Business Recorder Editorials 20th September 2026

Backbone, badly bent

EDITORIAL: Calling the district judiciary the backbone of Pakistan’s justice system is entirely appropriate, because this is where most citizens encounter the courts and where confidence in justice is ultimately won or lost. Chief Justice Yahya Afridi’s emphasis on better working conditions, professional resources and institutional support for judicial officers is therefore welcome. But even a passing look at the state of the district courts shows how badly this backbone has been neglected. Overcrowding, inadequate resources, limited specialisation, procedural delays, largely unhygienic premises, and corruption have accumulated over decades, leaving the tier closest to ordinary citizens carrying an enormous burden with far too little institutional support.

Some recent initiatives recognise parts of the problem. Solarisation of court complexes, e-libraries, internet facilities, clean drinking water and Women Facilitation Centres are worthwhile improvements, especially in underserved districts. There has also been progress in disposal, with more than 1.46 million time-bound cases decided between September 2025 and July 2026 and Model Criminal and Civil Courts disposing of more than 133,000 cases. Such numbers deserve recognition, as do judicial officers performing difficult jobs under demanding conditions.

Yet disposal statistics and improved facilities can only tell part of the story. The basic test of a judicial system remains the quality, accessibility and timeliness of the justice it delivers. Pakistan continues to fall badly short. The World Justice Project’s 2025 Rule of Law Index ranked the country 129th out of 143 jurisdictions for civil justice and 101st for criminal justice. Those numbers should command at least as much attention as commendations for judicial excellence because they capture the much larger institutional challenge confronting the courts.

Corruption must also be confronted far more directly. A July report by the International Federation for Human Rights and the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan described corruption as widespread and systemic across the country’s justice system. At the district level, the problem extends beyond allegations involving judges or lawyers. Litigants interact with a much wider machinery of court officials and lower staff, where access to files, procedural movement and routine administrative functions can create opportunities for petty corruption and influence. For an ordinary citizen, these interactions are part of the justice system just as surely as the eventual appearance before a judge.

That makes institutional wellbeing an important reform objective, but it must be accompanied by much stronger accountability. Judicial officers require proper salaries, manageable workloads, modern infrastructure, continuing professional training and access to technology and legal resources. Courts also need better case management and greater specialisation as commercial, financial, technological and other disputes become increasingly complex. At the same time, credible complaint mechanisms, transparent performance standards and firm action against corruption throughout the court hierarchy are indispensable.

The higher judiciary bears particular responsibility because many of the reforms, resources and administrative priorities affecting district courts are ultimately shaped from above. Describing district judges as the backbone of the system must therefore translate into sustained institutional investment rather than occasional attention. The conditions under which judges work inevitably affect performance, but the conditions under which litigants seek justice matter equally. A courthouse equipped with better facilities still fails its central purpose if a citizen must wait for years, navigate corruption, or spend beyond their means to secure a decision.

The Chief Justice is right to place the district judiciary at the centre of the reform conversation. That recognition should now provide an opportunity for a much more searching examination of why this crucial tier was allowed to become so overburdened and poorly served in the first place.

A backbone deserves support. In Pakistan’s justice system, it also urgently requires repair.

A state failing its children

EDITORIAL: That 1,914 cases of violence and abuse against children were reported across Pakistan in just the first six months of 2026 should provoke considerably more than another round of concern and condemnation. The figure cited by Senator Sherry Rehman points to a child protection crisis that has been allowed to linger for far too long despite repeated evidence of its scale. Nearly four cases were reported every day during the period. For a state that claims the protection of its citizens as one of its most fundamental responsibilities, continued failure to protect its most vulnerable citizens is indefensible.

The details make the picture even more disturbing. According to the figures cited, 43 percent of the accused were known to their victims and nearly 45 percent of incidents occurred inside children’s homes. Punjab accounted for 80 percent of reported cases, while 57 percent came from urban areas and 43 percent from rural areas. Abuse therefore crosses the boundaries that governments sometimes find convenient when compartmentalising social problems. And when the alleged abuser is known to the child or the abuse takes place at home, conventional assumptions about where protection begins become dangerously inadequate.

There has been no shortage of outrage whenever particularly horrific cases have entered the national consciousness. Governments promise action, politicians condemn the perpetrators, committees are formed and attention eventually moves elsewhere. The persistence of the problem suggests that episodic outrage has failed spectacularly as child protection policy. Pakistan requires functioning systems that identify vulnerable children, make reporting safe, investigate allegations professionally, protect victims throughout the process and prosecute offenders effectively. Those systems must work every day, including when television cameras have moved on.

The reported registration of 89 percent of cases with police is encouraging only as a starting point. The real measure is what happens afterwards. How many complaints produce competent investigations? How quickly do cases reach trial? How many prosecutions result in convictions where evidence establishes guilt? How effectively are victims protected from intimidation and further trauma? And what support is available to a child required to navigate police stations, medical examinations and court proceedings after already suffering abuse? Without answers to these questions, an FIR can become little more than official confirmation that something terrible happened.

Responsibility consequently runs through the entire state apparatus. Provincial governments must ensure that child protection institutions possess adequate staff, funding and reach. Police require specialised training for handling child victims and preserving evidence. Prosecutors must be equipped to pursue these cases effectively, while courts must prevent proceedings from dragging on until victims and their families are exhausted by the process. Schools, healthcare institutions and social welfare departments also need credible reporting and referral mechanisms. Where institutions fail through negligence, that failure must carry consequences as well.

Families and communities have an equally important role, especially because so many alleged perpetrators are known to victims. Yet appeals for greater parental vigilance cannot become an excuse for weak state protection. Children frequently lack the ability, confidence or opportunity to report abuse, particularly when the perpetrator exercises authority over them. Protection mechanisms must therefore be designed around the reality of a frightened and vulnerable child rather than the convenience of the institutions receiving the complaint.

Pakistan has discussed child abuse for years. The vocabulary of shock, concern and zero tolerance is by now very well rehearsed. What remains conspicuously less impressive is the record of prevention, prosecution, protection and justice.

The country needs measurable results: fewer children abused, more victims protected, faster investigations, effective prosecutions and punishment where guilt is established. Anything less leaves “child protection” as another solemn promise the state remembers whenever the latest statistics become impossible to ignore.