Justice delayed is far more than an administrative inconvenience. For many litigants, prolonged legal proceedings can mean years of financial hardship, repeated appearances before courts, strained family and business relationships, and, in some cases, the effective denial of justice itself. When a person waits years for a legal remedy, even a favourable judgment may come too late to meaningfully address the harm suffered.
Pakistan’s judicial system continues to face an enormous burden. According to the Ministry of Law and Justice, more than 2.26 million cases remain pending across the country’s courts. Such a backlog places immense pressure on judges, lawyers and litigants while undermining public confidence in the justice system. Against this difficult backdrop, the Supreme Court’s inauguration of its first court-annexed mediation centre is a welcome and potentially important development.
Mediation as an Alternative
The initiative, undertaken in collaboration with the European Union and the United Nations Development Programme, provides litigants with an alternative avenue for resolving suitable disputes without going through the full length and expense of conventional litigation.
The significance of the initiative extends beyond simply reducing the number of pending cases. It reflects a much-needed understanding that access to justice should not be measured solely by whether a person can enter a courtroom. Justice must also be assessed by how quickly, affordably, fairly and effectively an individual can obtain a remedy.
Mediation, however, should not be viewed as a replacement for the judicial process. There will always be disputes where a binding judicial determination is essential, particularly in matters involving fundamental rights, criminal liability or questions of public importance. Courts must remain the ultimate forum for cases where negotiation cannot provide an adequate or lawful solution.
At the same time, many civil disputes do not necessarily require years of adversarial litigation. Property disagreements, commercial conflicts, family disputes and other civil matters can sometimes be resolved through dialogue rather than prolonged courtroom battles. When both parties are willing to negotiate, a properly trained and impartial mediator can help them identify common ground and reach a mutually acceptable settlement.
An important advantage of mediation is that the final agreement remains in the hands of the parties themselves. Instead of having a judgment imposed upon them after years of litigation, disputants can participate directly in finding a solution that addresses their respective interests.
Evidence That Mediation Can Work
Pakistan already has encouraging evidence that court-annexed mediation can produce meaningful results. The Court-Annexed Mediation Centre at the Sindh High Court has reportedly received 386 disputes since August 2023. Of these, 149 resulted in settlements, with some longstanding disputes being resolved within days rather than years.
Such results provide a strong basis for expanding the model. While mediation will not resolve every dispute, even a modest reduction in the number of cases requiring lengthy trials could have a significant impact on the wider judicial system. Every case successfully settled through mediation represents not only one less matter in the court backlog but also time and resources saved for judges, lawyers and litigants.
Implementation Will Be Crucial
The real test, however, will come after the inauguration. The Supreme Court’s mediation centre must not become merely an impressive institutional announcement without producing a measurable improvement in access to justice.
For the initiative to succeed, mediation centres will require adequately trained, professionally competent and independently accredited mediators. Clear procedures, proper oversight and public awareness will also be necessary to ensure that litigants understand when mediation is appropriate and can trust the process.
The quality and independence of mediators will be particularly important. Mediation depends heavily on confidence in the neutrality of the person facilitating negotiations. If litigants believe that the process is biased, poorly managed or simply another bureaucratic hurdle, its potential will quickly be undermined.
Expanding Beyond Islamabad
The reform should also not remain concentrated in Islamabad or limited to the Supreme Court. If mediation is to make a meaningful contribution to Pakistan’s justice system, the model should gradually be expanded to other provinces and major courts across the country.
Pakistan’s judicial crisis cannot be solved by one institution or one reform alone. Reducing the backlog will require a combination of additional judicial capacity, procedural reforms, better case management and greater use of alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms.
Court-annexed mediation is therefore best viewed as one important component of a broader judicial reform agenda. If properly implemented and expanded, it could help transform the experience of justice for thousands of litigants — turning disputes that might otherwise consume years into settlements that can sometimes be reached in a matter of days.
The objective should be simple: justice should not only be available; it should also be timely, affordable and accessible. The new mediation centre is a promising step in that direction, but its success will ultimately depend on whether the initiative moves beyond ceremony and delivers tangible results for ordinary litigants.
Shafaqna Pakistan
pakistan.shafaqna.com
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the article
