FOR the majority in Pakistan, justice is costly and delayed. Moreover, those responsible within the criminal justice system often try to shift the blame for this state of affairs onto someone else.

In such a scenario, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms offer an alternative to full-scale court proceedings. Such arrangements facilitate settlement through negotiations. In the West this is known as restorative justice, where disputants are encouraged to negotiate directly without the intervention of a third party.

Within local systems, such as the jirga or the panchayats, there are parallels to ADR, which can also be found within formal public bodies. Arbitration councils (ACs), union councils (UCs) and conciliation courts are among a few past initiatives. However, ACs have limited mandate thus remain confined to issues of divorce, permission for second marriage, etc.

Under the Muslim Family Law Ordinance 1961, UCs introduced the arbitration forum. However, this was also restricted to selected family-related issues. An AC consists of a representative of both parties and chairmen of the UCs concerned.

Unresolved disputes may become a source of crime.

Conciliation courts were established under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance 1961 which were vested with limited jurisdiction. All these initiatives won public commendation but owing to non-existence of elected local bodies they did not yield results.

Our courts are overburdened and cases are decided over decades. This erodes the trust of litigants in the state. Recently, the National Assembly was informed about 1.7 million pending court cases. Such a heavy backlog justifies the establishment of dispute-resolution councils (DRCs).

For quick resolution of disputes in 2014, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa police introduced DRCs; 15 DRCs are functional with a mission to avoid conversion of disputes into crimes. In DRCs, local notables are entrusted with the task of resolving disputes. The logic behind such an initiative was preventive, in order to offer a cost-effective dispute-resolution apparatus. The advocates of DRCs argue that if disputes between parties are not resolved in a timely manner, they may become a source of crime.

For the success of DRCs the socio-cultural fabric of rural Pakistan offers a conducive environment that may enhance community engagement. To be eligible for the membership of DRCs in KP an apolitical background, volunteerism and well-reputed public standing are prerequisites.

Presently, 30 lawyers and 65 retired civil and military officers are members of DRCs; the councils have been established at all regional headquarters of the province. Every dispute is heard by a three-member panel. In case a party expresses dissatisfaction, the matter can be referred to a special panel.

Further, DRC is a non-bureaucratic mechanism of dispensation of justice. It is like a jury or jirga where people are provided opportunities to resolve issues outside police stations and courts. The mandate of DRCs in KP is dispute resolution through mutual agreement and investigation of facts, while the role of the police is that of an observer.

In KP, at the police-station level the DRC consists of 21 members having representation from different walks of life. Members may join and leave. DRCs are further divided into panels. Each panel consists of three members. The members cannot use their position for personal or political gain.

The effectiveness of such bodies in KP can be judged from the fact that during June-December 2014, a total of 7,817 applications were received; 3,500 disputes were amicably resolved while 187 were referred for legal action.

Though the efficacy of DRCs cannot be denied, the capacity of the councils’ members remains a weak link. Members should be sensitised about their powers and responsibilities as well as legal and procedural aspects of the criminal justice system and ADR.

In our context, some inspiration comes from the laws. The Small Claims and Minor Offences Ordinance 2002 was promulgated to resolve small disputes at the district level. The ordinance incorporates ADR as an apparatus for settlement of disputes within the framework of the courts. It introduced the concept of ‘salis’.

Prior to military operations even non-state actors realised the importance of conflict resolution. Therefore, to win public support in certain areas of Fata, they held open ‘courts’ and instantly decided disputes. To make DRCs more effective, creating widespread awareness through mass and social media is needed.

By introducing DRCs in KP another function was added to the already exhaustive list of policing functions. To provide legal cover to already established DRCs, the KP Assembly recently incorporated Article 168-A in the Police Order 2002.

With the installation of local governments in KP and Balochistan the local bodies should also be empowered with such apparatus in order to provide timely justice to the people.

The writer is a police officer.

Published in Dawn, September 13th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play