IN a recent judgement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar summed up the importance of adequate reasons for court judgements.

It was stated that “without a judgement there is no concept of justice”, and that “a judgement should supply adequate reasons for the conclusion reached and arrived at and should be reflective of application of proper judicial mind by the judge and it should not be a mechanical and non-speaking judgement in nature”.

Each judgement and order passed by a judge has colossal social and judicial administration implications attached to it. A judgement devoid of legal and factual reasons gives way to gratuitous criticism by the public and promotes lack of confidence in the justice system. When Benjamin Whichcote, a 16th-century philosopher, stated that the judge is nothing but the law speaking, I am sure he was referring to the spirit of the dictum laid down by Justice Nisar.

Giving adequate reasons for judgements serves many purposes.

Reflecting on my own legal experience in the United Kingdom, the judges there passed orders with adequate reasons, even for oral interlocutory applications. This not only inculcates confidence in the fairness of the judicial proceedings but also reduces the need for frivolous appeals resulting in the waste of valuable time and resources of the higher judiciary.

Judgements with inadequate legal and factual reasons are the very basis for litigation in the higher courts of Pakistan becoming more and more facts-oriented, rather than serving as highly expert fora for adjudicating upon legal issues.

Making sure that the subordinate judiciary is issuing adequately reasoned judgements will serve a number of purposes.

First, it will take the burden off the higher courts as a result of fewer appeals.

Second, since the reasons for the judgement will be in front of the higher courts, the appeals can be disposed of fairly quickly.

Third, giving adequate reasons will help the higher judiciary identify lacunae in the provision of justice to society. While it is assumed that the judges know the law, this assumption might not be true of all judges and may in fact be a hurdle in the way of the proper dispensation of justice.

Fourth, it will necessarily increase the competence of the judiciary at the lower level and, of course, there would be an opportunity for most judges to contribute towards the development of Pakistani law. After all, as Sir Gerald Dodson, a British judge, put it, “it is upon their seats that judges shine most”.

In order to achieve this end, there is a strong need for the provincial and federal judicial academies to focus on imparting techniques that enable judges to deal with the real challenges of case management.

Practical aspects of dispensing justice have become all the more important due to the large and increasing number of cases in court. The judges need to take full control of the legal proceedings and conduct trials in the shortest time possible. This also means making sure that the lawyers, regardless of their seniority, are present at every hearing date and that the cases are not adjourned without cogent reasons.

Much of the reason why judges need to take a proactive approach in dealing with these prevailing problems stems from the government’s reluctance to improve the overall justice system.

An efficient justice system would dilute the power of the political clique and put it in the hands of the judiciary, where it is supposed to be. As a result, the burden on the public from systems tainted by political interfer­ence, as in the early stages of an inves­tigation where undue influence can, unjusti­fiably, work in favour or against a complai­nant, would be con­siderably lessened. The judiciary will have to make this system work with the resources available to them.

Pakistan’s high courts will hopefully look into this problem and lay down the rules addressing case management challenges. For example, the courts could ensure that they have only a limited number of cases to deal with on a certain day. This would help them give the cases the required attention and ensure that unnecessary delays and adjournments are kept to a minimum. In fact, those parties who cause an adjournment without valid reason should be liable to pay costs to the other party.

Moreover, where possible, parties should not be required to attend the courts and the matters should be dealt with on paper as is the case in the Western world. Increasingly, information technology is being utilised in court, and applications and documents can be emailed directly to the judges. Complaints and suits can also be instituted online. If the justice system is to be efficient; the solution lies with an efficient judiciary from bottom up rather than top down.

The writer is a lawyer.

Published in Dawn, April 13th, 2016