Peshawar High Court Statistics: PHC Judgment Data

Opening

Every figure below is an aggregate computed across the whole set. No individual judgment, litigant, or case specific detail is reported here, and no judgment is quoted or summarised. To read case specific summaries and holdings, use the Case Law Database. To see who is currently sitting on this court, use Court Benches and Statistics.

Data scope: these figures are computed from the reasoned written judgments the Peshawar High Court has published on its public portal at www.peshawarhighcourt.gov.pk . The set covers 2009 to 2026 and holds 5,500+ reported judgments.

These are not all the matters the Peshawar High Court handles. Courts dispose of a large volume of cases through procedural orders, adjournments, dismissals for non prosecution, withdrawals and short orders that are never authored as detailed written judgments. Only the reasoned judgments approved for publication are counted here.

What you are reading is the published precedent surface, not the total caseload. It is the same body of material an advocate would consult by hand when researching a matter, aggregated.

Constitutional Practice

Article 199

Article 199 is the most frequently cited Article of the Constitution, appearing in 809 judgments , ahead of Article 4 at 109.

Primary Citations

30.2% / 35.4%

30.2% of these judgments cite the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. 35.4% cite the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.

Length and Duration

9 pages, 1 yr

The median judgment runs 9 pages and about 1,700 words. The median gap between the year a matter was filed and the year judgment issued is about 1 years.

Bench Composition

63.9%

Of the judgments whose bench could be identified, 63.9% were authored by a single judge, 35.5% by a division bench and 0.6% by a full or larger bench.

Caseload composition by legal division

Caseload composition by legal division across 5,500+ reported judgments of the Peshawar High Court.

Most cited statutes

The statutes cited most often across these judgments.

Most frequent writ petition respondents

The entities most often named as respondent in a writ petition. Useful as a prior when settling the array of respondents in a fresh petition.

Judgment volume by year

Methodology. Judgments are captured from each court's own public portal. Statute names are canonicalised across stylistic variants before counting, so one Act cited six different ways counts as one Act. Constitutional article and Penal Code section frequencies are read from the cited statutes recorded against each judgment. Time from filing to judgment is the judgment year minus the filing year taken from the case number, a proxy that does not reflect docket level dates. Bench size is read from the bench recorded on each judgment, and judgments whose bench could not be identified are excluded from that percentage rather than counted as single judge. Recent years reflect publishing lag and are excluded from any trend statement. Figures last computed 2026-09-08.