Justice lost in indices

International rankings influence public opinion, but their meaning can be distorted when numbers are detached from what they measure. Pakistan's position in the World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index 2025 has often been presented as a verdict on the judiciary. The concern is understandable, but the interpretation is incomplete. A national assessment covering institutions cannot fairly become the scorecard of one. Accountability begins with identifying who is responsible for what.

Pakistan ranked 130th among 143 countries, scoring 0.37. The Index examines eight dimensions, including constraints on government powers, corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice and criminal justice. Courts influence several of these dimensions, but do not determine them all. Pakistan stood last in Order and Security, a measure principally concerned with public safety. A country's overall standing must therefore be read as a picture of its wider rule-of-law environment, not an exclusive judgment on its courts.

Comparisons reinforce the distinction. Pakistan ranked 129th in Civil Justice and 101st in Criminal Justice. Bangladesh, although ranked 125th overall, stood 132nd and 118th in these categories. Türkiye ranked 118th overall but 106th in Criminal Justice; the Russian Federation stood 119th overall but 128th in that category. Brazil, despite ranking 78th overall, stood 111th in Criminal Justice. These figures establish no superiority of Pakistan's judiciary. They simply show that an overall ranking and its individual components tell different stories. Statistics are useful only when the conclusions drawn from them remain faithful to their meaning.

The World Bank's World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law underscores the importance of institutional cooperation and effective implementation. Investigation, prosecution, adjudication and enforcement form different parts of the justice process. Their responsibilities intersect, but they are not interchangeable. Fair criticism should illuminate these connections rather than obscure them.

Yet the WJP scorecard also identifies weaknesses that cannot be explained away. Pakistan scored 0.36 on accessibility and affordability of civil justice, 0.28 on unreasonable delay and 0.35 on effective enforcement. For people seeking justice, these are not abstract deficiencies. A court visit may cost a labourer a day's wages. A lawyer's fee may compete with school expenses or medicines. A widow pursuing inheritance may struggle simply to understand where to begin. A right guaranteed by law has limited meaning if the person entitled to it cannot afford to claim it. Justice must therefore become accessible beyond the formal promise of an open courtroom.

This is why the Supreme Court's Journey Through Reform & Innovation 2026 deserves attention. Its 86-point agenda, pursued since November 2024, addresses barriers of cost, distance, information and delay. The September 2026 reform matrix records 64 completed actions, with others still requiring implementation. Such progress offers grounds for hope, but a completed administrative task is not necessarily a transformed public experience. Reform earns confidence when its benefits reach the people for whom it was designed.

The Public Facilitation Centre provides a clearer point of contact for court-related information and assistance. Digital processing of certified copies and video-link facilities can spare litigants unnecessary journeys, while advanced electronic filing remains under development. The Overseas Litigants' Facilitation Cell assists those separated from proceedings by distance. Free legal advice arrangements and improvements in women-centred facilities, alongside plans for dedicated Women Facilitation Centres, seek to reduce barriers faced by vulnerable court users. These are practical responses to the WJP's concerns about accessibility and affordability. Their promise lies in bringing judicial services closer to citizens, rather than leaving citizens to navigate every obstacle alone.

Delay demands equal attention. The Supreme Court recorded approximately 56 per cent more case disposals in 2024–25 than in 2023–24, while performance remained substantially above the earlier level in 2025–26. District courts decided approximately 1.47 million time-bound cases between September 2025 and July 2026. Better case management, prioritised hearings and monitoring indicate sustained efforts, although disposal totals cannot by themselves prove that waiting times have fallen for everyone. A judgment delivered after years of hardship may vindicate a right without restoring what delay has taken. Judicial efficiency must ultimately be measured in time saved for litigants, not numbers alone.

Enforcement presents another challenge. A favourable civil judgment means little if its remedy remains beyond reach. Criminal justice likewise depends upon credible investigation, effective prosecution, fair trials and lawful correctional processes. Each institution must discharge its own duties, while cooperation ensures that a legal decision becomes practical relief. The rule of law is strengthened when responsibility is shared appropriately, not when accountability is shifted elsewhere.

International indices can reveal shortcomings and encourage reform, but surveys and expert assessments should be considered alongside institutional records and lived experience. Some evidence underlying annual assessments predates recent changes, whose effects may take time to emerge. Pakistan's ranking warrants reflection, neither dismissal nor indiscriminate blame. Ultimately, justice must be felt in the worker who recovers his wages, the widow who secures her inheritance, and the pensioner who receives relief while it still matters. The true measure of progress is not a better place on a table, but a lasting public confidence that the law will protect people when they need it most.