Civil Judges are professionally trained to impartially adjudicate disputes between parties based on the applicable legal framework and the evidence that is formally presented, examined, and contested before them in open court proceedings. This procedural fairness not only upholds the integrity of the judicial process but also embodies a core tenet of the Rule of Law — that justice must be administered transparently, based on objective legal standards, and free from arbitrary influence. The authority of the judiciary rests upon its commitment to reasoned decision-making grounded in law and evidence, thereby ensuring public confidence in the legal system.
In contrast, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) encompasses a range of structured processes through which parties are encouraged to resolve their disputes outside the traditional judicial framework. These mechanisms — including mediation, arbitration, conciliation, and negotiation — offer flexible, confidential, and less formal avenues for conflict resolution. ADR is particularly valued for its potential to reduce the financial and emotional costs typically associated with litigation, as well as for its ability to deliver faster and more efficient outcomes. Moreover, ADR empowers parties by allowing them to actively participate in shaping the terms of the resolution, often preserving relationships and fostering a spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation. As such, ADR is increasingly recognised as a vital complement to the formal justice system, promoting access to justice, relieving the burden on overextended courts, and reinforcing the broader objectives of fairness, efficiency, and procedural justice.
In light of the increasing significance of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and the steadily accumulating backlog of cases burdening the judicial system, the then Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, the Honourable Mr Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, undertook a visionary initiative to establish Model ADR Centres within the Sessions Court, Lahore. This pioneering effort was intended to institutionalise ADR as a viable and effective mechanism to address the escalating delays and inefficiencies inherent in the traditional litigation process. By providing parties with an accessible and streamlined forum for resolving disputes amicably and expeditiously, the Model ADR Centre sought to promote judicial efficiency, reduce costs, and enhance access to justice.
Strengthening the ADR infrastructure is essential not only for reducing the burden on conventional courts but also for promoting timely, cost-effective, and amicable dispute resolution by the broader objectives of judicial reform
Regrettably, upon the elevation of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the pioneering Model ADR Centres were disbanded, and their allocated space was repurposed for conventional courtrooms aligned with the traditional adversarial legal system. This reallocation marked a temporary setback for the institutionalisation of ADR within the Lahore judiciary. Recognising the critical role that ADR plays in modern judicial administration, the then Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr Justice Gulzar Ahmed, subsequently revitalised this commitment by inaugurating a new ADR Centre situated on the rear side of the Sessions Court Lahore premises. This facility was housed within a purpose-built structure designed specifically to accommodate alternative dispute resolution (mediation) processes. The establishment of this dedicated centre reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s and the judiciary’s broader commitment to integrating ADR mechanisms as a complementary and essential component of the justice delivery system, aimed at easing the courts’ burden while ensuring timely and equitable resolution of disputes.
From where do these three ADR Centres receive their cases, and what types of cases do they handle? These centres primarily receive cases referred from the District Judiciary, encompassing a variety of matters including family law disputes — such as divorce, khula, maintenance, and child custody — as well as property disputes and certain cases of a criminal nature. Notably, a significant proportion of cases handled by these ADR Centres involve family disputes. Civil and Family Courts actively refer mediation cases, offering couples an opportunity to resolve their conflicts amicably through dialogue, thereby saving valuable time, financial resources, and preserving family relationships. This practice is commendable and reflects a progressive approach to dispute resolution that is highly appreciated within the judicial system.
Last month, the author had the opportunity to visit the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Centre, where I observed a range of significant practices and operational dynamics. The visit offered valuable insight into how the centres function on a day-to-day basis, including their procedures, the conduct of mediators, the environment in which parties engage in dialogue, and the general approach to dispute resolution. I found several aspects particularly compelling and believe they are worth sharing, both for their practical relevance and their potential to inform broader discussions on the effectiveness and future development of ADR mechanisms within our judicial system.
Increase the number of ADR Centres: Currently, only three ADR Centres are serving the entire Lahore District, which is inadequate when measured against the sheer volume and complexity of litigation in this jurisdiction. Given the high caseload, it is unrealistic to expect these limited centres to effectively and satisfactorily address the demand for mediation services. Furthermore, the mediators — who are themselves serving Civil Judges — are often not allocated sufficient time to dedicate to ADR proceedings, thereby limiting the quality and effectiveness of the mediation process. In light of this, it is imperative that the government significantly expand the number of ADR Centres within the Lahore District. Additionally, centres should be established in strategically accessible locations to ensure broader coverage and greater efficiency. Where such centres already exist, their numbers and capacity should be increased proportionately to the volume of litigation. Strengthening the ADR infrastructure is essential not only for reducing the burden on conventional courts but also for promoting timely, cost-effective, and amicable dispute resolution by the broader objectives of judicial reform.
If the present rate of case disposal continues without the adoption of ADR methods, it will take several decades to clear the existing backlog
ADR Cadre or Professional Mediators: There is a pressing need to establish a dedicated ADR cadre at the High Court level, exclusively tasked with conducting mediation. Civil Judges, who are trained from the outset to adjudicate disputes within an adversarial legal framework, are often not adequately equipped to carry out the facilitative and collaborative functions required in mediation. This limitation has been consistently observed in practice. It is further supported by official records, which indicate that these judges are either unable or unwilling to engage meaningfully in ADR processes. Accordingly, it is recommended that a distinct ADR cadre be instituted under the supervision of the High Court, composed of professionals specifically trained in mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Alternatively, qualified mediation experts should be appointed to fulfil this role. Such a reform would ensure that ADR proceedings are handled by individuals with the appropriate skill set, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness, credibility, and sustainability of ADR within the judicial system.
The Role of Local Government and ADR: Given that ADR Centres primarily handle family law cases, the nature of their work closely resembles the responsibilities traditionally associated with the office of the Chairman of the Union Council within local government structures. Ideally, the government should ensure the regular conduct of local bodies’ elections and devolve genuine administrative, financial, and political authority to these local governments. However, considering the historical lack of consistency in implementing such decentralisation in Pakistan, this objective remains challenging. As an alternative or complementary approach, a trained mediator could be appointed within each local council to handle family and minor civil disputes at the community level. To assess the viability of this model, a pilot project could initially be launched in the Lahore District. Its effectiveness should then be evaluated through a comprehensive, independent survey — one that is credible and transparent.
Entrance of Advocates in ADR Centres: Although advocates are not permitted to enter the administrative offices of the ADR Centres, it has been observed that some advocates nonetheless gain access to the rooms of officials handling the cases. To clarify, this does not refer to the mediation rooms where Civil Judges serve as mediators, but rather to the surrounding administrative areas. To safeguard the neutrality and integrity of the mediation process and to shield it from undue influence or pressure from traditional legal practitioners, it is strongly recommended that strict protocols be enforced. The entry of advocates — whether in uniform or not — should be restricted to these premises. This measure is essential to maintaining a neutral and conducive environment for effective and unbiased mediation proceedings.
In conclusion, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), particularly mediation, has become a widely repeated concept — almost to the point of cliché — yet its effective implementation remains essential to addressing the overwhelming backlog of millions of pending cases. It is imperative that all branches of the State — the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary — treat this issue with the urgency it demands, so that the resources allocated by the government yield meaningful results. As Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah aptly observed, if the current pace of case disposal continues without the integration of ADR mechanisms, it will take decades to eliminate the backlog, which continues to grow with each passing day.
It is imperative that all three pillars of the State — the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary — collectively recognise the gravity of this crisis and respond with a coordinated, strategic approach. Mere acknowledgment is no longer sufficient; what is required now is decisive policy intervention, robust institutional support, and a cultural shift within the legal profession to embrace ADR as a primary mode of dispute resolution, rather than a peripheral or secondary option. The government’s substantial investment of resources — financial, administrative, and human — into the justice sector must translate into tangible outcomes. These investments can only yield the intended benefits if alternative mechanisms like mediation are embedded into the fabric of our legal processes and actively promoted at every level of the judicial hierarchy.
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah once remarked, with great foresight and accuracy, that if the present rate of case disposal continues without the adoption of ADR methods, it will take several decades to clear the existing backlog. His observation remains as relevant today as ever, particularly given that the volume of unresolved cases continues to grow exponentially with each passing day. The choice is no longer between traditional litigation and ADR — it is between a justice system that remains perpetually overburdened and inaccessible, and one that is reformed, responsive, and efficient. Mediation, if implemented effectively and supported by strong institutional will, offers a transformative path forward.
The time to act is now.