Posted on October 25, 2006
Filed Under >Naveed E., Law & Justice
Total Views: 31441

Email a copy of 'Dialogue: Justice Delayed is Justice Decayed' to a friend

* Required Field

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 3 entries.

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 3 entries.

E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

4 responses to “Dialogue: Justice Delayed is Justice Decayed”

  1. Arfa Sarfaraz says:

    Imparting of Justice is indeed a crucial task but looking through this different view is interesting.For me justice dealyed adds more to the suffering of aggrieved party but he /she will always look forward for the verdict till the end of their lives.

  2. Roshan Malik says:

    I agree that justic delayed is same as justice denied and our judicial system works very slow.

    But lets see the other side of the picture. Nawaz Sharif established, Anti Terrorism Courts, for speedy trials which gave birth to another notion ‘Justice hurried is justice burried’. As a matter of fact, most of the verdicts in Anti Terrorism Courts were annuled or sent back for retrial by the higher courts.

    In either case our judicial system is on square one. The system needs structural changes as well as political commitment i.e independence and supremacy of judiciary supported with required infrastructure.

  3. Zak says:

    I understand the criticism, it’s an old story, judicial backlog in Pakistan according to old reports is on average 4 years.

    Still even that is not the whole story: contrary to what people assume it’s not a simple case of administrative efficiency.

    To understand why i say that; one only has to look at India, with its judicial system which is equally overloaded, in fact the average case backlog in India exceeds Pakistan (7 years on average in India)..yet the India judicial system isn’t as discredited as the Pakistani one.

    The reality is the real reason is moral and institutional failure and not administratove (not that i discount the need for quick justice).

    If i were to fight a case (for a good or bad reason) in Pakistan both myself and my opponent would have to make two presumptions to be even marginally successful. One is whoever is in an advantageous position will stall the case date, hoping to turn de facto positions into de jure ones by simply waiting the other person out..secondly if the case is won or lost, you go for an appeal ..the reason being if the first judge is impervious to your offers or inducements the second one may this goes against basic conventions that judges only in exceptional circumstances overrule another judge.

    Again this does not apply in Pakistans case, simply because the judicial system has no has routinely flip flopped on verdicts of major constitutional importance and rarely challenges the government except when it knows it can get away with it ..this perception has filtered down to the grass roots and is a consequence of a long history of nazaria zaroorat or nazaria pakistaniat decisions being the excuse for morally indefensible verdicts.

    This stems from the obsession with false legitimacy that Pakistans military and often civilian have..its ok to commit treason or high crimes but its wrong when its called that..

  4. Samdani says:

    Interesting approach , a little different from most other posts here. But the issue is a very critical one. The story about a father starting a case and his son still waiting for the result is not just a joke it is a reality.