John Rawls’s paradigmatic theory of justice (1971) triggered great debates in understanding and approaching Justice in modern times. His theory perceives justice as fairness, making the elements of society act in a rational manner under conditions of equality. He deviated from the classical utilitarian concept of administering justice and instead offered to create a hypothetical ‘Original Position’ where a new contract is written to define unique principles of achieving justice. As the contents signify the idealistic approach of Rawls, this great stir in political philosophy also received equal critical scrutiny by none other than his own friends, like Amartya Sen. In order to constructively redefine some of the idealist fault lines in the understanding of justice, Amartya Sen’s famous book ‘The Idea of Justice’ (2009) is a remarkable reference. He delved too deeply in a surgical mode to question different aspects of Rawls’s approach to justice. Sen categorically refuted that humans are not driven by idealist positions, but by a set of realistic, culture-specific solutions to create order in society. He digressed from Rawls’ idealist perspectives to the provision of practical improvements in the system. Sen emphatically talked about guaranteeing freedom and public reasoning rather than developing institutions. He centres the debate on the human aspect, which is driven by its own needs and challenges.

These are interesting shades of great intellectual endeavours to suggest a suitable and result-oriented way to address issues of justice in modern times. It is all the more crucial to go deeper in exploring how post-colonial societies have encountered such Formal Laws to help guide them on the path of justice. Once treated as loyal subjects of Her Majesty, how, after gaining independence, could the newly transformed citizens know their virtual fundamental rights? A case study of Pakistan is simply sufficient to expose the hollowness of the transformative experience. It tended to be worse from worse in the colonial period. Justice turned out to be a far cry from the presence of an alien scheme of judicial administration once construed a century earlier. This way, Amarta Sen seems to be closer to reality than Rawls’ idealistic approach to justice. Every society has a different experience and a separate quest for justice. It is significant to contextualise the dynamics and work out the real challenges creating impediments to justice.

A prominent expert in law, Osama Siddique, has exposed the insidious canker of the Pakistani Judicial system in his recent book. He successfully takes the well-calibrated research about the state of justice in Pakistan. It is an alien justice for the people and society. It has rendered no constructive and curative output. Millions of people every day throng to courts to find some solution to their litigations, but the entire scheme of administration of justice mocks at their expectations with the system. Interestingly, a very sharp and incisive post-mortem of judicial reforms, too, has been done by the author to bring home the redundancy of the efforts unless vital questions are not understood. There exists, according to the author, a serious ‘historical incongruity and incompatibility of the Pakistani laws and legal systems with its society’.

The under review book ‘Pakistan’s experience with Formal Laws: An Alien Justice’ is a remarkable account of the multifarious challenges facing Pakistan’s judicial system at every significant aspect of its administration and operation. In three broad areas, the book has some meaningful conclusions to bring home. It mainly traces the historical colonial factors shaping the legal framework of Pakistan’s Judicial System in post-colonial times. Secondly, it elaborates on the peculiarities of ongoing legal processes, adding to the dilemmas and miseries of the common folks. This part is marvelously assessed through a comprehensive set of surveys while selecting litigants visiting the courts in the city of Lahore, the provincial capital of Punjab province. The third significant area is regarding the critical evaluation of reform efforts. The author takes a critical review of the millions of dollars in foreign loans/aid spent on justice sector reform, rendering no favourable outcomes for the have-nots of society, who are still unable to understand the court language and judicial orders. Hostage to the intermediary legal fraternity, the challenge gets compounded by the inner inertia of the court system, only prolonging the dispute instead of addressing Speedy justice.

The poverty of imagination and creativity is self-evident in policy making, where no transformational, indigenous and speedy mechanism has been proposed to address the hardships of the litigants. Civil disputes are a classic example of the prevailing inertia. Likewise, in a delinked equation between the formal law and informal solutions, the public dependence on the judicial-legal system is fast diminishing. Ironically, the author laments that the much-needed reform efforts are being championed by such ‘experts’ who are unaware of the local experience of common folks. Similarly, devoid of fresh policy paradigms, certain meaningful debates on the restructuring of the system are not being taken up by all the relevant stakeholders. Nonetheless, a weak democratic society with an overdeveloped institutional imbalance faces grave challenges in addressing a change in colonial offshoots. It is in this very backdrop that the under review book sparks a great debate. The book is full of quality references from great world scholars to bring home to us the very turbulent experience with an alien justice system in the country. It is so heartening to see a great research work rendered with utmost commitment to enlighten the readers about the state of affairs as they are.

The given research work exposes the inability of the Formal Law in Pakistan to render a durable and just solution to the conflicting issues and woes of the citizens. A redesign of the system is unavoidable. But the efforts should first be preceded by the conceptualisation of the mutually agreed form of justice. The laws, practices, procedures and code of conduct demand a sea change in a fast-moving digital world. Pakistan has experienced alien justice compromising public reasoning and social progress. The deep fissures in society have thus resulted in poor human development and persistent economic failures. Osama Siddique suggests a ‘larger, more democratic and richer consultations’ even at the annoyance of the ‘cultural hegemony of law’ as a way forward.

The writer is a Senior Superintendent of Police currently serving in Punjab. He can be reached at tariqazizsindhu786 @gmail.com

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times on October 4, 2025.