Failing justice system breeds authoritarianism, graft: SC

The Supreme Court has strongly criticised Pakistan’s criminal justice system, ruling that a weak and compromised framework not only undermines the rule of law but also fosters corruption, authoritarianism, and the dominance of the powerful and privileged.

In a detailed 20-page judgment authored by Justice Athar Minallah, while commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment for a man incarcerated for 25 years, the court observed that an effective and responsive criminal justice system, free from political interference and corruption, is a fundamental right of every citizen.

The top court observed that inexpensive and expeditious justice was a commitment of the state under the Constitution.

Read More: Imran involved in May 9 conspiracy, rules LHC

“The criminal justice system will only serve its purpose when the actual stakeholders, the people of this country, will have trust and confidence in a system which is free, accessible, impartial, responsive, independent, and free from corruption or any other influence.”

“It is, therefore, a constitutional duty of every organ of the State—the executive, judiciary, and the legislature—to take urgent steps so as to ensure that the criminal justice system serves the people of this country and they repose their trust and confidence in its fairness, impartiality, and independence,” the ruling stated.

A three-judge bench of the apex court, led by Justice Minallah, heard the criminal appeal in a decades-old murder case. The appellant had remained behind bars for over 25 years.

While noting the prolonged incarceration, the judgment acknowledged: “The appellant had escaped from judicial custody, and that obviously constitutes a separate offence and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to make any observation lest it may prejudice the case of the parties in any matter that may be pending before a competent court/forum.”

The court observed that the appellant was young when the incident occurred in 1991 and had accompanied his father, to whom the motive was primarily attributed. “It cannot be ruled out that the appellant may have acted under the influence of his elders, particularly his father. He did not have any criminal record prior to the occurrence and, therefore, he was a first-time offender.”

It further pointed out that the recovery of the firearm was not beyond doubt, and the evidence on record was not reliable enough to warrant a death sentence. “In addition to these recognised mitigating factors, the appellant has served the full term prescribed for the alternate punishment of imprisonment for life without the benefit of remissions. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on account of these mitigating and extenuating circumstances, the sentence of death on five counts was not justified. We, therefore, partly allow the appeal only to the extent of modifying the sentence of death on five counts to imprisonment for life on five counts. The sentences, except those required to be served in default of payment of compensation, shall run concurrently. The benefit under section 382(b) of Cr.P.C. is extended in favour of the appellant.”

The court went on to express deep concern over the broader dysfunction in the criminal justice system, especially the unjustified delays in processing appeals of death row inmates.

In this case, the trial court awarded the death sentence on September 3, 2008, and the appeal, filed on time, was decided by the High Court on September 18, 2014. “There is a six-year delay in deciding the appeal of a prisoner who has been handed down the sentence of death, which cannot be justified. The necessary time for taking up the appeal and its ultimate disposal should not have been more than twelve months.”

Also Read: PM Shehbaz reaffirms Pakistan’s pledge to eliminate polio

The petition for leave to appeal, filed in 2014, was first fixed for hearing on March 22, 2021, and then finally taken up on January 29, 2025. “It took more than seventeen years for the appeal process to complete from the date when the death sentence was handed down. The condemned prisoner was in a death cell and he was not responsible in any manner for this inordinate delay, nor were the procedures in his control.”

The court noted that such delays undermine public confidence in the justice system.“This inordinate delay brings the criminal justice system into disrepute and undermines the confidence of the people in the courts and the criminal justice system. The abysmal conditions in most of the overcrowded prisons across the country and the inhumane and degrading conditions often reported not only add to the unimaginable agony and hardship of a condemned prisoner but become a form of unauthorised punishment not intended by the legislature.”

Justice Minallah acknowledged the shared responsibility of all branches of the state: “The judiciary is no doubt responsible when the process of appeal exceeds the necessary and reasonable time required for its completion, but the other branches of the State—the executive and legislature—are also equally responsible for ensuring that the conditions in the prisons are humane and that the treatment of prisoners is not cruel, inhuman, and degrading.”

“It is an onerous task of the High Courts and this Court to ensure that the appeal process and remedies provided under the law are completed within the time which is necessary and reasonable for this purpose.” “The executive branch is equally responsible to ensure that treatment of the inmates of a prison is not cruel, degrading, and inhumane.”

“The legislature is also expected to review the legislation with the object of making the criminal justice system responsive to the needs of the citizens and accountable for violations of their rights.”

Read More: PM, military leadership played key role in brokering Iran-Israel ceasefire: Naqvi

The court condemned the injustice suffered by marginalised individuals who cannot afford proper legal representation. “The unauthorised punishment which an inmate of a prison is forced to endure on account of a compromised, weak, and failing justice system cannot be legalised nor condoned. We have noted with concern that most of the victims of the inordinate delays in completion of the appellate process are those who are financially so weak that they cannot even afford to engage a lawyer of their choice.”

“It appears that the criminal justice system, from the stage of investigation to the fixation of appeals, is vulnerable to be exploited by the privileged and powerful while the victims are those who belong to politically, economically, and socially marginalised and underprivileged classes.”

“Every branch of the State having a role in the running of the criminal justice system is under an obligation to take urgent steps to remedy the wrongs. A system which fails in protecting and enforcing the rights alienates the actual stakeholders: the people of this country.”