Procedural Justice in Police-Led Grievance Mechanisms: Evidence from Khuli Kacheri in Lahore, Pakistan
Muhammad Kamran — BS Criminology, University of Sargodha · muhammadkamran6067@Gmail.com
Abstract
Delays are structural issues of criminal justice system in Pakistan. By 2024, the Lahore courts had a pending case backlog of more than half a million cases, and as of then the minor criminal cases took anywhere between 3-5 years to be resolved. This disproportionately affects the poor, particularly those who earn a living from their daily earnings, survivors of domestic violence and those who live in rural areas who are unable to afford the expense of a long litigation process. To overcome this structural deficiency, the Punjab Police organized a public hearing forum named Khuli Kacheri in which citizens' complaints are taken directly by the top brass of the police. This qualitative case study is based on theories of Islamic Justice Theory, Restorative Justice Theory and Procedural Justice Theory which provides an insight into the success of Khuli Kacheri with regard to justice in Lahore. Sixteen semi-structured interviews were held in four groups of stakeholders, followed by non-participant observation and documentary analysis. Eight themes, which were reduced and persistent, emerged through thematic analysis: (1) delay (but not too much), (2) procedural fairness and voice, (3) non-implementation of SSP orders, (4) increased police accountability, (5) marginalisation of vulnerable groups, (6) jurisdictional tension with formal courts, (7) conditional restoration of public trust, and (8) gaps in structural follow-up. On the same day disposal of minor cases reported is approximately 70-80 per cent from administrative data provided through IG Khuli Kacheri portal by the Punjab Information Technology Board and is restricted because of implementation-related concerns and gender accessibility concerns. The study concludes that there is a genuine potential of Khuli Kacheri to be a public justice, albeit limited, which can be achieved by making Khuli Kacheri legislationally known and holding it to account, and by monitoring digitally and by implementing it sensitively towards gender. The findings contribute to the existing empirical justice innovation literature in the Global South, and directly inform police reform in Punjab, Pakistan's obligations under the Article 37(d) of the Constitution and SDG 16.
1. Introduction
Good institutions that are accessible, non-discriminatory, accountable and responsive to citizens are essential to the effective functioning of the rule of law. The rule of law does not only depend on the existence of laws or constitutional guarantees, but also on the proper functioning of public institutions in terms of how those laws are applied, including their fairness, efficiency, transparency and freedom from arbitrary discrimination. The principle of that is of utmost significance in Pakistan's context in relation to the criminal justice sector as the police are the first body or institution that citizens encounter when they become victims of crime or are accused of criminal acts. Due to lack of ease in formal complaints, police assistance and prompt decision making, formal legal rights might have paper equivalent but lack practicality. According to the World Justice Project (WJP, 2025), an effective criminal justice system is a key element of the rule of law as it offers the traditional avenue for grievance resolution and for dealing with criminal offences. Pakistan's criminal justice score in 2025 was comparatively low at 101st position among 143 countries, with the scores for criminal investigations, impartiality and due process being comparatively weak.
The constitution of Pakistan sets in place a critical base for equal treatment. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law to all citizens as enshrined in Article 25(1) of the Constitution. This provision implies that the state has no right to effectively protect some members of the citizenry without an effective protection of others who are equally situated to members of the citizenry. The equality before the law thus has a formal and practical aspect. The law must say "equal" but the police stations, investigating officers, prosecutors and courts must give citizens reasonably equal opportunities to seek legal protection. While the principle of equal protection does not demand the same treatment in every case, people who are similarly situated should be treated similarly, and any differences must be fairly based and must have a reasonable connection to a legitimate purpose (Raza, 2023).
The challenge comes when constitutional rights and promises meet institutional inefficiency. When it comes to criminal justice administration, the delays in the initial phase can reverberate through the entire justice process. A First Information Report (FIR) is the registration of information on an offence, which is considered as a cognizable offence, and it marks the beginning of a criminal case. If the FIR is not filed promptly, the complainant might think the police are not interested in filing the FIR or that the justice would be based on personal influence, social position, money or contacts. Likewise, weak and delayed investigations can impact evidence collection, identification of suspects, witness statements, and recovery of physical evidence and subsequent prosecution. Administrative delay at the police level may therefore be a more general justice problem than a police administration issue.
Coordinating the institutions of the criminal justice system is an added challenge. The work done by police investigators, prosecutors, forensic agencies, courts, prisons, and other government agencies are interdependent. When there is inefficient transfer of information between these institutions, cases may be subjected to further delays in proceeding. In such a case, a system of criminal justice can de facto fail without any institutional failure. This is a wider problem as shown in the WJP assessment where Pakistan's 2025 criminal justice score was 0.35, its sub score for effective criminal investigation was 0.32, and its sub score for impartiality of the criminal justice system was merely 0.27. The following indicators illustrate the relevance of improving accessibility and responsiveness of police institutions to the broader rule-of-law agenda.
In this context the 'open court' or khuli kacheri is a different way of obtaining administrative redress. The concept is to give citizens a chance to directly address their grievances to higher-ranking police personnel but not just the hierarchical complaint system. The value of this is that it is a method of minimizing institutional gaps between citizens and decision makers. With typical administrative structure, a grievance could be raised with a lower-ranking official before going through a series of reviews to reach a higher-ranking official. Every extra layer can present a chance for delay, filtering, misinformation, or a lack of communication of the citizen's actual complaint. The aim of an open forum is to minimise this gap by providing an opportunity for the complainant to address senior officials.
Accessibility, monitoring and accountability are significant features of the Punjab Police's complaint-management framework. Punjab Police's Complaint Management System is designed to be functional at police stations throughout Punjab, enabling the citizens to file applications at the front desk of the police station, provide them with an electronic tracking number, and oversee their complaints by top-ranking supervisory staff. The system is also connected with the Police Station Record Management System and there are other avenues available for citizens to complain of such things as the failure to file an FIR, poor investigation, unlawful detention, fake/falsified FIRs, police negligence, and demands for illegally taking gifts (Punjab Police, 2026).
The concept of khuli kacheri is of special significance in this regard as it changes the very character of the relationship between police and the citizen. The system does away with the need for citizens to go through a long procedure to get to higher officials to hear their grievances. The previous complaints procedure used to be time-consuming as citizens had to write in on the complaints or visit in Lahore to meet the Inspector General's office, according to the Punjab Information Technology Board. The next grievance mechanism put in place enabled tracking and centralized monitoring of grievances, thereby enhancing visibility of grievances in the police administration (Punjab Information Technology Board [PITB], n.d.).
Having direct access can also enhance accountability. Local officers of police may be called upon to give explanations or justify delays or rectify failures if senior officers receive complaints directly. For instance, under its complaints mechanism, Punjab Police will refer complaints to the senior officers and even provide a time frame for certain complaints. Complaints on non-registration of FIRs, and innocent arrest etc., are subject to certain reporting obligations, while complaints about illegal detention and illegal gratification receive special treatment. The system also includes a feature to verify answers, and complaints should not simply be considered as being addressed if the officer has responded; the complainant's stance may also be verified for the process (Punjab Police, 2024).
This distinction is crucial because access to a building doesn't equal justice. A forum for citizens to speak is not an effective forum for providing effective remedies. Hence the success of khuli kacheri should be measured in terms of administrative action taken on the complaints, recording of decisions, complaints given explanations, accountability of police officers, and rectification of the systemic issues. As far as complaints are concerned, the current Punjab Police Complaint Management System has a significant number of complaints being handled, with hundreds of thousands of complaints, and numerous complaints that are deemed as disposed or redressed. Administrative statistics must be used with caution, however, as they will show only the number of complaints resolved, and do not show the quality, fairness, or sustainability of the remedy offered.
Open forums also have a great impact that can enhance public trust. Citizens' trust in criminal justice is partly based on their belief that justice is being attuned to them. If citizens feel that their grievances will be processed through the bureaucracy and go away, they may be less inclined to report offences or report on abuse. On the other hand, interaction with top-level officials can convey that concerns are taken seriously. This is especially true for people who don't have political power, money or personal relationships. This can therefore be an aid to procedural justice as citizens are made to feel heard and treated with dignity, even if the outcome of the procedure is not exactly in their favour.
However, khuli kacheri should not be looked upon as a substitute for structural police and judicial reform. These are issues which cannot be solved by an open court alone, which cannot clear case load, enhance forensic skills, streamline investigation, boost prosecution or fix general institutional coordination issues. The WJP's observations on the criminal justice system in Pakistan suggest that the system is flawed in both investigation and adjudication, impartiality, corruption and due process. Likewise, police accountability issues raised by human rights NGOs show the need for greater institutional monitoring (Human Rights Commission of Pakistan [HRCP], 2026).
So, the most important thing about 'khuli kacheri' is that it can be used as a part of a broader accountability system. It can offer citizens a convenient place to connect with senior officials, highlight issues that are commonly experienced in administration, uncover missed opportunities at the lower levels of policing and offer opportunities for rapid response. It would be further enhanced by clear procedures and tracking of complaints, an independent verification process, consistent timelines for complaints to be responded to, no retaliation against complaints, gender-sensitive complaint processes, digital records and regular publication of anonymized performance data. The measures could make it possible to convert the already existing grievance forum into a lasting institutional tool for enhancing the responsiveness of the police in the country.
Finally, the connection between khuli kacheri and the rule of law may be explained by the principle that there must be institutional access and effective remedies to uphold legal equality. The principle of equality before and equal protection of the law, is enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution and the capacity of the institutions to hear citizens and deal with them fairly is the basis of its working. The 'khuli kacheri' initiative takes up one important aspect of this challenge by bringing the citizens closer to the senior police decision makers. But its importance is not just that people are afforded the chance to grumble, it is that the "filter" between the complainant and the authority can be streamlined. If backed by clear monitoring, fixed deadlines, fair investigations and effective accountability, the direct grievance system can enhance the responsiveness of police officers and help re-establish public trust in Pakistan's criminal justice system. In this context the term khuli kacheri is a practical institutional link between the ideals of equality that were enshrined in the Constitution and the day-to-day lives of citizens seeking justice.
Assessments, however, of Khuli Kacheri are almost entirely focussed on the disposal of complaints, and the experiences of complainants, and the opinions of police officers, lawyers or judicial officers that have come into contact with the mechanism are rarely documented. This study attempts to address that issue in the long form by studying the case of Khuli Kacheri in Lahore in a qualitative sense and does not just ask the question 'is there a disposition of cases', but investigates whether Khuli Kacheri is perceived as fair, whether instructions are followed, and whether it improves accountability or only seems to.
The objectives of the research were to understand the following problems: role of Khuli Kacheri in the context of justice; documentation of the perception of stakeholders regarding its effectiveness in grievance redress mechanism; identification of the major problems in its implementation and last but not least, formulate evidence-based policy recommendation on strengthening the accountability of police officers and access to justice through Khuli Kacheri. The four objectives were achieved by four research questions: What is the role of Khuli Kacheri in the promotion of justice? Stakeholders' perception about the effectiveness of Khuli Kacheri? What are the challenges faced in implementing Khuli Kacheri? What changes are needed to give Khuli Kacheri the power?
The Historic and Theoretical Background
The criminal justice system is, however, a largely colonial system, which is grounded on other colonial laws like the Pakistan Penal Code (1860), the Code of Criminal Procedure (1898), and the Police Act (1861) aimed at assuring administrative control, not fair justice, for the people. These issues — corruption, political influence and inadequate supervision — have persisted with each successive police commission (1960, 1985 and 1996). Police Order 2002, the most ambitious to be enacted since the Independence, introduced independent oversight bodies and community participation but was greatly diluted in Punjab when amended under the same order in 2013 and the executive control over police remains largely in place.
The tradition of Khuli Kacheri is also a larger regional tradition of direct public involvement in interaction with rulers and administrators, which dates back to the Mughal darbar, and in religious terms, to the public hearing of disputes, non-discriminatory in nature (majlis). This lineage provided a legitimizing cultural and religious basis for the mechanism which administrative design would not provide. It has also been reinforced with technology such as the use of e-infrastructure for documenting and recording complaints, e.g. the complaints are now being documented through the Punjab Information Technology Board's IG Khuli Kacheri portal, which has to date received complaints of over 1.2 million and 70-80 percent of eligible minor complaints resolved on the same day.
2.1 Theoretical Framework
The analysis could be understood from three perspectives: Procedural Justice Theory, Islamic Justice Theory and Restorative Justice Theory. The frameworks offer various but interrelated accounts of citizen's perceptions of police institutions, conceptions of justice service and the role of grievance resolution mechanisms like open courts (khuli kachehri) as a way to function as a source of institutional legitimacy. Procedural Justice Theory is concerned primarily with fairness in the way decisions are made by authorities; Islamic Justice Theory is normative and constitutional to the extent that it emphasizes justice, equity, impartiality, and timely redress; and Restorative Justice Theory is concerned with the process to repair harm, restore relationships, and engage the people who were harmed in the process of resolving the conflict. Collectively, these views enable the analysis to go beyond the scope of simply asking if police complaints are formally investigated and whether they are "heard." All in all, these perspectives enable analysis to look beyond the question of formally processing complaints by the police and to the question of whether citizens believe that complaints are actually heard, are treated fairly, are morally legitimate, and can help to repair the relationships between citizens and the public institutions that are damaged.
Procedural Justice Theory is most closely linked to the research of Tom R. Tyler (1990), who suggests that acceptance of decisions by lawful authorities will depend on the perceived fairness of the decision-making process as well as whether the person receives an outcome that is favorable. The dichotomy between outcome-based satisfaction and process-based legitimacy is key to appreciating police/citizen relationships. If the citizen feels that his/her complaint was heard in a respectful manner, decided fairly, and he or she was given the chance to explain the circumstances, then a citizen may lose a specific complaint, but have faith in the police. On the other hand, a positive result can lead to the opposite effect if the citizen feels that the process was arbitrary, discriminatory, corrupt or biased by personal relations.
Tyler's theory highlights a number of significant aspects of procedural justice. The first is participation/voice. The more people can share their experiences with authorities and raise their concerns before a decision is made, the more likely they are to consider the authorities legitimate. The second is neutrality — decisions should be made based on the same and consistent principles, not on favouritism, political influence, wealth or personal relations. Respectful Treatment is the third. Citizens expect to be treated with respect by the government, irrespective of their social or economic status. The fourth is believable motives, which indicates whether citizens trust that public officials are trying to serve public interest instead of trying to serve their own or institutional interests (Tyler, 2006, 2020).
These dimensions are directly linked to the khuli kachehri mechanism. The open court gives citizens a chance to bring their complaints to the attention of the top law enforcement officials. The direct interaction can help reinforce the "voice" concept as citizens are not forced to go through a lower-level of official or lengthy administrative processes. Likewise, the involvement of senior officers can help to build a sense of neutrality because complaints can be looked at in a different institutional context than the one in which the problem arose. A respectful treatment and trustworthy motives can also be conveyed through careful listening to complaints, providing explanations, offering remedies, and being clear in communication with complainants.
The importance of procedural justice is especially apparent in the context of policing, because police officers have a significant amount of coercive power. They are empowered to submit criminal complaints, conduct investigations, make arrests, gather evidence and take other lawful measures. Citizens have the right to trust that police powers are applied fairly, as they can have a significant impact on citizens' freedom, property, dignity and security. Procedural fairness may thus be a significant source of police legitimacy. If citizens view the police as an authority, they will have a greater tendency to willingly obey the law and cooperate with the police (Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002).
Procedural justice, legitimacy and cooperation are mutually linked in the context of Pakistan. When citizens already feel that the police lack legitimacy because they are inaccessible, are too clerical, too discriminatory, or too corrupt, direct grievance mechanisms can offer opportunities to make the police more legitimate. If the citizen has had problems in the past in filing an FIR, getting an investigation or a response, it will lead him to hold negative views of the police. Where this is followed by a significant opportunity to speak directly to a senior official and a prompt and fair answer, perceptions of the institution could be enhanced. Procedural justice therefore offers a theoretical basis for the possibility that how interactions occur in a grievance process can impact overarching attitudes about policing.
But the theory of procedural justice has another important weakness when the corruption or institutional misbehaviour are pervasive. Not all procedural fairness is sufficient to establish legitimacy, as argued by Tankebe (2013). Citizens can differentiate the individual interactions with police officers from their attitudes toward the police institution itself. An officer can treat a citizen in a courteous and fair manner in one incident, and the citizens can still feel there is something wrong with the institution of the police. However, the result is not institutional trust for the simple reason that positive individual interactions do not automatically lead to institutional trust.
This is particularly crucial when considering khuli kachehri. While the mechanism works effectively at addressing individual complaints, if larger issues like corrupt police, political manipulation, delayed investigation and discriminatory policing persist, citizens may see the mechanism as a small administrative step instead of an overall institutional change. In this regard, procedural justice is clearly a necessary but not sufficient condition for enhancing police legitimacy. The long-term effect will be influenced by the consistency of institutional practices, and by fair individual interactions.
The second one, Islamic Justice Theory, offers a different perspective on the definition of justice in Pakistan. Procedural Justice Theory focuses on citizen's perceptions of the fairness of the processes of government, while Islamic Justice Theory focuses on the moral and normative responsibility of government to create justice. There are two key ideas: "adl" and "qist". Adl is often used in connection with justice, fairness and balancing things, and qist means fair and just treatment. These principles make justice a fundamental requirement that goes beyond the 'administrative convenience'.
Public authority, from Islamic viewpoint, is accompanied by a moral responsibility. Authorities will not oppress, discriminate, favoritism and arbitrary treatment. The social standing, wealth, family background, political connections or personal influence of the person seeking redress should not dictate a sense of justice. This is especially relevant to the policing as police institutions represent the state. The dialogue with citizens should then take place in a fair and impartial manner, not based on personal concerns.
This is strongly supported by the Qur'anic call to justice as a norm. A major theme throughout the Qur'an is the command to be just, even when it is tempting not to be so for one's own benefit or relationships. Qur'an 4:58 says for those who have been given authority to give out the trusts to their proper owners and to judge amongst the people with justice. In the same way, Qur'an 5:8 stresses standing up to be just and not being unjust on account of feelings toward others. The principles have implications for public administration as they make impartiality an ethical obligation for anyone wielding power.
The constitution of Pakistan has strengthened the relevance of Islamic Justice Theory. Article 2-A of the Constitution, which was included in the Constitution through the Objectives Resolution, is an important source of ideology and norms for governance. It acknowledges the democratic, free, equal, tolerant and just principles, as laid down by Islam. The Constitution thus establishes a relationship between the State and the principles of social and legal justice. Article 37(d) on the other hand, calls on the State to provide "inexpensive and expeditious justice." This is a constitutional provision that bears special significance in the context of grievance procedures as delayed justice turns into the denial of justice to the citizens.
The notions of adl and qist then can be useful tools to evaluate the fairness of police grievance procedures. A mechanism is consistent with Islamic Justice Theory if it affords equal access, fair consideration, prompt action and effective remedies to citizens. This is particularly important for timeliness. This implies that the formalization of a grievance mechanism may not be useful if it takes months or years for the citizen to see his or her grievance addressed. Redress is thus an integral part of justice and not just an administrative convenience.
From this viewpoint it becomes easier to understand the significance of accessibility. The system may not meet the principle of equitable treatment if poor, illiterate, uneducated, politically downwardly mobile, and rural citizens have less access than their wealthier, better educated, politically connected peers. A true justice system must be available to the people, even those without institutional knowledge or connections. The "khuli kachehri" process has the potential to help achieve this goal by providing a direct platform for citizens to voice their concerns to higher ranking police officials.
Restorative Justice Theory is the third framework. Restorative justice is different from traditional justice systems, as it has a greater emphasis on the need for harm to be repaired, for those who have been harmed to be cared for, on taking responsibility and on restoring relationships. In reintegration approaches, wrongdoing is dealt with while maintaining the dignity and social relationships of those involved, as Braithwaite (2014) points out. Restorative justice is a process that is more than just a discussion about punishment and asks what could be done to heal the impact of the wrong and to restore the relationship.
Restorative justice can be especially relevant in policing when issues are related to citizen grievances, as many grievances have to do with harmed relationships between citizens and public authorities. For instance, if someone is convinced that the police officer refused to register an FIR, he or she may not only want the FIR registered, but he or she may want the police officer to provide an explanation, acknowledge the issue, treat him or her respectfully, and assure him or her that it won't happen again. Likewise, if someone feels that the investigation has been poorly conducted, he or she might need to feel better and restore the trust in the investigation process.
This concept of khuli kachehri may include the element of restorative justice as it provides an opportunity to have direct communication between the complainant and the police authorities. The actions can be more than just an administrative file with a complaint and an apology, it can be a chance for the individual who was hurt to explain what they were hurt by. Senior officials can then determine the cause of the problem, mandate a fix, and report the results. Accountability may be integrated with reconciliation and institutional learning, where appropriate.
Acknowledging harm is another key element of restorative justice. Citizens can be issued with a 'technical' answer without any sense that their experience is being recognised in a bureaucratic system. A restorative approach would make it acceptable for authorities to take note of the effects of administrative failures. If a citizen is unable to secure legal protection due to an injustice that has been carried out, for instance, because of a failure to file the complaint promptly, merely filing the complaint later may not fully compensate a citizen for the harm already done. A meaningful response can be an explanation, an acknowledgment, a corrective action and a prevention of recurrence.
The distinction between condemning wrongful conduct and stigmatizing the individual permanently, as Braithwaite (2014) argues, is also handy. For police, it implies that misbehaviour must be recognised and remedied without compromising the potential for professional rehabilitation. It is not just about holding police accountable for their actions, but also about putting in place a culture where officers know the consequences of their actions and are encouraged to return to proper police procedures. This can help to facilitate accountability and organizational reform.
All three theories are thus complementary. Procedural Justice Theory describes the nature of the process that citizens should undergo in the grievance process: voice, respect, neutral decision-making and perceived trustworthy motives. Islamic Justice Theory is an explanation about the moral and constitutional significance of fairness and timely redress; namely, the moral and constitutional obligations of Justice, Equity, Impartiality and Expeditious Justice. Restorative Justice Theory is about what should follow the harm, it suggests that the system should first acknowledge the harm, then set out to determine who is responsible for it, and then to provide a remedy and to repair any damaged relationship.
These two frameworks offer a comprehensive theoretical underpinning for research on the linkage between the police grievance mechanism and the trust of the public in Pakistan. A procedural justice approach would look at how people feel about fairness in the process of khuli kachehri. An Islamic justice point of view would consider if the process demonstrates adl, qist, equality, impartiality and timely redress. A restorative justice approach would look at whether complaints lead to a meaningful repair, a sense of accountability, a sense of reconciling and better relationships between citizens and police.
The integrated framework also proposes that the success of khuli kachehri should not be defined based on the number of complaints received and resolved. Other key measures are whether citizens felt they were listened to, whether the decision was fair, whether their complaints were handled quickly, whether wrongdoing was corrected, whether they received fair compensation, and whether they felt trust in the police was restored following the incident. This is an approach that acknowledges that institutional trust is developed through multiple instances of good, fair, and responsive governance.
In the end, the three theories all reach a main conclusion: the presence of laws and grievance processes is not enough for good justice. Citizens need to interact with institutions in a fair, accessible, unbiased, ethically right, and responsive manner. Procedural Justice Theory shows the significance of fair treatment and citizens' participation; Islamic Justice Theory shows that justice and timely redress is an ethical and constitutional obligation; and Restorative Justice Theory shows the significance of repairing harm and rebuilding relationships. These views offer a good conceptual framework to explore the possibility of shifting grievance resolution in Pakistan's policing system from a 'bureaucratic' process to a more 'citizen-centred' form of justice under the 'khuli kachehri'. However, whether direct access to senior officials creates not only a short-term resolution of individual complaints, but also positive long-term impacts on fairness and accountability, institutional integrity, and public trust and confidence in policing will ultimately depend on its contribution to police legitimacy.
3. Methodology
Lahore's Khuli Kacheri was selected as a bounded and instrumental case (Yin, 2021; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to draw implications of the findings of this study in terms of theory and policy. Sixteen participants were recruited in four groups of stakeholders, each meeting certain criteria for inclusion, using purposive sampling with a snowball sample (Table 1), with each group having substantive direct experience with the mechanism. The number of interviews was determined by thematic saturation which occurred at 14 interviews and was confirmed by 15th and 16th interviews; following the rule of Guest, Bunce and Johnson (2006) that saturation generally occurs at 12-16 interviews in a homogeneous purposive sample.
| Participant Category | Description | n | Code |
|---|---|---|---|
| Police officials (SSPs/DSPs) | Senior officers conducting Khuli Kacheri sessions in Lahore | 2 | P1–P2 |
| Judicial officers | Magistrates handling referrals from Khuli Kacheri | 4 | J1–J4 |
| Criminal lawyers | Lahore-based lawyers with Khuli Kacheri case experience | 5 | L1–L5 |
| Community members | Citizens who attended Khuli Kacheri with criminal justice complaints | 5 | C1–C5 |
Table 1. Sample composition (N = 16).
Data were collected through three methods to enable triangulation: semi-structured interviews conducted in Urdu and/or Punjabi according to participant preference; non-participant observation of three Khuli Kacheri sessions across Lahore's police divisions; and documentary analysis of PITB portal data, Punjab Police annual reports, Lahore High Court case-management reports, and independent institutional analyses. Interviews were audio-recorded where consent permitted and otherwise captured through structured contemporaneous notes. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase thematic analysis in NVivo 14, moving from familiarization and open coding through theme development to a final thematic map.
Trustworthiness was addressed through Lincoln and Guba's (1985) four criteria: credibility via triangulation, prolonged engagement, and member-checking with five participants; transferability via thick contextual description; dependability via an auditable codebook and reflexive journal; and confirmability via independent supervisor review of coded transcripts. Ethical clearance was obtained from Minhaj University Lahore, informed consent was secured from all participants, and identities were protected through participant codes throughout.
4. Findings
Thematic analysis of the sixteen interviews produced eight themes, summarized in Table 2 and elaborated below.
| Theme | Summary | Key Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Delays reduced, not eliminated | Khuli Kacheri accelerated complaint handling, but delays persisted in some cases due to implementation gaps. | R1, R9, R13, R14 |
| Procedural fairness and voice | Complainants valued the chance to present grievances directly to senior officers and felt genuinely heard. | R3, R7, R13, R15 |
| SSP order non-implementation | Directions issued during sessions were not always carried out at the station level. | R1, R6, R10, R14 |
| Enhanced police accountability | Senior supervision increased oversight of investigating officers and encouraged administrative responsibility. | R1, R2, R9, R11 |
| Accessibility and exclusion of vulnerable groups | Access improved for vulnerable complainants, though public awareness remained limited. | R7, R12, R14, R16 |
| Jurisdictional tensions with formal courts | Judicial participants stressed that the mechanism supports, but cannot replace, formal adjudication. | R3, R4, R5, R6 |
| Restoration of public trust | Positive encounters helped rebuild confidence in policing, though trust remained conditional on follow-through. | R8, R12, R15, R16 |
| Follow-up and implementation gaps | Weak monitoring after sessions was the most consistently cited structural weakness. | R1, R2, R10, R14 |
Table 2. Thematic summary.
4.1 Delay reduced, not eliminated
Across all stakeholder groups, participants said that Khuli Kacheri was fast-tracking stalled cases via the proper channels. Some complainants stated that although they had multiple visits to their police station without success, they were finally able to attend the forum when investigating teams got in touch with them and resumed active work after receiving the intervention of senior officers. This acceleration was always presented as partial and not total: the people always differentiated between the focus and attention they received at the session itself and the gradual process of follow-through that would take place after.
4.2 Procedural fairness and voice
Community members and lawyers both spoke of the importance of having their voices heard first-hand at the hands of a senior official, bypassing the channel of routine bureaucracy. Some respondents indicated that this was the first time since that occasion their complaint was being considered seriously, which aligns with the tenets of Procedural Justice Theory that voice and dignified treatment are independent factors in attaining perceived legitimacy, irrespective of the resolution.
4.3 Non-implementation of SSP orders
A constant and central theme was that instructions given during a session were not consistently followed in the police station. Cases of an order to investigate/expedite a matter was recognised on the spot but not acted on after the complainant left the forum were described, necessitating repeated subsequent visits. The most frequent problem mentioned by all four groups of stakeholders was the disconnect between acknowledgment of the process and sense of resolution from the substantive issues.
4.4 Enhanced police accountability
Police and legal officials reported that when officers were under direct supervisory scrutiny, it altered the behavior of the officers investigating a case, which were said to be more responsive when they knew that what they are doing in their case will be brought up before a superior in public. This corroborates the wider accountability literature, which indicates that the increased transparency of the supervisory review process leads to greater investigative diligence (Walker & Archbold, 2014), although it was evident that this was not the case in all police divisions and seemed to depend on individual SSPs' willingness to take on the supervisory role.
4.5 Accessibility & exclusion of vulnerable groups
There were many who believed that Khuli Kacheri provided a platform for the marginalised, such as women, the elderly and the poor and helpless families who did not have access to formal systems. Meanwhile, participants reported continuing low levels of public awareness of the mechanism, particularly in rural and low-income areas, and that fear of retaliation, lack of legal knowledge, and social stigma were all factors that continue to prevent prospective complainants, especially women, from effectively using the forum.
4.6 Jurisdictional strain of formal courts
Judicial officers were united in their perception of Khuli Kacheri as an invaluable administrative aid; one which cannot be confused with or extended to formal adjudication. It was its utility in speeding up the investigative and pre-trial processes that they emphasized, saying that directions by administrative authorities should not be in place to replace proper legal procedures.
4.7 Restoration of public trust
A few community members spoke of the incredible change in their trust of the police after a good Khuli Kacheri experience, saying that the presence of one senior officer was a proof of how the police can respond to ordinary people. This trust was, however, explicitly contingent: continued trust depended on whether the directions given were put into practice or not, a theoretical fear that accountability systems without effective follow-through can ultimately lead a lesser relationship of trust than a lack of accountability system altogether (Stone & Ward, 2000).
4.8 Follow-up and implementation gaps
A lack of a formal and binding follow-up procedure was found to be the main structural constraint across different groups of stakeholders. The participants suggested that the digital monitoring, the periodic compliance review and the difference between complaints heard and complaints substantively resolved should be strengthened as a basis for assessing the mechanism in the future.
5. Discussion
Together, the eight themes provide an analytical statement to support the central statement: Khuli Kacheri provides decent procedural justice results and inconsistent substantive justice results. It consistently offers public trust with voice, dignified treatment, and visible institutional attention, the three components of Tyler's (2020) procedural justice model, and these experiences seem to lead to actual, though limited, enhancements in public trust. However, the study determined its capacity to provide substantive resolution is dependent on a follow-up infrastructure which is structurally weak. The mechanism in Islamic Justice Theory extends the dimension of recognition of adl, but it is not consistently effective at achieving the dimension of correctiveness, while in Restorative Justice Theory, it has a mediation function that provides dialogue and healing of relationships but not necessarily the follow-up required for lasting peace, and in Restorative Justice, its bargaining process can be disadvantageous for less powerful actors, especially females.
The jurisdictional findings indicate that Khuli Kacheri is most effective as a pre-formal justice facilitator, and not a parallel justice system, a description that was affirmed by the judicial participants. The accessibility findings show that there have been real, albeit partial, improvements for vulnerable groups, reflecting social and gendered barriers to participation that are similar to those found in the access-to-justice literature on the developing world more generally (Cappelletti & Garth, 1978; World Bank, 2004).
6. Conclusion and Recommendations
The Khuli Kacheri can be described as a formal, yet incomplete, step towards democratic access to justice in Lahore. It has measurably enhanced citizens' procedural experiences of the police and achieved credible accountability and trust gains; however, its substantive impact is limited by uneven implementation of directions produced. Legislative recognition, action, increased digital monitoring and gender responsive implementation will be needed to realize its full potential. Based on the results, the following recommendations are made:
- Make more effective follow-up measures and regularly review the directions given in sessions.
- Implement and enhance digital monitoring to enable complainants to see the actions taken in their case through to the end, not just disposal.
- Include in institutional mechanism for regular supervision of investigating officers' adherence to Khuli Kacheri directions.
- Invest in the development of campaigns for raising public awareness, especially in rural and low-income communities, to fill the access gap.
- Establish a uniform operating procedure for district registration, hearing, documentation and follow-up for sessions.
- Ensure separate rooms for complainants of women, elderly and disabled persons.
- Have clear and unambiguous coordination between Khuli Kacheri, prosecution service and the formal courts.
- Independence and periodic assessment with public input.
- Offer hands-on training to officials running sessions on complaint management, communication, and citizen-centred practice.
All these measures directly address Pakistan's commitment in the Constitution to affordable and fast justice as enshrined in Article 37(d) and obligations under SDG 16.3. The single district design and small sample size do not allow for the generalizability of the study beyond Lahore; future studies should be conducted to track the outcomes in the implementation process over time, to compare the implementation process across districts, and to undertake feminist research approaches to explore the experiences of women participating in the mechanism in more detail.
References
Abdel Haleem, M. A. S. (Trans.). (2005). The Qur'an: A new translation. Oxford University Press.
Braithwaite, J. (2014). Restorative justice in criminal justice contexts. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 4507–4516). Springer.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Cappelletti, M., & Garth, B. (1978). Access to justice: The newest wave in the worldwide movement to make rights effective. Buffalo Law Review, 27, 181–292.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
International Crisis Group. (2010). Reforming Pakistan's police (Asia Report No. 157).
Jackson, J., Asif, M., Bradford, B., & Zakar, M. (2014). Corruption and police legitimacy in Lahore, Pakistan.
Kamali, M. H. (2022). Principles of Islamic jurisprudence (3rd ed.). Islamic Texts Society.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Punjab Information Technology Board. (n.d.). IG Khuli Kachehri. https://pitb.gov.pk/igkk
Research Society of International Law. (2022). Criminal justice reform: Revamping Pakistan's colonial structures.
Stone, C., & Ward, H. (2000). Democratic policing: A framework for action. Policing & Society, 10, 11–45.
Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103–135.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
Walker, S., & Archbold, C. (2014). The new world of police accountability.
World Bank. (2004). World development report 2004: Making services work for poor people.
Yin, R. K. (2021). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.).
