• Legal fraternity says ‘facilitative measure’ has turned into ‘gatekeeping mechanism’
• Notes technical glitches make access to justice needlessly complicated
LAHORE: The enforcement of mandatory biometric verification for litigants filing cases has triggered widespread concern across Punjab’s legal community, with lawyers describing the requirement as an unreasonable obstacle to access to justice.
Notified in January and in force since March of this year, the move was envisioned as a facilitative, technical measure.
According to a statement attributed to LHC Chief Justice Aalia Neelum, the system would “help curb fake litigation, prevent impersonation and eliminate the use of bogus witnesses and sureties”.
It was described as a significant step towards modernising the judiciary and safeguarding the integrity of judicial proceedings, which would enhance the credibility of the judiciary and provide a secure and efficient mechanism for conducting proceedings.
But after a few months of seeing it in action, lawyers argue that the measure has effectively become a gatekeeping mechanism, disproportionately affecting poor and vulnerable litigants’ ability to access justice.
Some see the initiative as evolving into a revenue-generation exercise rather than meaningful judicial reform, as the process has imposed an additional financial burden through a “pay-to-access” model, where the officially prescribed fee of Rs200 often rises to Rs300 in practice.
According to members of the legal fraternity Dawn spoke to, serious infrastructure deficiencies and recurring technical glitches are disrupting the timely filing of urgent matters.
The Lahore Bar Association (LBA) has already issued an ultimatum to the Lahore High Court (LHC), urging it to rationalise the biometric verification requirement.
Representatives of the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) and the LBA complain that the LHC introduced the new regime without consulting them.
They told Dawn that the decision was made after consultations only with the Pakistan Bar Council and the Punjab Bar Council, the country’s and province’s regulatory bar bodies, respectively.
LHCBA President Babar Murtaza said the biometric system had already been implemented when his cabinet assumed office in March this year. However, he said the bar leadership later met the LHC administration committee and conveyed the legal fraternity’s concerns regarding the system.
According to him, the bar was informed that the system had been introduced pursuant to a decision of the National Judicial (Policy-making) Committee (NJPMC).
Mr Murtaza maintained that justice should be swift and inexpensive. He pointed out that the validity period of biometric verification was initially restricted to 24 hours but was later extended to 72 hours following the bar’s intervention.
He demanded that the validity period be extended to at least one week.
He said the bar supported biometric verification for filing main petitions but opposed its requirement for subsequent civil miscellaneous applications.
Criminal cases, witness verification
Both Mr Murtaza and LBA President Irfan Hayat Bajwa termed biometric verification “unnecessary” in criminal matters, including pre-arrest and post-arrest bail petitions.
They argued that once biometric verification was conducted in pre-arrest bail cases, a suspect could already be easily traced by law enforcement agencies, rendering the purpose of seeking protective bail redundant.
In post-arrest bail cases, they added, the accused was already in judicial custody and should not be subjected to additional verification requirements.
The lawyers also criticised the requirement for witnesses to undergo biometric verification before recording statements. They questioned who would refund the fee if testimony could not be recorded on the scheduled date because of adjournments or other reasons.
A litigant told Dawn that he failed to file a stay application in time because of a technical fault in Nadra’s biometric system. He said access to justice had become unnecessarily complicated due to avoidable technicalities.
Revenue at litigants’ cost
The fee collected through the biometric verification process also includes a share for the relevant tehsil or district bar association.
However, Mr Bajwa said lawyers did not want revenue at the expense of poor litigants. “We are against any such revenue-generation model,” he said.
He added that the LBA was still awaiting a response from the LHC regarding recommendations submitted nearly two weeks ago.
Former High Court Bar Association-Multan president Syed Riazul Hassan Gilani has also lodged a formal complaint with Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi against the biometric system implemented in Punjab.
He alleged that of the mandatory Rs200 fee, Rs20 earmarked as “financial assistance” for employees of the high court and district judiciary amounted to “legalised extortion”.
Mr Gilani argued that compelling litigants to pay judicial staff in addition to their government salaries risked normalising monetary demands under the guise of welfare.
He pointed out that the Islamabad High Court charges only Rs30 for biometric verification and e-affidavits through Nadra, without imposing any additional welfare levy.
The senior lawyer also questioned the jurisdiction of the NJPMC and provincial chief justices to impose mandatory fees or levies on litigants.
He maintained that making access to justice contingent upon a “pay-to-access” model violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and disproportionately burdened vulnerable, illiterate and marginalised segments of society.
Published in Dawn, May 30th, 2026
