FCC’s 10-Minute Stopwatch Rule for Lawyers Sparks Legal Debate
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN — WEB DESK: Pakistan’s Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has introduced a digital stopwatch system giving lawyers an initial 10 minutes each to present oral arguments, triggering debate in the legal community over the balance between faster case disposal and the right to effective representation.
The system has been introduced in Courtroom No. 1 on the directions of FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan. Once a lawyer’s allotted time expires, the timer sounds an alarm indicating that the initial argument period has ended.
However, the arrangement is not an absolute 10-minute ceiling in every case. The Express Tribune reports that the court retains discretion to grant additional time where necessary. In important or complex matters, oral arguments may be extended, with major cases potentially receiving up to 30 minutes through a judicial order.
Hearings using the new system have already begun before Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan.
Court Says Measure Aims to Speed Up Cases
The stated objective is to make hearings more focused and improve the use of judicial time.
Judicial sources cited by APP said the measure was designed to streamline proceedings and facilitate speedier disposal of cases, particularly as courts face substantial caseloads.
The FCC itself has recently emphasised modern technology, case management and internationally recognised judicial practices as part of its institutional development. At its September 15 full-court meeting, judges reviewed the use of technology to improve case management, research and public-service delivery.
But the stopwatch has generated competing views among lawyers about how far efficiency measures should go in constitutional litigation.
Lawyers Raise Fair-Hearing Concerns
Former law officer Waqar Rana argued that the right to address a court forms part of the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A, and urged bar councils to examine the implications of the new system.
Lawyer Waqas Ahmad similarly argued that while faster case disposal is important, constitutional cases often involve fundamental rights and difficult questions of constitutional interpretation that may require counsel to be given sufficient opportunity to develop their arguments.
The concern is particularly relevant because decisions of a constitutional court can have consequences extending well beyond the immediate litigants.
The criticism does not establish that the timer system itself violates Article 10-A. No court ruling cited in the available reporting has declared the arrangement unconstitutional. The legal objections are currently arguments raised by members of the legal profession.
Some Lawyers Back Time-Limited Hearings
Not all legal experts oppose the measure.
Supreme Court lawyer Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar described a countdown mechanism as a potentially constructive case-management tool that could encourage disciplined advocacy and more efficient constitutional litigation.
He argued, however, that time management should facilitate justice rather than prevent courts from adequately examining substantial constitutional questions.
Khokhar also called for greater judicial capacity at the FCC, arguing that complex constitutional cases require sufficient judges as well as efficient hearing procedures.
This reflects the central tension in the debate: supporters see structured oral arguments as a way to reduce unnecessary courtroom time, while critics fear rigid limits could affect meaningful representation in complicated cases.
Conflicting Backlog Figure Requires Caution
The court’s caseload is an important part of the debate, but published reports contain a notable numerical discrepancy.
The Express Tribune article states that 230,409 cases are pending in the country’s apex court. However, Business Recorder reports that the FCC’s official website showed 23,409 pending cases, alongside 5,869 disposed cases and 5,723 instituted cases.
The latter figure is also consistent with separate reporting describing the FCC backlog at roughly 23,400 cases.
The 230,409 figure should therefore not be reproduced as a verified FCC pendency number without clarification. The discrepancy may reflect an error or a different measure, but the available evidence does not establish why the figures differ.
Separately, The Express Tribune reported earlier this month that the combined pendency of Pakistan’s Supreme Court and FCC remained close to 56,000 cases, further indicating that 230,409 should be treated cautiously.
Debate Goes Beyond the Stopwatch
The controversy has also revived discussion about the FCC’s institutional capacity.
Lawyers cited by The Express Tribune have questioned why six seats remain vacant and argue that filling vacancies could help the court manage its workload without relying primarily on tighter oral-argument limits.
The FCC was established in late 2025 and has spent its first months developing its institutional structure and constitutional jurisprudence. Its September full-court meeting said the institution was reviewing judicial, administrative and operational matters as it completed its first 10 months.
For now, the stopwatch system remains in operation.
Its practical impact will depend partly on how flexibly judges use their authority to grant extra time in complicated cases. The emerging debate is therefore less about whether courts should manage hearing time and more about how to achieve efficiency without limiting meaningful argument in cases involving major constitutional questions.
