“This is hardly surprising. The only sustainable way to reduce the backlog of cases is to create incentives for those who file bogus and frivolous claims – and to create incentives for parties with a weak case to concede early in the litigation cycle. No serious progress has been made in that direction,” notes Gilani.
Lawyer Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad noted that while the 26th and 27th Amendments and the creation of the FCC were significant steps towards strengthening the judicial system, the practical impact on the pendency of cases remains a challenge.
The reforms aimed to reduce the burden on the overall judiciary and ensure faster resolution of constitutional and public issues. Despite the positive intentions, ordinary claimants continue to experience delays in accessing timely justice.
He noted that important cases under the Practice and Procedure Act are expected to be set for first hearing within 15 days, but this timetable has not been consistently adhered to, contributing to persistent delays.
Hafiz Ehsaan emphasized that the FCC’s current strength is not sufficient to manage its huge dependency and as a result, timely ruling remains a challenge.
He emphasized that the judicial strength of the court should be increased at the level of the SC, ensuring that it has sufficient capacity to handle its significant caseload effectively. Matching the resources to the workload is essential to achieve the constitutional objective of access to the courts under Article 37(d).
Finally, he suggested that a structured national justice dialogue be initiated between Parliament and the Judiciary. Such a dialogue would aim to develop a forward-looking ten-year reform implementation strategy, drawing on experience from other countries that have successfully prioritized judicial reforms.
By working together, setting clear priorities and implementing reforms in an incremental and realistic manner, Pakistan can ensure that the justice system becomes more efficient, responsive and accessible to all citizens.
