Access to Justice: Why Pakistan's Courts Are Buried in Backlog

For many Pakistanis, the phrase "justice delayed is justice denied" isn't an abstraction — it describes a lived reality. Case backlogs across the country's court system, from lower courts to the superior judiciary, have accumulated for years, leaving litigants waiting years — sometimes decades — for resolution.

The scale of the backlog

Judicial data has consistently shown millions of cases pending across Pakistan's court system at any given time, spanning civil, criminal and family matters. On June 30, 2026, the total stood at 2,168,293 pending cases, according to the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan's bi-annual judicial statistics report for January to June 2026. Of those, 1,864,909 sat in the district judiciary and 303,384 in the superior courts, including 32,962 in the Supreme Court. The total fell by 54,392 cases over the six months, because courts decided more cases (2,461,702) than were filed (2,399,790). Lower courts, which handle the overwhelming majority of case volume, carry the heaviest backlogs relative to their capacity.

What's driving the delays

Legal researchers and judicial reform advocates point to a combination of structural factors:

• Judge-to-case ratios. The number of judges relative to case filings remains low by international comparison, particularly at the district and sessions court level, meaning each judge manages a caseload far exceeding what allows for timely disposal.
• Procedural inefficiencies. Frequent adjournments, procedural delays and an appeals process that allows extended relitigation at multiple levels all contribute to cases stretching over many years.
• Under-resourced court administration. Many courts still rely heavily on manual case management and record-keeping, slowing processes that digital case management systems have streamlined elsewhere.
• Witness and evidence delays. Cases are frequently delayed by witnesses failing to appear, slow forensic and investigative processes, and inconsistent police cooperation with prosecutions.

The human cost of delay

Backlogs don't affect all litigants equally. Those able to afford sustained legal representation over years of proceedings are better positioned to weather delays than lower-income litigants, for whom prolonged cases mean accumulating legal costs, lost work time, and — in criminal cases — extended pre-trial detention that can, in some documented instances, exceed the sentence eventually imposed if convicted.

Reform efforts and their impact so far

Several reform measures have been piloted or partially implemented in recent years:

1. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, including mediation and arbitration centers, have shown success in diverting appropriate civil cases away from the formal court backlog where adopted.
2. Case management and e-filing systems, piloted in some High Courts and district courts, have improved scheduling efficiency where fully implemented, though rollout remains incomplete nationally.
3. Specialized and model courts for specific case categories (such as banking, anti-terrorism, or consumer protection matters) have, in some jurisdictions, demonstrated faster resolution times than general courts handling mixed caseloads.
4. Increased judicial appointments, in provinces that have expanded court capacity, have shown measurable reductions in per-judge caseload, though filling and training new judicial positions takes time.
5. The Supreme Court's Judicial Reform Action Plan, launched in November 2024, is credited by the court with clearing years-old backlogs in bail, death-penalty, family and tax appeals, according to a Supreme Court statement in July 2026. The much larger backlog, though, sits in the district judiciary and high courts, where similarly sustained reform has been harder to implement nationally.

What sustained progress would require

Legal reform advocates generally argue that durable backlog reduction requires simultaneous progress on judicial capacity (more judges, better trained and supported), procedural reform (limiting unnecessary adjournments and streamlining appeals), and technology adoption (case management systems that give litigants and courts real visibility into case status) — implemented consistently across provinces rather than through isolated pilot programs.

Build Better Pakistan's Justice Desk tracks judicial reform and access-to-justice developments nationally.