Comparative international experience supports this approach. Rwanda's Gacaca courts and Sierra Leone's Local Courts system demonstrate that community-based justice mechanisms can contribute meaningfully to justice delivery when subject to state oversight, procedural safeguards, and institutional accountability. Reform is therefore not an attempt to romanticise tradition, but a calibrated legal response to institutional constraints and social realities, aimed at expanding access to justice without departing from constitutional principles.
Proposed Reforms
In light of the foregoing analysis, the following reforms are proposed.
Integration into ADR Framework
First, the jirga should be formally integrated into Pakistan's existing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) framework under the Dispute Resolution Councils (DRCs), operating strictly as accredited mediation units rather than parallel courts. The DRCs should remain the principal regulatory authority for ADR governance, responsible for registration, certification, procedural standards, oversight, and enforcement. Jirgas would derive legal validity solely from DRC accreditation, ensuring that customary practice is brought within the constitutional order. In this arrangement, DRCs provide legal authority, while jirgas ensure local accessibility and community acceptance in areas where formal justice is distant or slow.
Standardized and Inclusive Composition
Second, jirga units should function as DRC-certified mediation bodies with a standardised and inclusive composition. Each unit should comprise three to five community representatives of recognised local standing, selected on the basis of integrity, impartiality, and knowledge of local dispute-resolution practices rather than lineage or tribal status, alongside one legally trained liaison officer, one accredited ADR mediator, and one religious scholar. Women's participation should be mandatory in family, inheritance, and gender-related disputes through mixed or women-led panels supported by trained female mediators, ensuring compliance with constitutional equality guarantees and addressing historical exclusion. In addition, one to two representatives from marginalised groups, including religious minorities and transgender persons, should be included.
Territorial Mapping and Registration
Third, jirga units should be established through a territorial mapping system under Dispute Resolution Councils (DRCs), based on institutional need, caseload pressure, and gaps in access to formal justice. Priority should be given to underserved or overburdened areas where formal courts are distant or dysfunctional. Each jirga should be linked to a clearly defined local cluster, such as a village, union council, or group of contiguous settlements, depending on population density and dispute load. Proceedings may be held in registered community spaces, including hujras, village councils, or designated mediation centres. All jirgas should be geo-registered within the DRC system to ensure traceability and jurisdictional clarity, and to prevent the emergence of overlapping or unauthorised parallel structures. Those operating outside this framework should have no legal recognition.
Legal Limits and Oversight
Fourth, jirga units should operate strictly within clearly defined legal limits, confined to reconcilable civil disputes and compoundable criminal offences as provided under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2017. All matters involving non-compoundable criminal offences, violations of constitutional rights, questions of public interest, or the imposition of coercive customary sanctions should remain exclusively within the jurisdiction of the formal judicial system. All decisions should be recorded in writing, registered with the relevant DRC, and remain subject to judicial and appellate review. An internal DRC review mechanism should also allow either party to seek reconsideration of a jirga decision before a case proceeds to court.
Training and Code of Conduct
Fifth, all members should undergo structured training in constitutional law, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), mediation, and human rights standards, with an emphasis on gender-sensitive adjudication, and should be subject to periodic certification and performance review. Practices inconsistent with legal and rights-based standards should be excluded. A binding code of conduct and procedural guidelines should govern all jirga units, ensuring voluntary participation, informed consent of parties, impartiality, prohibition of coercion or extrajudicial sanctions, and reasoned decisions in line with constitutional protections.
Statutory Framework and Phased Implementation
Sixth, a statutory framework under provincial ADR legislation should regulate accreditation, jurisdiction, procedural safeguards, and oversight mechanisms. Implementation should proceed in phases, beginning with pilot districts and expanding based on institutional performance and compliance.
Conclusion
If reformed in letter and spirit, the jirga can extend access to justice in underserved regions, ease the burden on the courts, and bring customary dispute resolution into alignment with constitutional guarantees of fairness, dignity, and due process, restoring, in the process, a measure of public confidence in both the legal system and the state.
Sumreen Fatima
The writer has a background in public policy and philosophy. She can be reached at samreenfatima67584@gmail.com
