THE authors of the National Judicial Policy have undertaken a challenging task. Any impartial opinion survey would bring out the unpalatable fact that few people entertain trust in judiciary. The distrust has often led to demands for parallel judicial systems, ranging from summary military courts to the Nizam-e-Adl in Swat. There is a perception that that Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and a number of Supreme Court judges had been removed because they resisted pressures exerted by powerful circles that led the legal community and civil society to launch a nearly two-year long historic movement in support of an independent judiciary. The National Judicial Policy, if implemented in letter and spirit, would hopefully redress some of the age-old complaints regarding the working of the judicial system. The main problems that the people face emanate from delay in justice which amounts to denial of justice, the high cost of litigation, the rampant corruption in judiciary from the highest to the lowest tiers and its subservience to the powers that be. The huge backlog of 1,704,871 cases pending at all levels presents a major challenge. While one welcomes the decision to dispose of the backlog in one year, one would expect that the twin imperatives of quick justice and of justice not only done but also seen to have been done are given equal importance. What is required is cooperation by the police and the lawyers if the deadlines set for deciding the cases of various categories are to be met. The hurdles in the way of the police, which is required to submit their report within 14 days, have to be removed by the provincial administrations by freeing the investigation staff from other duties. The lawyers too will have to be persuaded not to seek unnecessary delays. Taking action against corrupt judicial officers is a tricky issue. Cells being established in every High Court to entertain complaints about corruption may not be sufficient, as common litigants alone would not be able to provide proofs of corruption. The Supreme Court should require declarations of personal and close relatives' wealth from the judges from time to time.