Summary: (a) Prisons Act (IX of 1894)- -Preamble-Prisoners' Act (III of 1900), Preamble-Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 ('the Jail Manual')-Prison authorities, liability of-Tort-False imprisonment-Inhuman and degrading conditions, compensation for-Prisoner had a right to sue in respect of torts committed in a prison-Action could be brought by a prisoner against the prison authorities and the State for false imprisonment, breach of statutory duty, violation of fundamental rights, degrading and inhuman treatment, misfeasance in a public office or on the ground of negligence. 'Jail Manual', read with the relevant primary statutes, made it a statutory duty of the prison authorities and the respective governments to treat prisoners in accordance with the minimum standards elaborated therein. Breach of such statutory duty, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, may expose the prison authorities and the concerned government to an action under the law of tort. Likewise, depending on the circumstances, the conditions of incarceration may give rise to cause of action for false imprisonment. Incarceration of a juvenile in the same cell or barrack with convicted hardened criminals and that too under intolerable living conditions would constitute illegal detention and thus render it as 'false imprisonment'. Such fact would indeed not make the prisoner entitled to be released but it would give rise to a cause of action under tort for as long as the false imprisonment would continue. Remedies available under the law of tort, were enforceable in Pakistan. Action could be brought by a prisoner for false imprisonment, breach of statutory duty, violation of fundamental rights, misfeasance in a public office or on the ground of negligence. Incarcerated prisoners, subjected to the unimaginable degrading and inhuman treatment, may become entitled to seek damages against the prison authorities and the State. Prisoner, therefore, had a right to sue in respect of torts committed in a prison. Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Zahida Afzal and others 2006 SCMR 207; Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Railways and others v. Abdul Wahid and others 2011 SCMR 1836; Abdul Majeed Khan v. Tawseen Abdul Haleem PLD 2012 SC 80 and Middleweek v. Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police and another [1990] 3 All. ER 662 ref. (b) Prisons Act (IX of 1894)- -Preamble-Prisoners' Act (III of 1900), Preamble-Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9 & 14 & Fourth Sched. Pt. 1, Item Nos. 3 & 32 & Pt. II, Item No. 13-International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child-Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment-International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)-International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)-Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities-Government of Pakistan had ratified said seven Conventions having relevance to the rights of prisoners-Said Conventions were in conformity with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution-Fundamental rights under Arts. 9 & 14 in fact contemplated the obligations of the State under the said ratified Conventions-High Court directed that the Federal Government shall take immediate steps, pursuant to its jurisdiction vested under Item 13 of Part II read with Items 3 and 32 of Part I of the Federal Legislative List under the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, to ensure that prisoners incarcerated in the prisons across the country were dealt with and treated in conformity with the obligations of the State of Pakistan pursuant to ratification of the Conventions, and that the Implementation Commission (formed during proceedings of present case) may consider recommending to the Federal Government the initiation of proposed legislation by the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), for prescribing minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners pursuant to obligations under the ratified Conventions and establishing an independent oversight forum in this regard. (c) Constitution of Pakistan- -Fourth Sched. Pt. 1, Item Nos. 3& 32-International Conventions/Treaties, enforcement of-Ratified convention or treaty could be relied upon/enforced as long as it was not in conflict with the law enacted in Pakistan. Human Rights case No.29388-K of 2013 PLD 2014 SC 305 and Ms. Shehla Zia and others v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693 ref. (d) Prisons Act (IX of 1894)- -Preamble-Prisoners' Act (III of 1900), Preamble-Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9, 14 & 15-Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 ('the Jail Manual'), R. 1065-Prisoners, rights of-Scope-Duty of care owed by State and prison functionaries to prisoners-Scope-Medical needs of prisoners-Inviolability of dignity of prisoners-Inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners-Convicted and non-convicted prisoners were compelled to place reliance for their right to life and medical needs solely on the authorities holding him/her in custody-Such reliance gave rise to a duty of care on the part of the State and its functionaries-Status of a prisoner was similar to that of a ward of the State because he or she, was in its legal custody and care-Inhumane treatment of a prisoner was a serious violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Arts. 9 & 14 of the Constitution-Prisoner who was held in custody in an overcrowded prison, having lack of sanitation, tantamounted to cruel and inhuman treatment for which the State ought to be accountable-Living conditions in the prisons and the inhuman treatment of incarcerated prisoners was a violation of the law enunciated by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW)-Every branch of the State i.e the Executive, Judiciary and the Legislature had a duty to urgently reform the criminal justice system. Sentence awarded to a convicted prisoner deprives him of his liberty and the freedom to be free and this curtailment of liberty may have limited consequences regarding some other rights. But by no stretch of the imagination was the right to life restricted or curtailed, rather a heavy burden laid on the State to safeguard this most fundamental right, because a prisoner did not have the freedom to make choices or decisions. On the other hand, a non-convicted prisoner had altogether a different status. The latter retained the presumption of innocence. The prisoner, whether convicted or non-convicted, was compelled to place reliance for his right to life and medical needs solely on the authorities holding him/her in custody. This reliance gave rise to a duty of care on the part of the State and its functionaries. It was implicit in Article 9 of the Constitution that it was the duty of the State to ensure that every person incarcerated in the prisons of Pakistan, including those who were convicted for an offence and undergoing sentence, were treated in a manner that did not expose him/her to harm and that proper medical treatment was made available in case it was required. The status of a prisoner was similar to that of a ward of the State because he or she, as the case may be, was in its legal custody and care. The prisoner was thus entirely dependent on the State and at its mercy for the purposes of safeguarding the right to life and to meet medical needs. The State, therefore, owed a duty of care to every prisoner regardless of his or her nature of imprisonment. It was only liberty and the right of free movement of a prisoner that had been curtailed and definitely not the constitutional rights to life and to be treated with respect, having regard to the fundamental right of inviolability of the dignity of man guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. The incarcerated person lost freedom of movement but not his or her status as a human being. Every prisoner, without discrimination, had to be treated as a human. Inhumane treatment of a prisoner was a serious violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution. The most hardened offender, regardless of the nature of his/her offence, had to be treated as a human. Prisoner who was held in custody in an overcrowded prison, having lack of sanitation, tantamounted to cruel and inhuman treatment for which the State ought to be accountable because it amounted to a breach of its fiduciary duty of care. Likewise, neglect of medical needs was a serious violation of Article 9 i.e. the right to life. It was undoubtedly embedded in Article 9 that every person in the legal custody of the State was, inter alia, treated in the manner contemplated in Rule 1065 of the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 ('the Jail Manual') and the minimum standards set out in the other provisions of the Jail Manual. Moreover, it was a right of every person incarcerated in the prison to have access to medical care and medical opinion. Abysmal conditions in overcrowded prisons, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, and denial of prompt of timely health assistance was unconstitutional and a serious violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution andcommitments of the State of Pakistan under numerous ratified Conventions. It manifested a compromised, weak, ineffective and failing criminal justice system. It was not only a grave travesty of justice but also undermined the rule of law. The living conditions in the prisons and the treatment of incarcerated prisoners was a violation of the law enunciated by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW), who had said fourteen hundred years ago that it was better to let go a hundred guilty persons than to punish one innocent and this became embedded in Islamic law as the foundational principle of a fair trial i.e the presumption of innocence. It was beyond comprehension how many innocent persons must be subjected in the prisons across the country to inhuman and degrading treatment despite not having committed any crime. There was, therefore, an urgent need to reform the criminal justice system and it was the duty of every branch of the State i.e the Executive, Judiciary and the Legislature, to fulfil its commitments. (e) Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978- -Rr. 143 & 145-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 401-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 9-Prisoners, rights of-Scope-Power to remit sentence on basis of medical grounds-Purpose and scope-Purpose and object of Rr.143 & 145 of the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 and S.401 Cr.P.C. was to empower the competent authorities and the Government to fulfil its duty of care towards the prisoners in safeguarding their most valuable and crucial fundamental right i.e. their right to life-Such fiduciary duty could not be neglected by the State and its functionaries-Duty of (prison) functionaries was to ensure that a prisoner suffering from a serious illness or disease was not only provided with the highest attainable standard of health services but, in exceptional circumstances, to suspend the sentence by exercising powers vested under the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 read with S.401 of Cr.P.C. (f) Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978- -Rr. 143 & 145-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 401, 426 & 497-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 9-Prisoners, rights of-Scope-Prisoner invoking jurisdiction of court for bail/suspension of sentence on medical grounds-In such an eventuality a presumption would arise that executive authorities had failed to perform their functions and exercise powers stemming from obligations imposed under the law and the Constitution, and that the State was in breach of the fiduciary duty to safeguard the right to life of a person in its custody. When a prisoner invoked the jurisdiction of a competent Court, seeking bail and suspension of sentence solely on medical grounds, then in such an eventuality, prima facie, it gave rise to a presumption that public functionaries on behalf of the State had failed in taking all reasonable steps stemming from their obligations under the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 ('the Jail Manual') read with section 401, Cr.P.C, unless such presumption could be rebutted to the satisfaction of the Court. When cases ended up in the Courts relating to prisoners suffering from serious illnesses and disease and bail or suspension of sentence was sought, it manifested that the executive authorities had failed to perform their functions and exercise powers stemming from obligations imposed under the law and the Constitution. In such an eventuality the State was indeed in breach of the fiduciary duty to safeguard the right to life of a person in its custody. Every time an incarcerated prisoner or detainee approached a court raising a grievance of neglect, the onus would be on the State to show to the satisfaction of the court that its functionaries had not neglected the duty of care by at least fulfilling duties and obligations under the Jail Manual. Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constituted the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Estelle v. Gamble [429 US 97, 50 L Ed 2d 251, 97 SCt 285] ref. (g) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 10-A-Public Defender and Legal Aid Office Ordinance (XXIV of 2009) [since lapsed], S. 14-Right to fair trial-Scope-Economically and socially underprivileged prisoners-Fundamental right of an incarcerated prisoner to have access to proper legal advice and a court of law-Lack of access to proper legal advice and the courts could result in miscarriage of justice-Courts had to ensure an effective mechanism so that the right of access to proper legal advice and the courts was not hampered. Most of the prisoners belonged to economically and socially underprivileged classes. They were either illiterate or inadequately educated. Poverty and lack of resources prevented them from seeking proper legal advice, nor could they afford the high cost required for gaining access to the courts. The lack of access to proper legal advice and the courts made them the obvious victims of miscarriages of justice. If they were fortunate to apply for bail before a trial court and it was wrongly denied they had no option but to accept it as an act of fate and suffer the agony of incarceration because they could not afford the high cost of further litigation. Besides serious miscarriage of justice the constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial was violated. It was, therefore, a fundamental right of an incarcerated prisoner to have access to proper legal advice and a court of law. The duty of care that was owed by the State made it a constitutional duty to put in place an effective mechanism so that every prisoner had access to proper legal advice and the courts. It was also a duty of the courts to ensure an effective mechanism so that the right of access to proper legal advice and the courts was not hampered or denied. Promulgation of the Public Defender and Legal Aid Office Ordinance, 2009 was in conformity with the obligations of the State to ensure the right to a fair trial. The Federal Government was, therefore, directed to make the said enacted law operational at the earliest. Denial of access to proper legal advice and courts, was unconstitutional and a violation of the commitments of the State of Pakistan under the ratified conventions and the constitutionally guaranteed rights. (h) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 19A-Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 ('the Jail Manual') - Duty of State to keep prisoners informed about their rights - Scope - Duty of the State to provide every prisoner with information regarding the latter's rights in general and the Jail Manual in particular was implicit in Art. 19A of the Constitution because it owed him/her a duty of care-Such fiduciary duty made it mandatory for the State to keep the person in its custody informed about the rights provided under the Jail Manual-High Court directed that the Implementation Commission (formed during proceedings of present case) may propose to the respective Governments mechanism and modes for making prisoners aware of their rights and the minimum standards set out in the Jail Manual. Respondents by: Syed Muhammad Tayyab, Deputy Attorney General. Saleem Murtaza, Additional Assistant General, Punjab. Saddaqaat Ali Jahangir, State Counsel. Shahida Parveen Sukhera and Fozia Azhar Advocates, for Ministry of Human Rights. Ms. Shireen Mazari, Federal Minister for Human Rights, Islamabad. Zafar Iqbal, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad. Muhammad Arshat, Director General, Ministry of Human Rights, Islamabad. Mian Zahid Mehmood, Law Officer Human Rights Affairs Depatment, Lahore. Dates of hearing: 18th January, 15th February and 14th March, 2020.

Summary: Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)- -S. 21-F-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 25-Remissions-Discrimination-Petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and benefit of remissions was denied to him-Validity-All citizens were entitled to be treated similarly, subject to law-"Equality"meant that among equal the law should be equal and equally administered and that the like should be treated alike-Principle of"equal treatment" was applicable to prisoners-Constitution did not permit unequal treatment among prisoners and there had to be one set of Rule for every convict under law, though the forum of punishment was different and more stringent under different law but after conviction the convicts should be governed under the Prison Rules-By mere change of forum one set of convict could not be entitled for remission-State did not make any classification of prisoners to deprive them from Fundamental Rights-Where certain group of persons were denied benefit of privilege or other group was allowed, such was discrimination between the person or things similarly situated and consequently was void on account of provisions of Art. 25(1) of the Constitution-High Court directed the authorities to include all remissions to the sentence of petitioner which had been denied to him-Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Muhammad alias Khuda Bakhsh v. ATC Mekran at Turbat 2018 PCr.LJ 148; Hammad Abbasi v. Superintendent Central Adiala Jail Rawalpindi PLD 2010 Lah. 428 and Saleem Raza v. The State PLD 2007 Kar. 139 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Application received by post, whereby Hon'bl Chief Justice of this Court has directed that appplication be treated as petition under Article 199 of the Constitution (Applicant is condemn prisoner, confined in Central Prison, Rawalpindi))

Summary: Relevant facts of the case are that the above Suit was filed by the respondent claiming to be the sole and exclusive owner of property bearing C.S. No.4407, Ward G, out of R.S. No.27 and others in Deh Ghangra, situated at Phulelipar, Paretabad, Hyderabad Sindh (suit property)--The main concern raised on behalf of the applicant was that as the property in his possession is separate and distinct from the one claimed by the respondent, the impugned decree cannot be executed in respect of his property. In this context, it may be noted that there are already concurrent findings against the applicant and this Court has also affirmed the same. Be that as it may, needless to say that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and the decree shall be executed only in respect of the property described therein after carefully identifying and ascertaining the same.

Summary: Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)-------S. 21-F---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 25---Remissions---Discrimination---Petitionerwas convicted and sentenced under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and benefit of remissions wasdenied to him---Validity---All citizens were entitled to be treated similarly, subject to law---"Equality" meant that among equal the law should be equal and equally administered and thatthe like should be treated alike---Principle of "equal treatment" was applicable to prisoners---Constitution did not permit unequal treatment among prisoners and there had to be one set ofRule for every convict under law, though the forum of punishment was different and morestringent under different law but after conviction the convicts should be governed under thePrison Rules---By mere change of forum one set of convict could not be entitled forremission---State did not make any classification of prisoners to deprive them fromFundamental Rights---Where certain group of persons were denied benefit of privilege orother group was allowed, such was discrimination between the person or things similarlysituated and consequently was void on account of provisions of Art. 25(1) of theConstitution---High Court directed the authorities to include all remissions to the sentence ofpetitioner which had been denied to him---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: (a) Criminal trial- -Policy matter-Scope-Policy has force of law-Enforcement or implication of law, especially when it favours an accused cannot be restricted at any stage on any ground. (b) Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000)- -S.7-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)-International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Art. 6, paragraph 5-United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children, 1989, Art.37(a)- Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 45 & 199-Death penalty to juvenile-Remissions-Applicability-Petitioner was convicted by Trial Court for committing Qatl-i-amd and was sentenced to death-Conviction and sentence was maintained up to Supreme Court and even mercy petition was also dismissed-Special remission was granted by the President of Pakistan in exercise of his powers under Art. 45 of the Constitution, whereby death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life for those convict who were juvenile at the time of commission of the offence-Authorities declined extension of such benefit of remissions to petitioner and referred the matter to the President of Pakistan to reconsider his mercy petition-Validity-After setting a proper law into motion and going through the entire exercise with regard to analysis of juvenility of petitioner, it was unjust for authorities to keep on restricting uniform benefit of law as well as law to all similarly placed persons, on one excuse or the other-Juvenile status of petitioner at the time of commission of offence was not under question and legal heirs of victim pardoned the petitioner, therefore, giving benefit of same legislative intent to other similarly placed accused was not denied-International legislation and domestic legislation imposed a clear bar on inflicting death penalty on an accused under the age of eighteen years-Claim of petitioner to seek a benefit which otherwise was fully available to him under the policy having force of law, could not have been denied by authorities at their level and no legislation could compel them to still refer the matter to the President of Pakistan for consideration merely on the ground that earlier mercy petition had been dismissed by the President-Age of juvenility was already assessed by Trial Court as required under S.7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000-High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, instead of sending the matter to Trial Court for re-examination / re-evaluation of age of petitioner, commuted death sentence into imprisonment for life-Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Ziaullah v. Najeebullah and others PLD 2003 SC 656 ref.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending