Burden of proof.

Byline: Shanza Faiq

ACCESS to justice in Pakistan comes with a price, a hefty one that those occupying the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder have difficulty affording. From their perspective, the legal system in Pakistan and its adversarial nature is such that their voices disappear into the backlog of 1.9 million cases pending before various courts that, in a country of over 221 million citizens, are administered by a mere 3,000 judges.

Primary research on access to justice in Pakistan is severely lacking. Since the time of Colonel Sykes' 1853 report on the administration of civil justice in British India, few academics save for the likes of Dr Osama Siddique and former chief justice of Pakistan Jawwad S. Khawaja have contributed to research on this issue.

There is thus insufficient understanding of the reasons for the blatant inefficiencies in the system, and their ripple effect on the denial of fundamental rights and a growing lack of confidence in the judiciary amongst the public. Against this backdrop, it is reassuring to see the apex court move outside the realm of the executive and focus on building an effective judicial system rather than building dams. From e-courts to the 110 model criminal trial courts scattered across the country, Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa has ushered in myriad innovative steps to provide speedy and cost-effective justice to those who need it. The question is: do these go far enough?

Public interest litigation offers many advantages.

One effective strategy would be to revive public interest litigation (PIL) with caveats and learning adopted after the abuse of suo motu powers during the tenures of Iftikhar Chaudhry and Saqib Nisar as Supreme Court chief justices. The raison d'etre of PIL is primarily to break the shackles of inequality that exist due to procedural, technical and legal constraints.

Our country is embedded in the common-law system, in which courts are slow to rule on findings of fact in the preliminary stage or to issue interim relief unless convinced of a prima facie case. PIL, on the other hand, brings with it many advantages, including the provision of speedy justice.

In PIL, the court settles substantial legal principles at the preliminary stage and grants the relief sought in the petition via immediate and interim remedial orders. Moreover, unlike the common-law system, PIL does not need a pending suit, because it is a remedial jurisprudence that is non-adversarial in nature and...