Every lawyer knows that a sound judgment is only half the measure of justice. The other half is whether it arrives in time to make a difference. In Abdul Salam Khan v. M/s Bank Al-Habib Ltd. and others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide a challenge to a property auction held in 2011. The ruling came in 2025. Fourteen years had passed.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik did not speak only of the auction. They spoke of the years that had slipped away and called the delay “justice extinguished”. More importantly, they turned their attention to the machinery of the courts and to the tools that could make it work better. Among those tools, they placed technology at the centre.
JUSTICE HAS TWO PILLARS
Justice must be correct in law and delivered in time for it to matter. Remove either pillar and the structure cannot stand. The Abdul Salam Khan matter is an example of what happens when timeliness collapses entirely. By the time the Court ruled, the practical question was not whether the auction was valid but whether any decision could still have value for the parties.
The judgment made one thing clear. Delay is not destiny. It is the result of how cases are managed and heard. If the design changes, the results change. Technology, applied with care, can serve as more than a modern convenience. It can become the framework that restores time to justice.
DELAY AS A CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH
The Constitution guarantees access to justice and the right to a fair trial in Articles 4, 9 and 10A. These rights are not met by a judgment that arrives so late that it is of no use to the parties. Timeliness is not a courtesy; it is part of the right itself.
Delay weakens contracts. It drains the worth from remedies. It falls hardest on those without the resources to endure years of litigation. In this judgment the Court treated delay as a constitutional failure rather than an administrative inconvenience. And it recognised that the defect can be repaired with stronger systems, disciplined procedures and technology designed for the work of justice.
THE COURT’S TECHNOLOGY BLUEPRINT
In addressing the problem, the Supreme Court moved beyond diagnosis to prescription. The honorable judges spoke of intelligent case management as a matter of institutional policy. This meant more than simply increasing the number of judges. It meant creating a system that could see the whole docket, track the age of every matter, and bring dormant cases to the surface.
The judges highlighted the role of artificial intelligence as an aid to this process. AI could be used to identify cases that have been idle for too long, to assist in scheduling so that hearings are set fairly and without preference, and to group matters for hearing in a way that conserves time without sacrificing the attention each deserves. The Court made it equally clear that these tools must not replace the discretion of a judge. They are there to inform and support, not to decide.
LEARNING FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS
The judgment did not place Pakistan’s challenges in isolation. It referred to the experiences of Singapore, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Estonia, Canada, China, Denmark and Australia. These countries have confronted delays in their own systems and have acted to reduce them through a combination of technology, structural reform and procedural discipline.
From their examples, certain common elements emerge. Digital filing systems that eliminate the inefficiencies of paper. Real-time dashboards that allow judges and administrators to monitor the progress of cases. Automated scheduling that follows published rules, removing the possibility of manipulation. Transparent oversight so that litigants and the public can see how justice is being managed.
WHAT GOOD JUDICIAL TECHNOLOGY LOOKS LIKE
Technology in the courts must be built with a purpose. It should first ensure that data about every case is complete, accurate and structured. It should then use that data to support fair scheduling and early triage. It must make the system more transparent, not less, so that parties can follow their case without unnecessary visits to the court office.
Above all, it must be designed to work alongside judicial reasoning, not to displace it. A well-crafted system can give judges better information and more control over their lists, freeing them to focus on the substance of the law. It can give litigants a process they can see and trust. And it can give the justice system the one resource it cannot manufacture by any other means: time.
AI’S PROPER ROLE
Artificial intelligence has the potential to be a powerful servant in the administration of justice. Its role, however, must remain assistive. It can track the age of matters and signal where inaction has set in. It can help identify urgent issues that require early listing, such as cases involving constitutional questions, public safety, or immediate harm to a party. It can group cases with similar issues to save hearing time and resources.
But every suggestion it makes must be visible and explainable to the judge. No decision-making should take place in a black box. Every action should be capable of review, with an audit trail that ensures transparency. In this way, AI strengthens judicial control rather than diluting it.
GUARDRAILS AND RIGHTS
The adoption of technology in the courts must protect rights at every stage. Privacy safeguards are essential, both for litigants and for the information that flows through the system. Open technical standards should be preferred to avoid dependence on a single vendor. Digital inclusion must be planned from the start so that access to justice is not denied to those without personal access to technology. Assisted filing counters, public kiosks and proper training for court staff and the Bar can bridge this divide.
Technology should not become another barrier. Its purpose is to lower the cost of access, reduce delay and make the system fairer. This requires a design that matches the realities of our legal culture and the needs of those who use the courts every day.
BREAKING THE DEADLOCK WITH TECHNOLOGY
The lesson of Abdul Salam Khan v. M/s Bank Al-Habib Ltd. and others is not confined to one litigant’s experience. It reminds us that courts must examine their own processes with the same rigour they apply to the cases before them. In this judgment, the Supreme Court recognised that technology, properly applied, is not a luxury. It is part of the constitutional duty to deliver justice in time for it to matter.
We can keep asking citizens for patience while cases age into irrelevance. Or we can take proven tools and adapt them to our courts. Delay is not fate. It is the product of design. And design can be changed.
As a lawyer who works at the intersection of law and technology, I have seen how the right systems can cut weeks of work to hours. Legal AI automation has already shown it can clear dormant files, track case progress and give judges the information they need when they need it. These are not theories. They are realities in other jurisdictions.
The Supreme Court has set the direction. It is now for the profession to act with the same urgency we expect from our clients. The moment to build a faster, fairer, technology-enabled justice system is not years away. It is now.
