Ensuring Accuracy in Witness Testimonies: A Call for Reform in Recording Evidence in the Courtroom:

In the administration of justice, evidence is the cornerstone upon which verdicts are built. Particularly in adversarial legal systems like ours, the oral testimony of witnesses often serves as the critical link between the factual narrative and judicial determination. Where documentary proof is lacking or where it is supplemented by human recollection, the credibility, clarity, and precision of witness testimony become decisive.

It is therefore alarming that in many Pakistani courtrooms, an unnoticed yet fundamental flaw routinely undermines this process: the translation of witness statements from Urdu to English during cross-examinations.

In most trial courts across Pakistan, questions during cross-examination are posed in Urdu, and witnesses respond extemporaneously in Urdu, the language of their lived experience. However, the Judicial officers are responsible for noting the evidence with translating answers given by the witness into English, which forms part of the official court record.

While such practice may seem administratively convenient or traditionally acceptable, the linguistic transformation from vernacular Urdu to formal English frequently results in a loss of meaning, distortion of tone, and misrepresentation of intent.

Illustrative Examples: How Meaning is Compromised

To illustrate the gravity of this concern, consider the following common but problematic mistranslations:A categorical denial expressed as “bilkul nahin” (absolutely not) is often diluted in the record as “Not to my knowledge”, converting firm contradiction into passive uncertainty.

A witness said that "Mujhe nahi yaad" (مجھے نہیں یاد), which is usually recorded as "I don't remember." While the correct translation should be "I do not recall." While both phrases suggest a lack of memory, "Mujhe nahi yaad" in Urdu is often a hesitant or uncertain response, which indicates some level of doubt or reluctance. Translating it as "I don't remember" can soften the response, turning it into a more definitive statement, which could distract from the witness's hesitation or unreliability in providing the testimony.

A witness confidently states, "Main ne apni aankhon se dekha tha" (I saw it with my own eyes), yet the record reflects, “The witness stated that he had a sense of the event,” blurring direct observation into hearsay.

A hesitant or nervous tone—indicative of credibility issues or witness coaching—is flattened in English as a “neutral” or “cooperative” statement, stripping away critical cues for judicial assessment.

These are not semantic curiosities; they are substantive inaccuracies that can influence judicial perception, alter the course of cross-examination, and even impact the final adjudication of guilt or liability.

To remedy this critical issue and uphold the sanctity of evidence, the institutional and procedural reforms are essential: Such as All witness statements should be recorded verbatim in Urdu, alongside a translated English version. A parallel bilingual format preserves the integrity of the original statement while maintaining the formality of English court records. Like many modern legal jurisdictions, Pakistan must embrace audio/video recording of testimony, particularly in civil and criminal trials. These recordings should be retained as supplementary legal records, available for appellate review in case of disputes over meaning or conduct.

Where all litigating parties are conversant in Urdu, courts must be allowed—and encouraged—to conduct proceedings and deliver judgments in Urdu. The Supreme Court has already taken laudable steps in this direction, and trial courts must follow suit.

Our judicial system is grounded in the pursuit of truth and the delivery of fair adjudication. But when that truth is obscured by inaccurate or incomplete translation, the resulting record becomes a flawed reflection of reality, one that may irreparably prejudice the rights of litigants.

Translation in the courtroom is not a perfunctory task. It is a legal act of consequence, carrying implications for liberty, property, parental rights, and social justice.

The time is ripe for a system-wide introspection and overhaul. The judiciary, bar councils, legal training institutions, and the Ministry of Law must together embrace this challenge. Let us ensure that language does not become a barrier to justice, but a bridge that faithfully carries the truth from the lips of a witness to the conscience of the Court.

Let justice be done not only in principle, but also in language—for justice lost in translation is justice denied.