THE much-needed National Judicial Policy came into force on June 1. Its avowed goals are to initially reduce and ultimately eliminate backlogs in both the superior and subordinate courts, and to fix a time frame for the disposal of civil and criminal cases. Criminal cases are to be given priority.

Over 1.7 million civil and criminal cases are pending trial in the country's superior and subordinate courts. Most criminal prosecutions are pursued in the lower courts where only 1,750 understaffed and overworked judges grapple with a staggering 1.5 million criminal and civil cases. Some cases have been dragging on for over a decade. Many disenchanted complainants are left with no vigour or discernible interest in the outcome of such dawdling trials.

A national policy to address the issue of delayed justice is clearly the need of the hour. This is not the first time, however, that an attempt has been made to speed up the legal process. Some high court chief justices came up with piecemeal policies in the past and the Supreme Court too has been issuing directives to this effect from time to time. Besides, various legal provisions related to anti-terrorist courts, small causes courts, reconciliation courts and the Rented Premises Ordinance were put in place — without much success — to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases.

That said, this time the superior judiciary seems more determined to deliver, backed up as it is by a comprehensive and uniform policy that could well produce results.

The judiciary's resolve to tackle the apparently insurmountable task of providing speedy justice is laudable. However, the goals that have been set seem too ambitious. Much will depend on infrastructural support provided by the government and the cooperation extended by other stakeholders. An organised effort to sensitise and galvanise stakeholders is conspicuous by its absence. It appears that the committee that finalised the National Judicial Policy opted for efficient and optimal utilisation of existing manpower and material resources without waiting for proactive assistance from other state institutions.

Criminal cases are generally delayed because of late submission of final police investigation reports, non-production of the accused, failure of witnesses to turn up and record testimony, inefficient process service, an impractical cause list and the dilatory tactics of lawyers. Sometimes, witnesses who turn up in court to record evidence leave unexamined. Without eliminating the root causes of delay, it will be difficult for judges to conclude trials within the given timeline and they are likely to resort to Section 249-A or 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code, acquitting the accused instead of taking the trial further. This outcome is most likely in cases where the evidence against the accused is weak.

Similarly, in keeping with the new policy, bail matters are to be decided in three to seven days. Given the time constraint, courts may become more liberal when it comes to granting bail. This will no doubt reduce the prison population but at the same time more and more offenders will be back on the streets. As it is, a number of suspects get bail by providing fake sureties/securities — and once bailed out they not only abscond from the courts but commit crimes. There should have been provisions in the policy to improve the surety verification system prior to the release of bailed-out suspects.

Cases reaching the courts are to be decided without undue delay but it is equally important to filter cases to prevent unnecessary litigation and

frivolous prosecution. The Criminal Prosecution Service in the provinces should play an effective role in scrutinising cases before sending them for trial. Their number should be whittled down to cases that have reasonable prospects of conviction and where it is in the public interest to prosecute. Although the policy does prescribe penal action against vexatious litigation and malicious prosecution, the procedure for taking action against complainants who lodge false cases is tedious.

The laws need to be amended so that stringent action can be taken through a simplified procedure. Holding trials within prisons could also help avoid delays. Although this option cannot be invoked in every case, it would be helpful if properly furnished permanent courts are set up within the outer boundaries of major jails. Dangerous and hardened criminals may be tried in such courts through regular hearings.

The launching of the National Judicial Policy should be followed by certain structural changes overhauling the way judges conduct trials. A judge should be involved in active case management with an emphasis on trial preparation and pre-trial hearings aimed at limiting the issues up for trial. A brief pre-trial hearing may considerably reduce the duration of the main trial.

Wherever possible the number of live testimonies recorded in court ought to be reduced and substituted with written statements, particularly where the witness's account is not in dispute. There should be fewer but organised and meaningful hearings. Also, lighter sentences could be introduced to encourage those who plead guilty and thus save the courts valuable time.

Through appropriate amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code, a new category of offences may be created which could be tried summarily with the consent of the accused. Less complicated criminal cases like possession of illegal weapons or prohibited drugs in small quantities may be added to this category. Presiding judges should be given limited sentencing powers to encourage the accused to opt for a summary trial instead of a full-fledged trial.

Most importantly, process service will have to be restructured to ensure efficient service of summons and warrants which is a prerequisite for avoiding adjournments. The Police Order 2002 provides for a Criminal Justice Coordination Committee headed by the district and sessions judge. If properly utilised, this forum can be very useful in soliciting the requisite cooperation of the police, the prosecution and prison authorities.

The onerous task of speedy justice must be vigorously pursued because its denial forces citizens to turn to informal 'justice' systems such as jirgas. It also encourages some people to settle disputes through violent means instead of approaching the courts.

Pakistani citizens have unbounded expectations of the emboldened judiciary and the National Judicial Policy poses a big challenge. With the right resolve, speedy justice may no longer remain an elusive goal.

The writer is a barrister and senior superintendent of police.

shaikhsp@yahoo.com