William Ewart Gladstone, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the late 19th century, once said,
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
This phrase encapsulates the ongoing struggle faced by litigants and common citizens in Pakistan, where the constitutional promise of speedy disposal is often unmet, leading to prolonged legal battles and personal hardships. The right to speedy and expeditious justice is a foundational element of the rule of law and forms the Grundnorm of any legal system.
Articles 10A and 37(d) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, guarantee the right to a fair trial and prompt justice for all citizens. However, the average duration for final case disposal remains between 15 to 20 years, resulting in considerable mental and financial hardship for litigants. This situation is adversely impacting the overall credibility of the justice system and the rule of law in Pakistan.
According to the World Justice Project Report 2025, Pakistan's judiciary is currently ranked 130th out of 143 countries globally and 5th out of 6 in the region, based on indicators such as the rule of law, the efficiency of case disposal, and law and order concerns. Moreover, according to the report of the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, the number of cases pending in the lower and upper judiciary of Pakistan was 2.26 million as of 2023.
Most of this backlog occurs within district and session courts, where daily disputes, including property, contract, rent, family, and criminal cases, experience significant delays before hearings can be scheduled.
This prolonged delay is not merely an administrative concern; it also undermines public confidence in the rule of law, the administration of justice, and institutional integrity. Additionally, it disproportionately affects individuals with limited financial resources who are involved in lengthy litigation. The Supreme Court itself has recognised that delays in trial and dispute resolution pose a threat to the rule of law and can erode public trust in the independence of the judiciary.
In a country like Pakistan, where justice delayed is justice denied, mediation should not be optional but must be made compulsory through necessary amendments to Article 10-A of the Constitution to ensure the rule of law and the timely administration of justice
The normative question then arises: "If the frequent and significant delays are themselves a violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 10-A, should the Constitution not require the state to implement expeditious alternative dispute resolution mechanisms?" The appropriate answer is affirmative. A viable solution is to incorporate and enhance mediation as a constitutionally recognised method of dispute resolution, thereby promoting the goal of swift and cost-effective justice.
Mediation is often criticised for its flexibility, party autonomy, and the absence of a formal enforcement mechanism; however, these challenges can be mitigated through structured guidelines and oversight to ensure fairness and accountability.
Firstly, the very wording and spirit of Article 10-A is built on the premise of due process and speedy trial. The mischief rule of statute interpretation allows the curing of a legal defect for which a particular statute was enacted – in this case, the main purpose of Article 10-A was the recognition of swift and fair legal process.
The adversarial system of legal dispute resolution has fallen short in providing timely and transparent justice to individuals. Procedural gaps and inconsistent legal representation often mar court trials. Mediation offers an alternative approach, enabling parties to resolve their disputes independently before resorting to formal judicial proceedings. This process is voluntary and confidential, conducted in the presence of a neutral third party. Parties retain the right to seek resolution through the courts if mediation efforts are unsuccessful, reaffirming that access to judicial processes must always be upheld.
It transpires that the primary benefit of mediation lies in facilitating mutually amicable solutions with the consent of both parties, thereby avoiding the delays and high legal costs often associated with prolonged litigation.
The theoretical benefits of mediation are already beginning to manifest as tangible institutional improvements in Pakistan. This is evidenced by the recent establishment of the Islamabad and Sindh High Court Annexed Mediation Centres, which are currently in their initial phase of operation to facilitate efficient dispute resolution. From 10 August 2023 to 9 January 2026, the Sindh Court-Annexed Mediation Centre received a total of 300 disputes. Among these, 107 cases resulted in successful settlements, 45 cases were unsuccessful, and 140 cases were returned at the initial stage due to the absence of parties or their refusal to participate in the mediation process. The remaining 8 cases are currently pending mediation. These figures serve as a first step in the right direction for effective dispute resolution.
Secondly, the argument that mediation is only appropriate for resolving minor legal disputes is insufficient. Whether dealing with complex commercial transactions or intricate property matters, mediation should be considered as a preliminary dispute resolution method to help alleviate the burden on courts handling high-magnitude financial and criminal litigation. Several South American countries have integrated mediation as a constitutionally recognised mode of dispute settlement.
For instance, Article 190 of Ecuador’s Constitution mandates mediation in cases where there is a high probability of settlement among parties. Similarly, Article 111 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China requires parties to refer to mediation in civil disputes. Thus, comparative jurisprudence supports the adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, not only as a standard legal practice but also through constitutional recognition.
To actualise mediation as a constitutional norm, it is essential to implement practical reforms that go beyond mere publicity stunts. Although Pakistan has established some High Court annexed mediation centres, along with the ADR Act of 2017 and the Mediation Practice Rules of 2023, there remains a lack of a coherent and robust foundational framework for mediation. The current priority should be to recalibrate Article 10-A to ensure effective compliance with the longstanding demand for timely and efficient justice.
The goal of constitutionalising mediation is not to undermine litigants' rights to access the courts but to promote genuine pre-litigation conflict resolution efforts. This approach would enable courts to focus more effectively on complex criminal and transactional cases, while reducing the burden of minor disputes and alleviating the challenges faced by litigants due to prolonged trials.
Therefore, in a country like Pakistan, where justice delayed is justice denied, mediation should not be optional but must be made compulsory through necessary amendments to Article 10-A of the Constitution to ensure the rule of law and the timely administration of justice.