In Pakistan, the courts have a severe backlog of more than 2.3 million cases, while there are only approximately 4,300 judges to handle them. For normal people, this means waiting years to get justice. A civil lawsuit, for example, might take 15 years. This lack of efficiency means that there will not be any sense of justice if it continues to be slow and delayed. Furthermore, there is also an issue where litigants or families in disputes have to wait their entire lives to receive justice. Businesses also lose confidence to invest in a country where there are legal uncertainties. Hence, Pakistan’s judiciary needs to adopt a modernized and practical approach to address these lingering issues and become competent enough to deliver timely justice to all.
This crisis can be attributed to a lack of viable alternatives and the structural inefficiency that plagues the system. Due to a lack of alternatives, people often have to resort to courts for every conflict. Meanwhile, the courts still operate under a system implemented during the colonial period, which is highly antiquated and centralized, i.e., with too few judges handling too many cases; therefore, it is not efficient enough to meet modern demands. Thus, there is a need to find newer and more efficient methodologies for dispute resolution, rather than simply relying on conventional litigation.
A viable solution for this is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which includes mediation, arbitration, and conciliation. A dispute that takes numerous years in court can be solved in just a few weeks using ADR. This solution focuses on dialogue and finding a compromise, rather than an adversarial approach. For instance, in mediation, a neutral facilitator helps both sides engage in a dialogue and reach a settlement agreement. The entire process is private, although not as formal as a court proceeding, and is significantly less expensive. In many cases involving contracts, property, or family matters, ADR can yield a result similar to a court judgment, but with substantially less time and expense. It is a hope and a lifeline for a system that would help avoid a legal limbo and alleviate the overcrowding of the courts.
Encouragingly, the legal establishment increasingly views ADR as a necessity. Jurists emphasise that alternative forums are partners, not competitors, to courts. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah recently criticised the mindset of rushing to court instead of exploring mediation or arbitration. If injunctions and stay orders are the first resort, the system grinds to a halt, and the economy suffers when commercial matters languish. He urged the establishment of ADR centres nationwide and the embedding of mediation across the justice system. Without diverting resolvable disputes away from courts, the backlog will remain insurmountable.
The economic waste is stark. Using the World Bank’s “Enforcing Contracts” approach, one can estimate delay costs by multiplying the time spent in court by the lost value. At Pakistan’s 2023 policy rate of 22%, a PKR 10 million commercial dispute that has been stuck in court for three years incurs an opportunity cost of approximately PKR 6.6 million. Multiply across thousands of cases, and the drag on business confidence and growth becomes undeniable. ADR is an urgently needed pressure valve.
ADR is a good match for the culture in Pakistan. For a long time, communities have used their own systems, such as jirgas and panchayats, to resolve problems rather than going to court. However, these methods often lacked proper safeguards. Mediation uses this same traditional idea but adds a structure for fairness and accountability. In this system, accredited mediators—retired judges or trained lawyers—help the parties reach a settlement. Confidentiality rules guide this process. So, ADR combines the traditional approach of seeking consensus with modern principles of equity, leading to outcomes that are both fast and legitimate.
Beyond decongesting courts, ADR makes justice more humane. Litigation is intimidating and costly, often excluding the poor, women, or the uneducated. A child custody dispute in a public courtroom can add trauma; mediation is private, and solutions can be tailored. For vulnerable groups, ADR offers empathy and flexibility that the rigid system rarely provides.
Pakistan has begun to institutionalise ADR. Islamabad enacted an ADR Act in 2017, followed by Punjab (2019, amended 2023), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2020), and Balochistan (2022 with 2023 rules). These laws empower courts to refer civil, family, and commercial disputes to mediation or arbitration, typically with a time limit of a few weeks. A Supreme Court Task Force is building a nationwide mediation framework, and hundreds of judges and lawyers have been trained as mediators. In Karachi, one ADR centre reported a 78% settlement rate in its first six months, with average resolution times of four to five days. Each settlement represents dozens of avoided hearings and valuable judge-hours saved.
Technology can facilitate this process through Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), utilizing secure platforms and video conferencing to resolve conflicts remotely. Pakistan piloted e-courts in 2019, allowing lawyers in Karachi to argue before Supreme Court judges in Islamabad via video link. The pandemic accelerated online hearings. With thoughtful expansion, consumer protection and small-debt matters could be handled entirely online, saving time and resources for travel and the court.
Challenges remain: patchy internet, uneven digital literacy, and statutes that do not explicitly cover ODR. Questions of enforceability and cybersecurity persist. Lawyers and judges will need training. Yet these hurdles are surmountable: courthouse kiosks can bridge connectivity gaps, awareness drives can improve literacy, and legislation can clarify the binding force of online settlements. The alternative, letting the backlog grow, is far costlier.
A twin strategy of ADR and ODR can transform the delivery of justice. ADR diverts large volumes of cases from litigation; ODR accelerates both ADR and court processes. This dual approach reduces inflow and increases outflow, freeing judges to focus on complex matters. Quality improves when courts are not drowning in minor disputes. Most importantly, people see timely outcomes: a property dispute resolved in a month rather than a decade, a consumer claim settled online rather than abandoned.
The path forward is clear. In the short term, provinces should pilot monthly “Mega Mediation Days” for petty civil, cheque-bounce, and motor accident cases, borrowing from India’s Lok Adalat model, where a December 2024 session disposed of over 4 million cases in a single day. Medium-term reforms should include an ODR sandbox for e-commerce and fintech disputes, integrated with district e-filing portals, plus public awareness campaigns and mobile mediation vans. Legally, Pakistan must clarify the enforceability of mediated settlements, require judicial review for vulnerable parties, and create a national mediator accreditation registry. A measurable goal should be set: a 10% reduction in eligible backlog within 12 months of pilot implementation.
Pakistan’s judiciary stands at a crossroads. It can persist with a status quo that remains clogged or adopt proven alternatives that deliver timely justice. ADR and ODR are globally recognised tools. By institutionalising ADR and embracing digital ODR, Pakistan can create a system where citizens receive decisions in months, not decades. Courts will remain guardians of complex and constitutional issues, but need not be burdened with every minor dispute. The choice is stark: adapt and clear the docket, or continue to be weighed down by its volume. Millions of Pakistanis trapped in legal limbo deserve a judiciary that delivers prompt, effective justice. With ADR and ODR, that goal is within reach.
