Read Court cases or Complaints
    To be updated at the end of the month. We have gained up to 200 new members last month.
    Current Membership by Province tr>
    City Current Target
    Balochistan 700 1220
    Kashmir 740 1000
    Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 890 2500
    Punjab 3600 4200
    Sindh 4000 4900

Directory of Judges and Lawyers in Pakistan only
If you are a judge in Pakistan and want to be listed in our directory, sign in
If you are a lawyer in Pakistan and want to be listed in our directory, sign in

Solving Judicial Problem
- Court Delay: Some Causes and Remedies
- Making Courts Efficient Charles E. Clark
- 10 ways to reform the civil justice system by changing the culture of the courts
- Justice Delayed: Some Options
- Pakistan Legal System
- Problem of Pervasive Judicial Arrogance, Incompetence, Political Corruption, and Fecklessness
- Judicial Delays in India: Causes & Remedies
- Law enforcement, malfeasance, and compensation of enforcers
  • justice, court
  • justice, lawyer
  • justice, case


Every human being must receive a fair justice promptly. Society can function, grow and succeed if everyone feels that he/she is treated an equal and is not denied a fair justice. Once everyone feels that he/she is treated an equal and given fair and prompt justice that will make a society grow, and will make a citizen feel important.
  The relation between case disposition time and civil justice is straightforward. Prolonged case disposition time frequently correlates with an increase in litigation costs and threatens evidentiary quality as memories fade, evidence spoils, and witness and litigants die. Delays in the resolution of civil disputes erode public confidence in the civil justice system, disappoint and frustrate those seeking compensation through the legal system, and generate benefits for those with the financial ability to withstand delays or otherwise benefit from them. Such factors, individually and collectively, undermine public faith and confidence in the ability of the civil justice system to operate efficiently, and more importantly, equitably says Hiese.
  Unfortunately, in Pakistan, many law suites take years or decades. Even if one receives a judgment, the judgment does not mean anything unless enforced to give the person his rightful ownership and/or possession/remedy. This is the case in most developing countries which obviously include Pakistan. This process is not good for a developing country such as Pakistan and healthy functioning of fair, successful, stable society, and its economic growth. As a result, Pakistan is in shambles, people are frustrated and economic growth is non-existing, or anemic. Do the people of Pakistan want to continue on this path? Are here solutions to this disarrayed society which has hurt almost every citizen of the country? Currently people are frustrated to the extent that they have given up on the whole system and have resigned to accept all the unfairness of the system and have decided to play the game which make the system more unfair and disruptive for all people and make a society unstable and unfair. The question most people ask, are there solutions to this unfair, disorganized, and destructive system?

Join the fight against the Corrupt Judicial System in PAKISTAN

Many in the judiciary believe that the former Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was successful in maintaining the supremacy of the constitution of Pakistan. That is, the former chief justice is credited with the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary also believe that in spite of continuous propaganda against the courts and election commission of Pakistan, the constitutional bodies are/were successful in maintaining the supremacy of the constitution of Pakistan. Thus, the public believes that the Pakistan government and law enforcement agencies obey all the rulings of the courts, which are supposed to make Pakistan stable and stronger. Unfortunately, this is not the reality. In many cases, even if judges decide in favor of one party, then the losing party either continually appeals the verdict or the decision is never enforced as there is no enforcement authority. Therefore, justice is a failure; it is delayed and denied. What good is a judicial system that does not serve any purpose? Why should anyone continue to rely on a failed system? In addition, it is a burden on the society because people are relying on a system that wastes time and money and results in no justice. The system wastes a tremendous amount of national resources and people's time, both of which can easily be used to help in the development of the country. Therefore, suggests that we should dissolve (obviously slowly and carefully) the entire judicial system and replace it with a fair and inexpensive judiciary that would be responsible to the people. The current system is inherited from the British masters who treated the locals as inferior and underclass servants. The antiquated British system even now treats the locals as inferior who are mostly illiterate and ignorant guided by unqualified, arrogant, and incompetent operators who earn their living by using the system to exploit, abuse, and violate these litigants. The bogus-case filers and their lawyers drag on cases through continual adjournment or other unethical means resulting in delaying the cases for many years until litigants either give up or die, resulting in the filer winning a bogus case. The system is for sale to a highest bidder with the bidders (poor and illiterate) asked to pay the incompetent, unqualified, and corrupt biddees to twist the case in favor of anyone who pays the most regardless of the fairness of the case. What good is a judicial system that does not help people? How can such a system be relied upon to dispense fair justice to the rightful party? Are Pakistanis blind, stupid, or naïve to allow such a system to operate and expect to get fair justice? We think so. The people need to rise up to demand a better, quicker, fairer, and more honest system that helps resolve conflicts without delays and tremendous cost to society and litigants. Can such a system be designed? Of course it can. If the politicians and judiciary care about the people and fairness, then they will be willing to implement change. We have ideas about developing such a system but need the support of the people in Pakistan. We can design a system that will be quicker, fairer, and inexpensive. If anyone is interested in bringing about a change and designing such a system, contact us via

Petition to establish Lawyers' Ethic Council in Pakistan. If agree, e-mail us

Based on the experience of this one lawyer's client and many similar unreported experiences of many other dependents and claimants, we are asking the Prime Minister to create a Federal Lawyers' Ethic Council consisting of citizens to punish corrupt and incompetent lawyers and, if found, guilty to disbar them for life. Please read the following statement:

My recent experience in a complaint against advocates at the Sindh Bar Council turned out to be shockingly and terribly bad and deplorable. I would not be wrong in saying that the Council acts as a forum for supporting misconduct of accused lawyers by acting as something above the Law. The Presiding Officer acted like an SHO who would lock up a complainant if he went to his thana with a complaint. What may be generally expected of the police could be observed at the council where all sorts of illegalities are committed. Complainant's are not heard while the accused is rendered full unethical, technical and illegal support and exhortation to move ahead: the reason seemingly being they want to win their votes in next elections. In my case the accused lawyer played foul trick by not submitting to court 40 annexure with his written statement to which the complainant objected but the presiding officer blatantly remarked those were not needed by him! To my amazement and shock how on earth he was going to exercise justice without those annexure which form the basis of the case; and how on earth the complainant be placed in the right position to rebut the written statement without them without perusing through their health and genuineness? Such being the case the presiding officer acted illegally in suppressing evidence and blatantly dismissed my plaint but the story doesn't end here. To my shock I noted that before the date of hearing the secretary of the Council had issued an antedated directive to the police that I along with my non-party attendant were harassing the accused advocates! No written order was pronounced nor present in the court record. However, it was noted in the record that matter be forwarded to the Executive Committee for adjudication and the same was also ordered by the presiding officer in the previous hearing. But it was utterly disgusting to note how swiftly and illegally the "judge" changed his Order! On top of it the Secretary council acted in excess of his powers by issuing an illegal partisan and biased directive to the police against the complainant.
I would appeal to the Chief Justice and the champions of judiciary to act and take appropriate legal action against the concerned at the Sindh Bar Council and rehear my case in the prime interest of justice. Unless this is done there would be little hope of eliminating black sheep from the judiciary where WUKLA GARDI trend is taking hold.

Is Justice or Fairness critical for Stable society?

Justice and fairness refer to different concepts. Justice is about the state giving to people their due, whilst fairness is about people’s position in society being determined by factors within their control. Fairness is not appropriate as a principle of justice because as Cohen shows, it is impossible to have inequalities of outcome determined by factors within people’s control, and egalitarianism fails to provide incentives for the gifted to use their skills to benefit all. Rawls rejects egalitarianism, but claims to support fairness, and thus misses this aspect of control that is crucial to fairness. The concepts of justice and fairness ideas make justice inherently more important because of its links with moral obligation. To read the whole article, click


Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law...
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence ..



The judicial system of Pakistan is in urgent need of reforms. For that recommendations are as follows.
- Proper legislation by the parliament is required. A law is to be legislated that would bind judges not to adjourn the case for more than 7 days. This point totally depends upon the quick delivery of facts and figures by the police. For this the gap between the police and lawyers should be reduced coordination and corporation should be entertained.
- A committee to be formed by CJ province which will hear complaints of the litigators and other issues pertaining to law.
- Free legal advisor to be provided to deserving and poor people. A committee should be formed that keeps the working of employees in check and determines who is really in need.
- E-justice: all cases be computerized and maximum 15 days to be set to dispose of cases (final verdict be given maximum in two weeks)
- Administration of court should be made efficient and effective for speedy judicial system, for this right man on the right job.
- Postings, transfers and other related issues of judges should be dealt by superior judiciary instead of law ministry.
- Few provision of law should be part of the middle class syllabus for prevention of crime and augmentation of awareness about judicial or legal matters.
- The discouragement of the liberal adjournments granted by the subordinate courts and high courts.
- Bar council should be more effective and contesters should be honest and loyal.
- Judicial investigation wing be set up to verify the fabricated charges.
- Salaries of judges should be increased to discourage malpractice.
It is extremely important for Pakistan to have a well established system judicial system on the pillars of speedy and transparent trial system in order to provide fair justice to the people of the country. Judicial system is a guarantee for the development of a nation as it builds trust and confidence among the masses.
It is very necessary to reform the judicial system of Pakistan as it is in the dilapidated condition and only the apex court is now building confidence in the masses. But, the apex court cannot alone solve the problems of the people. 90% cases are registered in the lower courts which are so far unable to provide speedy and fair justice to the common men.
The above mentioned reforms, no doubt, will change the shape of the judicial system and it will start to perform in letter and spirit and this surely set the path the nation as envisaged by the Qauid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Pakistan needs stronger judicial system


Analysts and pundits of a jiyala persuasion have taken much delight in circulating excerpts from a report issued by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) that is somewhat critical of the Supreme Court. Is the criticism justified? Not entirely, at least, not in my view. The ICJ report makes a number of points regarding Pakistan's superior judiciary. It is critical of the judgment in the Nineteenth Amendment case relating to the appointment of judges; it notes criticisms regarding the quality of judges appointed under the current Chief Justice; it raises a number of concerns regarding the use of suo-motu powers; and it asks whether the judiciary's recent fondness for activism has caused it to encroach upon the province of the executive. In my view, the fundamental problem with the ICJ report is that it approaches matters from an overly academic perspective. The ICJ report thus criticizes the Supreme Court's views regarding the appointment of judges by arguing, in effect, that (i) international best practices allow for a degree of political involvement in the appointment of judges; (ii) the Supreme Court's hostility towards political involvement in judicial appointments was unwarranted; and (iii) the Supreme Court acted wrongly in the Munir Bhatti case by reduce[ing] drastically, the powers of the parliamentary committee in relation to appointment of judges. There are multiple problems with this approach. To begin with, the appointment of judges is not an a historical political choice that can be contrasted with some bland list of international precedents. Furthermore, Pakistan is a common law country and hence references to appointment mechanisms in Civil Code countries like Bolivia and Switzerland are irrelevant. More importantly, Pakistan shares a particular Anglo-Indian legal culture with India and Bangladesh and it is within that context that Pakistan's jurisprudence must be analyzed. Had the ICJ undertaken that exercise, it would have noted that the current appointment mechanism is no different in its fundamentals from the appointment mechanism prescribed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1996 (via the Al Jehad case) and by the Supreme Court of India in 1994 (via the Advocates on Record case). One point on which I do agree with the ICJ report relates to the shortage of judges. However, while the report only deals with the issue in passing, for me this is the ground on which the judiciary deserves to be most heavily criticized. The power to appoint judges is a power that the judiciary has repeatedly fought for. With the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment and the decision in the Bhatti case, there is no legal or formal obstacle in the path of the various chief justices in appointing persons of their choice. And yet, the situation in both the Lahore and the Sindh High Courts is that there are a vast number of vacancies. I am sure that the various chief justices have no greater priority in their lives than the appointment of new judges. At the same time, the fact remains that almost 50 per cent of the Sindh High Court, and about 30 per cent of the Lahore High Court are missing. The superior courts in Pakistan do not hesitate in reminding government officials that with power comes the responsibility to properly exercise that power. That advice applies equally well to their Lordships. It is also worth noting that the situation could have been a lot better had the Supreme Court not insisted on the wholesale removal of all PCO judges?, but instead attempted to sift through the appointments and retain the properly qualified. Most of the ICJ Report is taken up with a discussion of the problems arising from the Supreme Court's embrace of judicial activism, inter alia, through the use of suo-motu cases. The discussion is finely nuanced and it makes a number of important points. For example, I agree it would be a good idea if the Supreme Court was to formulate clear rules regarding the acceptance and hearing of public interest cases. The relationship between the Supreme Court and the media is indeed one that needs to be examined. And the Supreme Court's embrace of judicial activism does regularly encroach upon the policy prerogatives of the executive. Where I part ways from the ICJ report is again in relation to its failure to provide a broader context. More specifically, public interest litigation and judicial activism in Pakistan need to be examined, both within a broader South Asian context, as well as within the specific context of Pakistan's history. Within the broader context of South Asia, the point to note is that judicial activism has been a consistent response to governmental failure. As activist as the judiciary in Pakistan has been, our embrace of public interest litigation pales to all that the superior judiciary in India has done (and continues to do). Pakistani courts rely regularly on Indian precedents in deciding uncontroversial matters. That same reliance carries over into matters of public interest. Within the narrower context of Pakistan's recent history, it is important to note that many of the current judges were returned to power by a popular movement: like freshly elected members of Parliament, they have debts to pay. The votaries of the Judicial Revolution swore up and down the length and breadth of this country that, from war to pollution, the return of the asli munsif would fix all our problems. Yes, the judges themselves made no such promises, but they watched and heard those promises be made. If today they err on the side of judicial minimalism, it is an understandable response. The people of Pakistan are often told that the solution to bad democracy is more democracy. Much the same approach applies to judicial overreach. Just like we have no option but to grin and bear the antics of our political leaders, our political leaders have no option but to grin and bear the foibles of the Supreme Court. I concede that in the case of the judiciary there is no mechanism of accountability similar to the ballot box. Nonetheless, judges do operate with one eye turned towards posterity and judicial fashions do change over time, much like rising and falling hemlines.



Rate the efficiency of your court (click)
Number of efficient court
Rate the inefficiency of your court (click)
Number of inefficient court
Rate the effectiveness of your judge (click)
Number of effective judges
Rate the ineffectiveness of your judge (click)
Number of ineffective judges
want to report corruption (click)
want to learn about economic development (click)
want to share secrets(click)