PHC seeks response on enforcing ADR system
A lawyer walks past in front of the Peshawar High Court building. PHOTO: AFP
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Saturday sought responses from the Secretary Law and the Secretary Libraries and Higher Education on a public interest petition seeking the immediate implementation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system and the declaration of a judicial emergency to ensure swift disposal of pending cases.
A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice PHC Justice SM Atiq Shah and Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan Sabi heard the petition.
During the hearing, petitioner Advocate Ameer Iqbal appeared before the court and stated that he had filed the petition in the larger public interest.
He informed the bench that more than 2.3 million cases are pending across the country, while only around 40,000 judges are available to handle them, which he termed grossly inadequate.
He further told the court that in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa alone, over 256,000 cases are pending in district courts, while 36,000 cases are awaiting disposal across all benches of the PHC.
The petitioner argued that the backlog was primarily due to a shortage of judicial officers and reliance on the traditional judicial system.
He maintained that ADR systems, widely used around the world and particularly in developing countries, offer an effective mechanism for resolving disputes promptly and often in a single proceeding.
Advocate Iqbal warned that failure to provide timely justice would aggravate social problems and erode public trust in the judicial process.
He added that the federal government had already strengthened the ADR framework and expressed readiness to cooperate with provincial governments, citing positive results at the federal level.
However, he said, the ADR system in K-P remained weak, necessitating urgent measures, including the declaration of a judicial emergency.
During the hearing, the court rejected the provincial law secretary's request to be removed as a party, declaring the office a key stakeholder and directing it to submit a reply.
The court also ordered that the Secretary Higher Education be made a party and issued notice for submission of a response.