Cost of Access to Justice and Exclusion in Pakistan: An Empirical Analysis

Abstract

This paper examines the cost of access to justice and analyses whether such a cost is affordable by the average citizen of Pakistan. It is assumed that the foundation on which the current judicial system has evolved is unfair. It facilitates the rich and wealthy, while the poor are excluded as they cannot bear the cost of access to justice. The paper tests this assumption of accessibility due to cost presumption of exclusion empirically based on primary data collected from lawyers in the District Courts of Islamabad (Pakistan), together with data on the average income of representative individuals from the Household Integrated Economic Survey 2015-16 (PBS 2017). The paper shows the cost of access to justice in different types of cases across various types of courts in Islamabad, and then compares the cost with the average income per year of an ordinary citizen. It finds that the average cost of almost all types of cases is higher than what an average Pakistani can afford. The study notes that one of the reasons for this costly access to justice is because lawyers’ earnings are linked with the disputes on commercial basis. Hence, affordable access requires that judicial disputes between people should not become sources of earning for others and should be resolved with non-commercial objectives.