By: Barrister Mian Zafar Iqbal Kalanauri Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan · Fellow CIArb · Accredited Mediator · Legal Educator
Abstract
The criminal justice system of Pakistan represents a complex institutional architecture combining investigative, prosecutorial, judicial and corrective institutions. This article offers an in‐depth analysis of its structure, foundational legal principles, procedural stages, empirical challenges (such as backlog, delay, institutional capacity, public trust) and reform drivers. The paper also addresses comparative perspectives, the role of technology, digital transformation, and regional case law (Pakistan, India, Singapore, DIFC) to draw lessons for future modernisation of the system. It argues that meaningful reform requires both structural change and cultural transformation to uphold due process, equality before the law, and public confidence.
1. Introduction
The criminal justice system is the institutional means by which a state enforces criminal law, protects rights and maintains social order. In Pakistan the system is deeply shaped by colonial legacies (in the Police Act 1861/Lawrence Code era), post-independence development, constitutional guarantees and more recent reform initiatives. The legitimacy of the system depends not only on legal rules but on effective performance, fairness, efficiency and public trust.
2. Theoretical and Legal Foundations
Criminal law in Pakistan is grounded in the principle nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law) and nulla poena sine lege (no punishment without law). The principal statutory texts remain the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (PPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (CrPC), though both have been amended over decades. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan guarantees fundamental rights under Articles 4, 9, 10A and 25, including the presumption of innocence, fair trial, equality before the law, and protection from arbitrary detention.
The two central doctrinal elements of criminal liability—actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind)—are formally embedded in Pakistani jurisprudence, and the requirement of concurrence is reflected in judicial pronouncements. The penal process is adversarial in structure: the prosecution presents the case, defence counters, and the court adjudicates.
3. Institutional Architecture
3.1 Investigative Agencies (Police)
The police are the primary investigating agency, probing crimes, collecting evidence, making arrests, conducting searches and submitting final reports (challans). Multiple studies point to structural weaknesses: under-staffing, inadequate training, weak forensic infrastructure, political interference and low public trust. For example, a study noted the police in Pakistan are “chronically corrupt, inefficient, ill-equipped, and loyal to power elites of the society”.
A detailed paper on the “Role of Police in the Criminal Justice System of Pakistan: A Historical Perspective and Contemporary Analysis” points to the colonial origins of policing, the legacy of a paramilitary mindset, and the incremental reform attempts.
3.2 Prosecution
In Pakistan the prosecution function is largely part of the provincial law department or provincial police, depending on province. One recurrent critique is that prosecution lacks institutional independence and suffers from resource constraints, which undermines adversarial balance.
3.3 Judiciary
Courts (Magistrate, Sessions, High Courts, Supreme Court) exercise cognizance, adjudicate trials, hear appeals, and supervise legality. Significant case‐backlogs, delays, and inefficient case flow challenge the concept of ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. A study shows that more than two million cases remain pending in Pakistani courts, undermining the rule of law and governance.
3.4 Correctional/Prison System
Once sentences are passed, the administration of punishment, rehabilitation and re-integration become relevant. Prison overcrowding, inadequate facilities, and limited rehabilitative programmes remain serious issues.
4. The Criminal Process: Investigation to Trial
4.1 Initiation (FIR)
The process often begins with an FIR under Section 154 CrPC. The content, accuracy and timeliness of the FIR immediately affect the subsequent investigation and trial.
4.2 Investigation
Sections 160–161, 173 CrPC govern police powers of search, seizure, arrest, statement recording and final report submission. A specialised study emphasises the importance of investigation in the criminal justice system but identifies systemic barriers: inadequate training, delayed forensic input, lack of specialised investigative units
4.3 Inquiry / Cognizance
Under Section 190 CrPC a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence; after the report is submitted, and depending on classification of the offence, the case is either committed to a higher court or tried by the Magistrate.
4.4 Trial
The trial entails framing of charge(s), examination and cross-examination of witnesses, defence plea, arguments and judgment. Evidence law is governed by the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order 1984, which has been subject to commentary regarding relevance to criminal adjudication.
4.5 Appeal & Revision
Post‐trial remedies exist via appeal (High Court, Supreme Court) and revision – essential for ensuring procedural fairness and correction of errors.
5. Procedural Safeguards & Rights of the Accused
Rights of the accused such as protection from arbitrary arrest and detention (Art. 9 Constitution), the right to legal representation, right to a fair trial (Art. 10A Constitution) are constitutionally guaranteed. The CrPC sets out arrest and remand provisions (Sections 54-64 CrPC; 167 CrPC for remand). In Abdul Hameed v Province of Sindh, the Sindh High Court held that registration of an FIR alone does not automatically justify arrest—necessity and proportionality must be assessed.
Confession admissibility (Section 164 CrPC), identification parades, forensic evidence, electronic evidence and chain of custody issues are all emerging areas of procedural law. A study on trust in police in Pakistan found that both functional (performance) and procedural (fairness) justice evaluations influence the level of public trust.
6. Empirical Challenges & Research Findings
6.1 Backlog, Delay and Access to Justice
One major challenge is the backlog of cases. The article “Need of Judicial Reforms in Pakistan: Ensuring Accountability and Efficiency” finds that delays erode public confidence and run contrary to constitutional guarantee of justice without undue delay.
6.2 Institutional Capacity and Reform Gaps
Reform of the police remains a perennial issue. The policy paper “Reforming Pakistan’s Police and Law Enforcement Infrastructure” outlines critical barriers: staffing shortages, outdated technology, weak governance, political interference and the need for broader restructuring of law enforcement infrastructure.
The “Police Reforms and Accountability in Pakistan” (Dec 2023) provides updated empirical evidence of reform attempts, accountability frameworks and the persistent challenge of political interference, institutional inertia and capacity deficits.
6.3 Public Trust and Procedural Justice
The study on police trust (Punjab – Lahore and KP – Peshawar) reveals that perceptions of fairness (procedural justice) and effectiveness (performance) significantly impact trust in police, which in turn influences cooperation with law enforcement and the legitimacy of the system.
6.4 Corruption, Political Influence, and Accountability
Multiple sources highlight corruption and elite capture of the police as major obstacles to reform. A 2014-study cited in the British Journal of Criminology found that elite patronage and lack of accountability meant the police often served power-brokers rather than citizens.
6.5 Regional/Comparative Insights
Comparative perspectives show that jurisdictions such as India and Singapore emphasise professional training, independent prosecution, technology adoption and specialised courts. These contrast with Pakistan’s more generalist model. Moreover, the emerging global literature on “automation in policing” (predictive analytics, data-driven crime forecasting) underscores the need to align new technology with rule-of-law safeguards.
7. Reform Trajectory & Key Initiatives
7.1 Legislative Reform: Police Order 2002 and Provincial Police Acts
The Police Order 2002 introduced provincial autonomy for policing, attempted to reduce political interference and enhance accountability. However, critics argue implementation remains weak and the institutional culture unchanged.
Provincial acts (e.g., Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act 2017) incorporate community policing, separation of investigation and law & order functions, performance evaluation, public complaint mechanisms. The 2023 research on reforms and accountability mentions the KP model as more advanced than other provinces.
7.2 Technological & Institutional Modernisation
Reports emphasise need for digital case-management, forensic laboratories, training academies, civilian oversight bodies and data transparency systems. The ISPU policy paper calls for international support and funding for police modernisation.
7.3 Case Management and Courts Efficiency
Efforts to reduce backlog include computerised case tracking, e‐filing, and fast-track courts for certain categories (terrorism, economic offences). However, widespread adoption is uneven.
7.4 Restorative Justice, Victim Services and Specialised Courts
Emerging trends include victim protection legislation (e.g., Punjab Protection of Women against Violence Act 2016) and juvenile justice reform (Juvenile Justice System Act 2018). These reflect a shift towards rights-based and rehabilitative justice models.
8. Comparative Case Law and Jurisdictional Highlights
While full comparative analysis is beyond the scope of this article, some selective points:
- In India, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 introduced specialised juvenile courts and emphasised rehabilitation.
- In Singapore, investigations are conducted by the Commercial Affairs Department and prosecution by the independent Attorney‑General’s Chambers, emphasising a more clearly separated structure.
- In the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts arbitration and commercial dispute-resolution models illustrate how specialised tribunal systems improve efficiency in complex cross-border cases.
These comparisons highlight systemic design features: institutional independence, specialisation, accountability mechanisms, and digital infrastructure.
9. Discussion: Key Issues and Reform Imperatives
9.1 Institutional Independence vs Political Interference
One of the greatest impediments is political influence over the investigation, prosecution and policing. Reform must buttress the autonomy of investigating agencies, ensure performance‐based accountability and depoliticise law enforcement.
9.2 Capacity, Training and Professionalisation
Transforming personnel into professionals with specialised training (forensic, cybercrime, human rights) is essential. Current research shows deficits in training and resources hamper effective investigation.
9.3 Backlog, Delay and Efficiency
The vast pendency of cases undermines fairness and public confidence. Innovative case-management, triaging of cases, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and digital tracking are required.
9.4 Technology, Digital Evidence and Data Management
The increasing role of electronic evidence, biometric identification, video recording, predictive analytics calls for updated legal frameworks, data governance, chain of custody protocols and algorithmic fairness concerns. For example, the broader criminal justice literature shows that fairness and accuracy trade-offs exist in risk assessments.
9.5 Public Trust, Procedural Justice and Community Engagement
Trust in the justice system is critical. Research indicates that citizens’ perceptions of fairness, transparency, and police responsiveness correlate strongly with their willingness to cooperate with law enforcement.
9.6 Rights of Victims and Access to Justice
Victim‐centric reforms, gender sensitivity, victim support services and effective complaint mechanisms are increasingly recognized as important. This dimension remains underdeveloped in Pakistan’s system.
9.7 Cross-Border and Transnational Dimensions
In an era of international crime, cross-border evidence, extradition, international arbitration linkages, and digital disputes require the criminal justice system to integrate with international norms (e.g., United Nations Commission on International Trade Law standards, mutual legal assistance treaties).
10. Conclusion
The criminal justice system of Pakistan embodies a dense statutory framework and institutional architecture, but faces substantial challenges in delivering fair, timely and effective justice. Research and empirical studies point to critical gaps in investigation, prosecution, judicial efficiency, public trust, and technology adaptation. Meaningful reform therefore requires a holistic approach: structural redesign, capacity building, digital transformation, procedural fairness and cultural shift. The legitimacy of the system will ultimately depend on the twin pillars of rule of law and public confidence—only then will the promise of justice be realised in practice.
References
- Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (Act XLV of 1860)
- Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act V of 1898)
- Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
- Abdul Hameed v Province of Sindh, PLD 2014 Sindh 501
- Iffikhar Ahmad Khan Iffi et al, “The Role of Police in the Criminal Justice System of Pakistan: A Historical Perspective & Contemporary Analysis” (2024) Pakistan Research Journal of Social Sciences 3(4)
- Muhammad Hamza Zakir et al, “Police Reforms and Accountability in Pakistan” (2023) Pakistan Journal of Law, Analysis and Wisdom 2(3) ‹…›.
- Sadaqat Ali Nazir et al, “Part of the Policing System in Criminal Justice System; Pieces of Evidence from Punjab, Pakistan” (2022) Journal of Peace, Development and Communication 6(3) 63–73.
- Bilal M & Khokhar, “Need of Judicial Reforms in Pakistan: Ensuring Accountability & Efficiency” (2021) Pakistan Journal of International Affairs 5(2) 1746-1754.
- “Policing in Pakistan: A Comprehensive Study of Law Enforcement Practices and Challenges for Reform” Dr Jawed Aziz Masudi & Nasir Mustafa (2023) Pakistan Journal of International Affairs 6(2)
- Sean Eratt, “Reforming Pakistan Police: An Overview (UNAFEI Annual Report for 2001)” (2003) NCJ-201697.