By Mukhtiar Ali Shar
The dispensation of justice is the cornerstone of any democratic society. However, lawyers’ strikes have become a significant concern in Pakistan, causing frequent adjournments and substantial delays in court proceedings. To overcome this challenge, it is crucial to explore alternative methods to strikes, drawing inspiration from successful legal system reforms in countries like Singapore and other developed nations. By adopting these practices, Pakistan can pave the way for efficient justice delivery.
Lawyers play a pivotal role in upholding justice, utilizing their expertise and advocacy skills to ensure a fair resolution of disputes.
However, the frequent strikes organized by lawyers’ associations in Pakistan disrupt the functioning of the judicial system, leading to an immense burden on the courts and hindering access to justice. While the grievances raised by lawyers regarding infrastructure, remuneration, and legal reforms are valid, relying on strikes as a means of protest undermines the very principles of justice they aim to uphold.
Developed countries have implemented reforms to prevent strikes from impeding court proceedings. For instance, Singapore, known for its efficient legal system, strictly regulates the legal profession. Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in strikes or boycotting legal proceedings, ensuring a continuous flow of justice. These reforms have fostered an environment where disputes are resolved promptly, maintaining public trust and upholding the integrity of the legal system.
To address the issue of lawyer strikes in Pakistan, it is imperative to explore alternative methods of protest and dispute resolution. Constructive dialogue and engagement between lawyers’ associations, the legal community, and relevant stakeholders can serve as a platform to address concerns and find solutions without resorting to strikes. This approach encourages collaboration, fostering an environment conducive to positive change.
Moreover, Pakistan can learn from the successful practices employed by developed countries in countering strikes. Mediation and arbitration mechanisms provide effective alternatives to resolve disputes outside the courtroom. By promoting the use of mediation or arbitration, unnecessary adjournments can be avoided, leading to the expedited resolution of cases and alleviating the burden on the judicial system.
Additionally, establishing specialized committees or task forces to address lawyers’ concerns can facilitate proactive engagement and prompt resolution of grievances. These committees would provide a platform for lawyers to voice their opinions, propose reforms, and work collaboratively with relevant authorities to bring about necessary changes. This participatory approach ensures that lawyers’ concerns are heard and addressed in a constructive manner.
Furthermore, investing in ongoing professional development and capacity building programs for legal professionals can significantly contribute to improving the justice system. By enhancing their skills and knowledge, lawyers can navigate complex legal processes more efficiently, reducing the need for unnecessary adjournments and expediting court proceedings.
In conclusion, lawyers’ strikes in Pakistan pose significant challenges to the dispensation of justice. By learning from successful legal system reforms in countries like Singapore, Pakistan can embrace alternative methods to strikes and ensure efficient justice delivery. Encouraging dialogue, promoting mediation and arbitration, establishing specialized committees, and investing in professional development are crucial steps forward. By adopting these alternatives, Pakistan can create a legal system that upholds the principles of justice, facilitates timely resolution of disputes, and restores public trust.
The writer is Master of Laws (LLM) in Judicial Studies from Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University, Singapore and MS/M.Phil (Management Science) Iqra University Islamabad Campus. Mukhtiar can be reached at mukhtiarshar@gmail.com
