PRELIMINARY NOTE: ADVERSARY & INQUISITORIAL SYSTEMS

There are two well-known systems of judicial procedure which are highly relevant in the context of the law’s chronic delays and the quality of court decisions:

a) Adversary System
b) Inquisitorial System

In Pakistan, both the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are based on the adversary system, as these codes were enacted during British rule, and the British legal tradition follows the adversarial model.

A. ADVERSARY SYSTEM

1. Nature of Adversary Hearing:

In an adversary hearing, the responsibility for the preparation and presentation of the case lies entirely with the parties during all stages—both interlocutory and at trial.

2. Principle as Defined by Lord Diplock:

“The court takes no action on its own motion but only on the application of one or the other party to litigation, the assumption being that each will be regardful of his own interest and take whatever procedural steps are necessary to advance his cause.”

3. Whether Civil Dispensation of Justice is Based on Adversarial Hearing?

While the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) mandates Muslims to order their lives according to Islamic principles derived from the Quran and Sunnah, the Law Commission Report of 1967-70 (Hamood-ur-Rehman Report) observed that procedural law in Pakistan tends to be more inquisitorial than purely adversarial.

Also, speedy trial and expeditious disposal are essential features of justice. Delays amount to denial of justice. However, there is no explicit provision in Pakistani procedural law that guarantees a speedy trial as a fundamental right.

These considerations cast doubt on the pure adversarial nature of Pakistan’s system. In fact, various provisions in civil and criminal law suggest that the legal framework is a blend of both adversarial and inquisitorial models.

Examples of Inquisitorial Elements in Civil Law:

• Section 24, C.P.C: High Court or District Court may, of its own motion, transfer any suit or appeal.

• Section 30, C.P.C: Court may suo motu (on its own motion) order discovery.

• Section 115, C.P.C: High Court may revise decisions without a party's application.

• Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C: Court may reject a plaint on its own initiative.

These provisions reflect that the court has powers that go beyond the traditional adversarial framework.

B. INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM

In contrast, the inquisitorial system assigns the primary duty to the judge to discover the truth. From the inception of the case, the judiciary plays an active role in investigating facts and gathering evidence.

CONCLUSION:

The judicial process in Pakistan, while predominantly adversarial in structure due to its colonial legal heritage, increasingly reflects inquisitorial characteristics, particularly in procedural laws. A hybrid model is emerging, which combines party-driven litigation with proactive judicial involvement. This blend can potentially improve access to justice, reduce delays, and ensure more accurate verdicts. For judicial reforms aimed at enhancing efficiency and fairness, acknowledging this hybrid nature is crucial