NJP partially withdrawn for being ‘not fruitful’

LAHORE: The National Judicial Policy, which could not be fully implemented since its inception in 2009, is being partially withdrawn for being ‘not fruitful’.

The NJP was introduced with an objective to improve the image of the judiciary by ridding it (particularly the lower judiciary) of corruption, strengthening its independence and eliminating the backlog of cases at all levels. The policy was revised in 2012.

Some of its features – including old cases should be decided on priority; to clear the backlog under different categories, special benches should be constituted by high courts to decide cases by placing prioritised ones on fast track; issuance of weekly cause lists created problems for lawyers and litigants, therefore high courts were required to issue lists in advance; civil and criminal functions of court should be bifurcated so that judicial officers can try criminal and civil cases, exclusively – could not be implemented till the incumbent LHC Chief Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah took oath on June 28, 2016.



He not only implemented these features but went an extra mile by issuing cause lists of old cases on red lists, issuing cause lists for three months, and setting up different special benches in the LHC and special courts in the subordinate judiciary, said the LHC spokesperson.

However, the policy could not bear the desired results and failed in the delivery of speedy justice and early disposal of cases pending in the lower judiciary. According to the data of pending cases in lower courts of the province, 189,825 cases of criminal and civil nature have been pending for adjudication. The highest category of pending cases is civil suits with 48,569 cases.

However, its objectives like the judiciary should avoid its involvement in the conduct of elections; bail applications in non-bailable offences shall be decided not beyond a period of three days by magistrate, five days by court of sessions and seven days by high courts; stay matter should be decided within 15 days of the grant of interim injunctions; family cases should have been decided within three to six months; and the court should take strict action against the parties or witnesses causing deliberate delays in proceedings could not be implemented for one reason or the other and the fruits of the NJP could not transferred to the grassroots level, The Express Tribune has learnt.



The steps that were implemented included recording of witnesses in the court through a commission. In this regard, presiding officer (judge) could have referred cases for recording of evidence through commission subject to the consent of parties by appointing advocate as a commission.

The commission used to record evidence in the courtroom in the physical presence/control of the judicial official. Finding complaints about bias or illegality on the part of the commissions, the LHC formed a committee for deliberations on the issue and its recommendations.

The committee, comprising Justice Khalid Mehmood Khan (now retired) and Justice Shahid Hameed Dar, held a meeting on October 6, 2016, and resolved to discontinue the practice of recording witnesses through commission.



The committee resolved, “The statutory provisions available in the statute be acted upon by the trial courts for recording of evidence in letter and spirit.”

In the statute, there is no provision of such commission, said Advocate Rai Shahid.

After the recommendations of the committee, Member Inspection Team of the Lahore High Court under directives of the chief justice has recently issued a circular to all district and sessions judges of the province to act upon the recommendations of the committee regarding recording of evidence.



This circular is the first of its kind to reverse any decision of the NJP, said Advocate Shahid. He said though this direction is not fully implemented in the lower court, it was the need of the hour.

Cases of some parties were being ruined through recording of witnesses by inexperienced lawyers. He said lawyers appointed as commission used to take Rs500 per witness but some of them were charging Rs1000 from the parties.