Substantive and Procedural law are essentials for the
administration of justice but sometimes procedural law
becomes hurdle in the true spirit of administration of justice

The burden of Procedural rules are causing hurdles to the lay man and access to the
justice is becoming difficult. Although the substantive law is neutral but the effect of procedure law stayed same which is pretending person to stand in court house. The procedural rules to be taken in account when litigants for a small claim to bring suit with others as a class action makes it impossible.This way such litigants thinks knocking the door of court house challenging. It is because collectively they can bringend to the systematic and company wide discrimination. Moreover there is always mention approach to Mediator not a judge. Where it is compelling to resolve dispute through mediation process which override the important
procedure protection. These instructions of procedure creates the access miserable to administration of justice.1 This article covers what are the arenas where the procedural rules are depriving individual to meaningful access to justice. Procedural rules such as standing and mootness limit who may take a particular legal argument, while substantive law defines the scope of constitutional statutory, and common law rights and obligations procedural rules can indirectly affects substantive rights by determining who can advance certain legal position in court.2 It is expedient that the procedural rules do present an access but still bring a formidable challenge for plaintiffs The concept of Procedural law is deeply rooted in ancient period which is till now universal in almost every judicial system. Its a remedial law that serves many distinct
issues. Procedural rules are the instrument which determines what actions to be taken to counter certain dispute. Law serves as the regulating instrument in a society where solely determines the boundaries of right and duties of the citizens. Where is broadly categorized in Substantive and procedural law. Substantive law “That part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights.” and “The technical aspects of a legal system that states the steps that need to followed while enforcing criminal or civil law.The conception of pleading was inherited from the British era from the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) till now it is enacted. Where it is mandatory to draft formal complaint by plaintiff and then notice to the defendant for the claim. The doctrine itself was established in American Supreme Court in case Conley V. Gibson4 a civil rights case brought by African-American railway workers challenging their union for failing to fairly represent their interests without regard to race. This land mark case established the rule that complaint will be dismissed if could prove “no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief”. Any of the lawsuit the system has to cross check the merits of suit of plaintiffs. Although the Conley case was not enough “set of facts” about suit in-spite recommend another thing that either “set of facts” are possible or not, they have to dealt with the fact is plausible. In case Ashcroft v. Iqbal5 in a constitutional right case where the court had clarified that new case applies to all civil actions including discrimination claims, and the way the judge would determine if something is plausible would use his “judicial experience and common sense. Unfortunately today a lay man needs these hurdle to face to get access to justice but it is a formidable issue to be dealt by civil litigants. We may say it’s a systematic
bar which is specially designed for litigants which may be unintentional. If look specifically to the Pakistan’s legal system the same process of pleading is must to appear before the court if law, Order VI rule1-2 provided that all the material facts should be scribe in pleading if any of issue not stated it will not be canvassed in proceedings. Although for the same issue amendment could be done as per Order VI Rule 17 but still with such restriction. From here we can see every aspect of the procedural rules are a kind of restriction for litigants.Court of law seeks from a litigant to follow each and every rule provided by law and knock the door, and when any such irregularity seems the litigants finds door of court of law miserable for them to reach. We often see pleadings of the litigants were been turn down by court over minor issues because of procedural rules. The whole suit be instituted and decreed but at the end the jurisdiction will be challenged and the all process will be in vain for a lay man who knocks the door of court for justice.Similarly if litigant fails to produce any document needed to produce before the court the suit could be dismissed without even hearing the suit on merits. It we may
say is mall fruit of procedural rules. Delays in justice delivery undermine public confidence in the legal system and deny individuals timely access to justice, perpetuating injustice and frustration.The strict limitation rules has no flexibility for even slight delay for a legitimate claim.
These sort of hurdles presses the reach of lay man towards the justice. Where if we see
substantively you have a right but still there is caution if you fail to claim it in the specified time it will be vanish.Procedural laws fail to adequately safeguard individuals’ rights and protect against abuses of power within the legal process. Inadequate procedural safeguards result in unfair treatment, denial of due process, and violations of fundamental rights, particularly for vulnerable and marginalised populations.In Pakistan, adjournments are common, and they often result in prolonged trial periods. Lawyers may request adjournments for various reasons, including the absence of a witness, the need for more time to prepare, or a delay in filing documents. While some adjournments may be legitimate, they often misused to prolong the trial unnecessarily. Furthermore, legal technicalities and procedural errors can lead to delays as cases may be dismissed, refiled, or appealed, causing an extended duration of legal proceedings.7In almost every kind of suits the push for the parties will be to the out court mediation or settlement. It is been encouraged in law and by court also where the proper
measures and actual treatment is not given. The sole purpose there in mediation is just to bring the parties to the brink of settlement. Which is loss of time and delay for a every individual who is seeking justice but had directed to mediation first to in-intentionally resist them from coming to court. I would say there are multiple factors slowing down our legal system but unnecessary
and outdated procedural rules are also one of them. These rules also systematically
depriving lay man from justice. Lets have a look at the statistics of pendency of cases
in courts. Approximately 1,826,642 (more than 1.8 million) cases are waiting in the entire nation; however, only 1,523253 (more than 1.5million) cases are pending with the District Judiciary of Pakistan, making up roughly more than 80% of the total number of cases (Ali & Hassan, 2022). At the District Judiciary, theratio of pending cases to the backlog is substantially larger. Similar circumstances exist in the neighbouring country of India, where there are more than 30 million active court cases.While there are currently 200, 928,19 cases outstanding in Pakistani District Courts, this represents nearly 70% of all cases. There are 459 courts and approximately 15340 judges in India’s district judiciary. Indian district courts take ten years to resolve pending cases
(Narasappa, 2019). Each Indian District Court judge has a workload of roughly 1310 cases.If no new cases are filed, it will take the district judiciary of Pakistan an estimated 6.875 (about 7) months to resolve all outstanding cases, which is not really conceivable (Tabassum et al., 2021).Procedural rules, their judicial interpretations, and evolving trends can create significant, yet often disregarded, barriers to justice. These ostensibly impartial regulations and their application may appear harmless or uninteresting. Nonetheless, it is crucial to identify when and how such procedural obstacles become excessively burdensome—blocking parties’ access not merely to courts, class actions, and judicial officers, but to the attainment of justice. This situation represents a genuine crisis within the legal field.

References:

1 Malveaux, Suzzete M.() “Clearing Civil Procedural Hurdles in the Quest for Justice” Ohio Northern University Law Review
Vol.37: Iss 3, Article 4.
2 Leslie, Christopher R. (2001) “Procedural Rules or Procedural Pretexts?: A Case Study of Procedural Hurdles in
Constitutional Challenges to the Texas Sodomy Law, “Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 89: Iss 4, Article 7. 3 Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed ’thelawdictionary.org’.
4 Conley V. Gibson 355, U.S 41 (1957).
5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal 129 S. Ct 1935 (2009). 6 AsadUllah, South Waziristan Procedural flaws: Dawn, April 26th, 2024.
7 Rohina Malik “The Impact of Procedural Delays on Criminal Trials in Pakistan: Causes and Solutions” Al-Kashaf
Reseach journal for Social Sciences. 8 Imran, M., Idrees, R. Q., & Saeed, M. A. (2024). Pendency of Cases in Pakistan: Causes and
Consequences. Current Trends in Law and Society, 4(1), 52–61.

Muhammad Murtaza, University of Science and Technology Kohat