Justice is supposed to protect society while safeguarding individual liberty, but when criminal procedure stops serving this delicate balance, it begins to undermine public confidence in the law itself. A criminal justice system derives its legitimacy not merely from statutes and courtrooms, but from the belief among citizens that the law is fair, impartial, and capable of distinguishing between guilt and innocence. In Pakistan, however, this belief has been steadily weakened.
Weak investigations, procedural delays, and exploitable legal loopholes have transformed justice into an uncertain and often unreliable outcome. Instead of consistently protecting the innocent and restraining the guilty, the system frequently does the opposite, deepening public mistrust and reinforcing the perception that justice is selective, delayed, and, at times, entirely absent.
Judicial acknowledgment of systemic failure
This troubling reality was starkly acknowledged by the Islamabad High Court, which described the criminal justice system within its jurisdiction as “alarming and abysmal,” observing that it was no longer serving its intended purpose but had instead become a source of grave injustice. These remarks were made in a strongly worded judgment authored by Athar Minallah at the conclusion of proceedings that resulted in the acquittal of the accused in seven separate murder cases.
The judgment did more than decide individual appeals; it exposed deep and systemic failures in police investigation and prosecution. The fact that individuals could remain incarcerated for years, only to be declared innocent at the appellate stage, revealed how procedural defects and institutional negligence can destroy lives long before the truth emerges.
The irreversible cost of wrongful incarceration
Such cases illustrate one side of the crisis: the suffering of innocent individuals who become victims of a flawed process. Years spent in prison cannot be returned, families cannot be restored to what they once were, and the stigma attached to criminal accusations often lingers even after acquittal. When justice arrives after a decade of wrongful incarceration, it offers little consolation. Instead, it leaves behind a trail of irreversible damage and reinforces the belief that the system is incapable of correcting its own mistakes in time.
When procedure protects repeat offenders
At the same time, the very same criminal procedure that fails to protect the innocent often enables habitual offenders to remain free. The case of Muhammad Ali from Lahore illustrates this contradiction with disturbing clarity. He began dealing in narcotics in 1990 and was first arrested in 1997. After securing bail, he returned to the same criminal activity. Over the next twenty three years, police records show that he was arrested around twenty times, including multiple arrests between 2001 and 2020.
Also Read: When Women’s Rights Become a Convenient Narrative
Each arrest followed a familiar pattern: registration of a case, presentation before a court, grant of bail, and release. Even when he was arrested red handed by Faisalabad police in May 2020, the outcome remained unchanged, and he again succeeded in obtaining bail by relying on procedural provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The erosion of safeguards into formalities
This repeated cycle of arrest and release highlights how procedural safeguards, originally designed to protect individuals from arbitrary detention and abuse of power, have gradually been reduced to mechanical formalities. In the absence of rigorous scrutiny, these safeguards become tools for exploitation rather than instruments of justice. For society at large, the message is deeply damaging: crime carries little real consequence, and persistence can outlast the law.
A system failing at both ends
Viewed together, these two situations reveal the central failure of the criminal justice system. On one hand, innocent individuals lose years of their lives because of weak investigations, poor evidence collection, and prolonged trials. On the other hand, repeat offenders exploit the same procedural framework to avoid meaningful accountability. The law, which should clearly and credibly distinguish between guilt and innocence, often fails to do so in practice. As a result, deterrence weakens, victims lose faith, and the public begins to see criminal justice not as a guarantor of order, but as a source of disorder and injustice.
Structural causes behind procedural collapse
This condition is not accidental, nor can it be attributed to isolated errors. It is the cumulative result of decades of neglect, poor governance, and lack of institutional accountability. Police investigations are frequently incomplete or poorly conducted, relying on weak evidence, delayed forensic analysis, or flawed documentation. Prosecution services often lack independence, resources, and professional training, reducing their role to mere case processing rather than effective advocacy for justice. Courts, burdened by massive backlogs, are compelled to prioritize disposal over depth, sometimes correcting errors only after irreparable harm has already occurred.
Bail as routine rather than risk assessment
Meanwhile, procedural safeguards meant to protect citizens from state abuse have gradually turned into escape routes for serious offenders. Bail, which should be granted through a careful assessment of risk, severity, and likelihood of reoffending, is often treated as a routine entitlement. This mechanical application erodes the balance between liberty and public safety and creates a perception that the system is more concerned with form than substance.
Restoring legitimacy through institutional accountability
When criminal procedure fails, it does more than produce unjust outcomes in individual cases. It weakens the moral authority of the state and damages public trust in the legal system as a whole. Citizens begin to disengage, victims lose hope, and respect for the rule of law diminishes. A justice system that cannot protect the innocent and cannot restrain the guilty ultimately undermines its own legitimacy.
Restoring public trust requires more than rhetorical commitments or isolated reforms. Investigations must be professionalized, evidence standards strengthened, and prosecution services empowered and held accountable. Bail laws must be applied with greater care and consistency, ensuring that liberty does not come at the cost of public safety. Above all, institutional accountability must be enforced across all stages of the criminal justice process. Until these structural reforms are undertaken, criminal procedure will continue to fail the public it is meant to serve, leaving justice uncertain and public confidence deeply shaken.
