Despite the government’s assertion that the FCC would ease the burden on the Supreme Court (SC) and expedite relief for ordinary litigants, legal circles say the reform has so far amounted to little more than a reshuffling of cases rather than a meaningful reduction in pendency.
The federal government had conveyed that one of the prime purposes of the FCC was to facilitate ordinary litigants whose cases were delayed on account of judicial activism by the SC. Even superior bars, led by the Independent Group, had fully backed the 27th constitutional amendment under which the apex court – FCC – was created in November last year.
Before the FCC began functioning on November 13, 2025, a total of 56,608 cases were pending in the SC, of which 22,910 were transferred to the FCC, while 33,698 remained pending in the SC. At present, seven judges are working in the FCC, while 18 are performing their duties in the SC.
Despite increased public funding for judges after the 27th Amendment, there has been no significant impact on pendency, as more than 56,000 cases are still pending across both top courts.
One section of lawyers blames the executive for the situation, arguing that the appointment of junior judges to the highest court (FCC), without following established criteria and on high salary packages, has adversely affected the morale of senior judges in the SC.
They also point out that Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi has been accommodated through a person-specific constitutional amendment and is now recognised as chief justice after the 27th Amendment, while remaining bound to follow FCC judicial orders under Article 189 of the Constitution.
However, there has been some improvement in the disposal of criminal cases in the Supreme Court over the past two years.
Meanwhile, the SC on Tuesday issued a statement wherein it is stated that “during the last three months, 3,600 cases were instituted while 5,383 cases were disposed of, bringing the total pendency down to 34,083 cases”.
The status of jail petitions and death sentence appeals was also reviewed. It was noted that the pendency of death sentence cases has been reduced from 384 at the time of assumption of office (October 2024) to 60 cases.
“To ensure timely adjudication in matters involving the right to life, it was resolved that all pending death sentence appeals shall be fixed within the next 30 days. It was further decided that cases instituted up to 2018 shall be fixed on a priority basis to clear the year-wise backlog,” says the statement.
Former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar says that the “26th and 27th constitutional amendments” lack legitimacy because they were not enacted democratically. “A fortiori, their resultant consequences, including the Federal Constitutional Court, also lack legitimacy. The FCC embodies a parallel judicial hierarchy of questionable necessity. Its avowed objective, reduction of litigation, stands contradicted by empirical data.”
Khokhar noted that before the “27th constitutional amendment”, there were 56,608 cases pending in the Supreme Court. Currently, there are 33,850 cases pending in the SC and 22,325 cases in the FCC.
“Evidently, a case of merely redistributing, not resolving systemic congestion. Such transference of cases reflects administrative displacement rather than judicial efficiency. The FCC with 7 judges hasn’t had any success in reducing the backlog of cases. The national exchequer is bearing a significant and recurring financial cost without any meaningful benefit to the ordinary litigant”, he adds.
Former law officer Tariq Khokhar says that the paucity of constitutional jurisprudence is stark: a mere 15 reported cases, bereft of significant constitutional substance.
“The citizens, their intended beneficiaries of constitutional adjudication, have derived no discernible advantage from this structural experiment.
Quite the contrary, the executive is no longer held to account. Worse still, its fiats of dubious constitutionality are upheld and granted validation.”
“The appointment mechanism, now effectively within the executive influence, has eroded the independence of the judiciary. The resultant judiciary bears the unmistakable imprint of control rather than independence”
He said that public allegations, including those asserting compromised conscience for personal gain, remain jurisprudentially unanswered. “The validation of civilians’ military trial is a permanent scar”, he notes.
Likewise, lawyer Umer Gilani says that the reshaping of the judiciary’s topmost tier by the 26th and 27th Amendments has not yielded any significant improvement in the expeditious disposal of cases.
“This is hardly surprising. The only sustainable way to reduce backlog of cases is to create disincentivizes for those who file false and frivolous claims – and to create incentives for parties with a weak case to concede early in the litigation cycle. No serious progress has been made in that direction”, Gilani observes.
Lawyer Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad observed that while the 26th and 27th Amendments and the creation of the FCC were significant steps toward strengthening the justice delivery system, the practical impact on case pendency remains a continuing challenge.
The reforms were intended to reduce the burden on the superior judiciary and ensure quicker resolution of constitutional and public importance matters. However, despite the positive intentions, ordinary litigants continue to face delays in accessing timely justice.
He noted that, under the Practice and Procedure Act, important cases are expected to be fixed for first hearing within 15 days, but this timeline has not consistently been met, contributing to persistent delays.
Hafiz Ehsaan emphasised that the current strength of the FCC is not adequate to manage its huge pendency, and as a result, timely adjudication remains a challenge.
He stressed that the court’s judicial strength should be increased at par with the SC, ensuring it has sufficient capacity to handle its substantial caseload efficiently. Aligning resources with workload is essential to achieving the constitutional objective of access to justice under Article 37(d).
Finally, he suggested that a structured National Justice Dialogue between Parliament and the judiciary should be initiated. Such a dialogue would aim to develop a forward-looking ten-year reform implementation strategy, drawing lessons from other countries that have successfully prioritised judicial reforms.
By working collaboratively, setting clear priorities, and implementing reforms in a phased and realistic manner, Pakistan can ensure that the justice system becomes more efficient, responsive, and accessible for all citizens.