National Judicial Policy

National Judicial Policy provides specific time period, mechanism and guidelines for decision of the civil as well as criminal matters and have binding effect which should be strictly followed and complied with by all the courts of the country

Delay in disposal of criminal cases, particularly in bail matters, is mostly observed by the High Court due to non-cooperation of relevant stakeholders of justice sector

At numerous occasions the courts have tried its level best to realize strict compliance of the National Judicial Policy to the justice sector stakeholders for fulfilling their legal obligations towards the expeditious disposal of bail applications, but sometime of no fruitful result

In case of lawyers, the Bar Council being the regulatory authority of legal fraternity may make adherence towards showing their interest in the early disposal of bail applications

In case, particularly, when the bail before arrest matter is unnecessarily adjourned by the accused or by the complainant, the concerned court shall submit report qua reason of delay to the Chief Justice of the High Court through the Additional Registrar (Judicial) and shall also provide detail of order-sheets.

Election Commission vide impugned order allowed runner up for a National Assembly seat to apply to the Returning Officer of the constituency to seek public inspection of the election record under S.44 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976

Legality

Returning Officer in question who conducted the election was the Presiding Officer in the court of Additional Sessions Judge

Participation of district judiciary in the conduct of the General Election, 2013 in the province was an exceptional step taken in the public interest on the request of the Chief Election Commissioner

Such participation was not contemplated in the Constitution and the law; it was rendered in pursuance of a one-time relaxation of the National Judicial Policy, 2009

Notification by the Election Commission dated 26-12-2013 under S.7 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 directed successors-in-office of the Returning Officers to perform all post-election activities under the law

High Court observed that whether the Election Commission considered that a judicial officer should perform the duty of conducting public inspection of election record under S. 44 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, as was the meaning attributed by the runner up candidate to the impugned order, such view should, consistently with Election Commission's stand taken before the court, first be shared with the Court for comment and, if so, acceptance; that on the other hand, if the Election Commission was inclined in terms of S.7(1) of Representation of the People Act, 1976 to designate, inter alia, an officer of the Federal Government or Provincial Government for conducting the inspection under S.44 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, then, the prayer by runner up candidate for inspection of election record, may be implemented by such designated authority; that runner up candidate also had a lawful and express remedy under S.45 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, which empowered an Election Tribunal to direct inspection of the election record

High court returned the impugned order to the Election Commission for elaboration as to its meaning and effect in light of the applicable law

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Unless the Bar and the Bench both perform their sacred duties with due care, diligence and devotion, the purpose of National Judicial Policy would not be achieved.