Backlog persists despite new SC hiring
The data showed that 57,089 cases were pending as of August 6, despite the fact that seven judges have been appointed in the last six months. Currently, the apex court is not functioning at full strength due to the summer vacation, and pendency is increasing day by day; 56,892 cases were pending just last week.
When Chief Justice (CJ) Yahya Afridi assumed office, 59,435 cases were pending in the apex court, which then comprised 16 permanent and two ad hoc judges. Subsequently, six new judges were appointed in February, followed by the elevation of a Lahore High Court judge to the apex court in April.
Despite these seven new appointments, pendency has not been substantively reduced. In March, 55,702 cases were pending, which has now increased to over 57,000. However, it is also a fact that 60,507 cases were pending in September last year, showing a slight improvement over time.
CJ Afridi has accelerated the disposal of criminal cases, particularly those involving death sentences. A lawyer commented that if pendency is reduced by 3,000 cases each year, then over the next three years, the overall reduction will be substantial.
There may be several reasons for the lack of substantial reduction in pendency. One of them is that the Supreme Court has remained visibly divided since the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
A full court meeting held on October 28 last year had adopted the Case Management Plan 2023 — the brainchild of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah — to address the growing backlog. However, it is learnt that this plan is no longer being followed.
The constitutional benches, created after the 26th Amendment, have consumed much time hearing cases related to the military trials of civilians, the transfer of judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), and the allocation of reserved seats.
These constitutional benches have yet to issue detailed judgments in these three crucial cases, the outcomes of which have significantly impacted the independence of the judiciary, fundamental rights, and democracy in the country.
Two minority judges have issued detailed opinions in the military courts cases, but the detailed majority verdict is still awaited.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SC enacts Supreme Court Rules 2025
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court enacted the Supreme Court Rules, 2025, which has revoked Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The new rules are being applied with effect from August 6, 2025. However, any proceedings pending under the revoked Rules by way of an application, petition, appeal, reference, review; etc., on the commencement of these Rules, shall be continued and disposed of as if these Rules have not been made. According to the gazette notification if any difficulty arises in giving effect to any of the provisions of these Rules, the chief justice of Pakistan on the recommendations of a committee, to be constituted by him, may make such order, not inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules, as may appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of removing such difficulty. Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi to enhance transparency, efficiency and overall effectiveness in judicial proceedings had constituted a committee, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, to draft the new rules. The committee sought proposals from judges, the SC office, as well as, bar councils and associations. It has been clarified that any proceedings already pending under the revoked rules – whether by way of application, petition, appeal, reference or review – shall continue and be disposed of as if the new rules had not been made. 'If any difficulty arises in giving effect to any of the provisions of these Rules, the chief justice of Pakistan, on the recommendations of a committee to be constituted by him, may make such order, not inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules, as may appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of removing such difficulty.' Under the new rules, the time limit for filing criminal appeals, criminal petitions for leave to appeal and direct civil appeals has been extended from 30 days to 60 days. Appeals against registrar office objections must be filed within 14 days, while the review petitions against SC judgments must be filed within 30 days. 'Application for review shall be filed in the Registry within thirty days after the pronouncement of the judgement or order, as the case may be, which is sought to be reviewed,' the draft states. Applicants are required to notify the opposing party immediately after filing the review application and send a copy of the notice to the Registry. Every review application must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order being challenged. If it is based on newly discovered evidence, certified copies of relevant documents must be attached along with an affidavit explaining the circumstances of the discovery. The advocate or party signing the application must briefly specify the points on which the review is sought and provide a certificate confirming that a review is justifiable in accordance with the law and practice of the court. The certificate must be in the form of a reasoned opinion. The new rules state that costs for proceedings will be at the court's discretion, but not less than Rs25,000. Interveners will not be entitled to costs unless otherwise ordered. If the hearing of a case is delayed due to an advocate-on-record's neglect, such as failing to attend or provide necessary documents, the court may direct that advocate to personally bear the costs. Where adjournments are sought without sufficient cause, compensatory costs may be imposed on the advocate or party. The same applies to those filing false or vexatious proceedings that waste the court's time. No court fee will be charged for jail petitions. Regarding constitutional matters, the rules provide that any petition, appeal, or review involving the original jurisdiction of the court under Article 184, the appellate jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 185 (where a High Court judgment involves the constitutionality of a law or a substantial constitutional question), or the advisory jurisdiction under Article 186 shall be heard by a constitutional bench constituted under Article 191A of the Constitution. Such a bench will consist of no fewer than five judges, nominated by the committee. If the judges hearing a matter are equally divided in opinion, the committee may refer it either to another judge or to a larger bench. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
27th Amendment ‘on the cards'?: Bilawal dismisses ‘baseless rumours'
KARACHI: PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari on Tuesday dismissed talk of any potential legislation regarding a 27th constitutional amendment as 'baseless rumours'. Speaking to reporters in Hyderabad about the matter, Bilawal addressed the 'baseless rumours', stating: 'So far, no federal minister, prime minister or party member has approached me regarding any amendments.' He also highlighted that the 26th Amendment was passed after reaching a consensus with compromise from political parties. 'PPP wanted constitutional courts, but we compromised,' he said. In a post on X, the PPP quoted him as saying, 'The 26th Constitutional Amendment is an eternal success. Judicial reforms and constitutional courts were a demand of the Charter of Democracy, but we prioritised a constitutional bench over a constitutional court for the sake of consensus.' Though the speculations are rife, there has been no official word regarding the 27th Constitutional Amendment. At present, the proposal to further reform the judiciary is at a very initial stage, but consultations are reportedly underway within the ruling PML-N and some legal circles. Despite these purported consultations, any draft for this proposed bill has yet to see the light of day. While responding to a question about amending the National Finance Commission (NFC) award, Bilawal said, 'Absolutely. Further changes must come in NFC.' He continued, 'The previous NFC award was given before passing the 18th Amendment, which was before 2010.' He said that various responsibilities of the federal government were handed to the provinces, adding, 'But the NFC is the same as it was prior to the 18th Amendment.' The PPP chairman continued, 'The Constitution says that the NFC award must be regularly given after five years. It is already mentioned that the shares of provincial governments cannot be reduced in new NFC awards.' 'All provinces must be given more resources as per the increased responsibilities after the 18th Amendment.' He added, 'We must immediately call NFC and give new awards. All provinces must be given resources according to the 18th Amendment.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
PTI voices its opposition to ‘proposed' 27th Amendment
ISLAMABAD: The opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Tuesday voiced strong opposition to the proposed 27th Constitutional Amendment, accusing the ruling coalition of eroding judicial independence and centralising power within the executive. Talking to reporters, PTI spokesperson Sheikh Waqas Akram condemned the proposed 27th Constitutional Amendment Bill, describing it as a continuation of what he termed an ongoing campaign to undermine the judiciary, following the contentious 26th Amendment. 'The 26th Amendment amounted to a judicial massacre and now they want to finish the job,' he added. 'They want a judiciary that offers no resistance. PTI will oppose this tooth and nail.' He argued that the earlier amendment curtailed the powers of the Supreme Court and reduced the high courts to mere 'rubber stamps', warning that the new proposal would entrench this trend further. Akram called on Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Yahya Afridi, to take a firmer stand, warning that public trust in the judiciary was steadily eroding. 'We are witnessing a slow, calculated dismantling of every safeguard within our democratic and legal frameworks,' he said. Raising concerns over former Prime Minister Imran Khan's wellbeing in custody, Akram demanded immediate access for Khan's personal physicians, as well as a medical team from the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital, which Khan founded. 'If anything happens to Imran Khan, the state will bear full responsibility,' he said, holding the Maryam Nawaz-led Punjab provincial government accountable for his treatment while detained. He further accused both the federal and Punjab governments of authoritarian overreach, citing custodial deaths, extrajudicial killings, and what he described as the 'unchecked power' of law enforcement agencies. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
