SC accelerates death penalty case disposals
According to the SC statement, 238 death sentence appeals have been decided during CJP Afridi's tenure.
When he assumed office, 59,435 cases were pending in the apex court, which then comprised 16 permanent and two ad hoc judges. As of May 20, the number of working judges has risen to 25, and the case pendency has been reduced to 56,715.
Since October 28, 2024, the court has disposed of 238 death sentence appeals, over 52% of the 454 total cases. At the start of Afridi's tenure, 410 death sentence appeals were pending.
With 44 new appeals instituted since then, the number rose to 454, but rapid fixation and disposal have brought it down to 216. By comparison, only 26 such appeals were resolved during the corresponding period a year earlier.
The SC statement credits this turnaround to the CJP's strategic focus on long-pending cases and the extension of working hours to hear them.
Three dedicated benches were constituted and worked on over several consecutive weeks. The first bench, headed by Justice Athar Minallah and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, is learnt to have decided 125 appeals in April alone.
The second bench was led by Justice Muhammad Hashim Kakar, with Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. The third bench, chaired by Justice Naeem Afghan, included Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Aamer Farooq.
"The judges comprising these benches convened prolonged sittings, frequently extending beyond normal court working hours. The unwavering commitment of Hon'ble Judges has culminated in the huge disposal of all death appeals instituted up to 2024. The Court will now proceed as next phase to the cases of life-imprisonment appeals, preferential hearing such cases where the convict has already served two-thirds of the sentence—an approach designed to afford prompt relief to deserving appellants while reinforcing public confidence in the even-handed administration of criminal justice."
The apex court acknowledged the cooperation of counsel, prosecutors, prison officials and families.
"Their patience and professionalism resulted in this progress. Their combined commitment demonstrates that, with focused and collaborative resolve, the justice system can translate in commendable output," the statement said.
Report on CBs demanded
However, lawyers argue that it is essential to release a performance report on the constitutional benches (CBs), functioning after the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
The judges serving on these CBs have yet to evolve any rules or procedures for their operation. Notably, even a CB judge, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, has raised concerns about the absence of regulations.
At the same time, the superior judiciary under CJP Afridi is confronting what many call its most significant challenge: executive influence over the nomination of CB judges and judicial appointments.
Although CJP Afridi has prioritised the reduction of case pendency, he has so far been unable to devise a strategy to counter the executive's role in appointments. According to some legal observers, around 90% of judicial appointments are currently backed by executive authorities.
Commenting on the performance of SC judges, Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii noted: "These are great numbers. But the only number that counts is the majority of the executive in the judicial commission.'
'It is with this number that the meaning of justice has been reduced in our country. There is no independent judicial organ. The challenge to this usurpation of a pillar of the state remains pending. Until the question of the sanctity of the constitution is settled, these numbers are meaningless."
As for the performance of the constitutional bench, he added, 'As far as the constitutional bench is concerned, the less said the better'.
'We were told they were assembled to give us efficient and competent adjudication. After six months of doing almost nothing, we have only the military courts decision being overturned as proof of their mastery. Even that decision comes without any details yet afforded.'
'We are on our way to reviewing the reserved seats case without asking why the petitioner seeking review has decided not to implement it. With a bench which lacks the author judge and is headed by the author of a dissenting opinion which the majority had censured,' he added.
'When the lawyers of today tell their stories tomorrow, the period in which the 26th amendment was in vogue and these constitutional benches were functioning will be remembered as little more than a bad joke."
Lawyers stress that the time has come for SC judges to unite in defence of judicial independence, instead of prioritising personal objectives.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Delay often 'extinguishes justice': SC
The Supreme Court has noted that it cannot remain indifferent to the systemic malaise of delay in the adjudication of cases, adding that justice delayed is not merely justice deniedit is often justice extinguished. In a four-page verdict on an appeal filed against a high court order in an auction case, the SC lamented that the appeal of the petitioner in the case remained pending before the high court for ten years while it took three years for the SC to take up the matter. The verdict authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said the question that engaged the attention of the court was not limited to the validity of the auction; rather it extended to whether any meaningful relief could now be granted after the passage of fourteen years. "Even if the petitioner's claim had merit, the sands of time have all but eroded its potency," it stated. The verdict said it is beyond cavil that delay in adjudicating cases by the courts at any tier of the justice system corrodes public confidence in the judiciary, undermines the rule of law, and disproportionately harms the weak and vulnerable who cannot afford the cost of prolonged litigation. "Delay in adjudication carries severe macroeconomic and societal consequences: it deters investment, renders contracts illusory, and weakens the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary. "A justice system's credibility rests not only in the fairness of its decisions but also in the timeliness with which those decisions are rendered. The issue is not merely administrative, it is constitutional". It stated that the right to access to justice is guaranteed by Articles 4, 9 and 10A of the Constitution and it encompasses within it the right to a fair and timely trial. Delay that renders a remedy ineffective or a right illusory amount to a denial of due process. Justice, to be real, must be both just and timely. The verdict said over 2.2 million cases are currently pending before courts across Pakistan, including approximately 55,941 cases before the SC alone despite enhancing the number of judges. These figures, he said, are not abstractthey represent disputes suspended in time. It said delay in adjudication is not merely a by-product of docket congestion or branch-level inefficiencies; it is a deeper, structural challenge of judicial governance.
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
SJC throws out complaints against CEC, ECP members
The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) has dismissed the complaints filed against the chief election commissioner (CEC) and two members of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). A statement dated Aug 15 read that complaints against "CEC Mr Sikandar Sultan Raja and members of ECP, Mr Nisar Ahmed Durrani and Mr Shah Muhammad Jatoi, have been dismissed by the SJC in its meetings held on Nov 8, 2024 and Dec 13, 2024". The statement did not provide any details regarding the complaints. Although the five-year tenure of CEC Raja, Sindh Member Durrani, and Balochistan Member Jatoi ended on Jan 26, they will remain in office in line with the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The amendment permits the CEC and members to remain in office until their successors are appointed. Under Article 215(4) of the Constitution, these appointments are required to be made within 45 days. However, the deadline lapsed on March 12 without any tangible progress. Raja's tenure has been marred by controversies, with the opposition frequently criticising him over delays in holding general elections, the denial of PTI's "bat" symbol, and alleged manipulation of poll results. The PTI had filed a complaint before the SJC in July 2024 seeking the removal of Raja and four members of the ECP. The complaint alleged that the July 12 order of the apex court has held that the election supervisor used powers in violation of the Constitution with malice and made a skewed interpretation of Jan 13 judgement of denying election symbol of "bat" to the former ruling party.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Justice system's credibility rests in fairness of decisions and timeliness: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that a justice system's credibility rests not only in the fairness of its decisions but also in the timeliness with which those decisions are rendered. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Ayesha A Malik stated the courts must evolve into engines of timely, transparent, and citizen-focused justice. This relates to auction of an immovable property carried out by a bank in execution of a money decree dated 26.04.2010. The auction took place in 2011. The petitioner promptly raised objections the same year, which were dismissed. He then filed an appeal before the Peshawar High Court (PHC), which remained pending for 10 years, and ultimately decision was delivered in 2021. The case then reached the Supreme Court in 2022 and was taken up in 2025. The glaring aspect of the case is that after 14 years since the auction and due notice, neither the petitioner nor any authorised representative appeared before the apex court to pursue the petition. The bench, however, dismissed the petition on merits as well as for non-prosecution, and directed the SC office to dispatch a copy of this order to the parties for information and record. The judgment noted that in this case the appeal of the petitioner kept pending before the High Court for 10 years. 'It is beyond cavil that delay in adjudicating cases by the courts at any tier of the justice system corrodes public confidence in the judiciary, undermines the rule of law, and disproportionately harms the weak and vulnerable who cannot afford the cost of prolonged litigation. Delay in adjudication carries severe macroeconomic and societal consequences: it deters investment, renders contracts illusory, and weakens the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary.' The judgment said that the issue of delay is not merely administrative, it is constitutional. The right to access to justice is guaranteed by Articles 4, 9 and 10A of 1973 Constitution. It encompasses within it the right to a fair and timely trial. Delay that renders a remedy ineffective; or a right illusory amount to a denial of due process. Justice, to be real, must be both just and timely. The judgment highlighted that over 2.2 million cases are currently pending before courts across Pakistan, including approximately 55,941 cases before this Court alone, in spite of enhancing the number of judges at the Court. These figures are not abstract; they represent disputes suspended in time. Delay in adjudication is not merely a by-product of docket congestion or branch-level inefficiencies; it is a deeper, structural challenge of judicial governance. The court, as a matter of institutional policy and constitutional responsibility, must urgently transition toward a modern, responsive, and intelligent case management framework. Such a system must, at a minimum, ensure: the early fixation of cases on a non-discriminatory basis; the elimination of 'queue-jumping' and preferential scheduling; the prioritisation of matters involving constitutional, economic, or national importance without compromising the timely resolution of individual claims; the implementation of age-tracking protocols to automatically identify dormant cases; and the judicious use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to assist in scheduling and triage while preserving the sanctity of judicial discretion. Judicial systems across the world have recognised that delay is not an intractable inevitability but a solvable institutional challenge. Countries such as Singapore, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Estonia, Canada, China, Denmark, and Australia have undertaken comprehensive reforms combining technology, structural innovation, and procedural discipline to reduce backlog and enhance judicial efficiency. Through tools such as e-filing, real-time dashboards, automated scheduling, and transparent digital oversight, these jurisdictions have moved from being passive custodians of dockets to active managers of justice delivery. The judgment said these international experiences underscore a basic truth: delays in justice are not inevitable; they are a product of institutional design, and can be remedied with vision, planning, and resolve. The judiciary of Pakistan must draw upon these global lessons and commit to transformative reform that integrates technological innovation, administrative restructuring, and disciplined case management. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
