A separate branch for monitoring and inspecting the lower judiciary exists within the High Courts through administrative orders, which are basically ad hock measures and can therefore be scrapped anytime. These ought to be given the cover by law and duly institutionalized. This branch is headed by a High Court Judge, and supported by District and Sessions Judges (DSJs). The High Court Member Inspection Team (MIT) is assisted by Additional MIT and Assistant Registrar.” There are three main responsibilities of this Inspection Team:

 1. Process complaints against lower judiciary;
 2. Inspect subordinate courts; and
 3. Monitor the performance of the lower judiciary.

The District and Sessions Judge (DSJ) is responsible for the district judicial administration. It is the obligation of DSJs to acquaint themselves with the working of the courts subordinate to them, and to take notice of any irregularities committed. Furthermore, they also have powers to inspect registers/ records periodically and make observations. While inspecting the subordinate courts, it is also the duty of the inspecting officer to take note of unnecessary adjournments. The Presiding Officer must be initially warned, and if irregularity continues, it must be reported to the High Court. Inspection notes of the inspecting officer are forwarded to the DSJ who, after proper scrutiny, forwards these to the High Court with observations.

According to the Sindh High Court Annual Report 2003, for example, all judicial officers in Sindh are appointed under the Sindh Civil Service Act 1973. They fall under Efficiency and Discipline (E&D) Rules in case of any complaint received by the High Court alleging corruption, inefficiency, illegality and/or irregularity. In the first instance, comments are called from the very officer complained against. If any substance is found after examining the complaint and comments, the matter is referred to “competent authority” to serve “show cause notice or charge sheet and by conducting discreet inquiry.” In case of false or baseless complaint, action is taken against the complainant: if an advocate the matter is referred to the provincial Bar Council, and if a private individual it is sent to the DSJ for appropriate action. In year 2003, 50 complaints were received against judicial officers, only 12 were found fit for initial disciplinary proceedings, major penalties were imposed on 3 and minor penalties on 8 judicial officers, and 30 complaints were still pending.” The annual report of the subordinate judiciary is based on reports submitted by the inspecting officer. Other High Court reports were silent on this aspect.

The efficacy of these mechanisms from PGR standpoint is seriously in doubt. The system was envisaged with the sole purpose of monitoring and inspection of the subordinate courts. It has not been designed to address problems confronting consumers of justice. The perspective on redress of citizens’ grievance redress is altogether missing. The Judicial Statistics of Pakistan 2002, for instance, is totally silent on the number of cases that were investigated and disposed of against subordinate judiciary on account of various alleged irregularities and malfunctioning. The mechanisms lack Monitoring & Evaluation as well as PGR framework.