Summary: Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 9, 10A, 14, 25 & 37(d)--- Incarcerated prisoners---Fundamental rights--- Release of inmates from the prisons on the basis of 'probation'---Duty of care owed by the State and its functionaries towards incarcerated prisoners explained. It is an undeniable fact that living conditions and the treatment of prisoners in overcrowded and inadequately equipped prisons profoundly affects the constitutionally guaranteed rights. Most of the victims of a non-functional criminal justice system are those who belong to economically and socially marginalized sections of the society. They do not have the means to access the courts nor has the State fulfilled its constitutional obligation to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice contemplated under Article 37(d) of the Constitution. The prisoner, whether convicted or non-convicted, has no choice but to place reliance for his right to life and other needs, such as medical attention, solely on the authorities holding him/her in custody. This reliance gives rise to a duty of care on the part of the State and its functionaries. The Constitution guarantees the right to life under Article 9. In the context of a prisoner, it is implicit in Article 9 that it is the duty of the State to ensure that every person incarcerated including those who are convicted for an offence and undergoing sentence, are treated in a manner that does not expose the latter to harm and that humane treatment is extended so long as the incarceration lasts. The prisoner is thus entirely dependent on the State and is at its mercy for the purposes of safeguarding the right to life. The State, therefore, owes a duty of care to every prisoner, regardless of the nature of offence for which the latter has been incarcerated. It is only liberty and the right of free movement that has been curtailed and definitely not the constitutional rights to life and to betreated with respect, having regard to the fundamental rights of inviolability of the dignity of man guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover, it becomes a duty of the functionaries to ensure that no prisoner is unjustifiably deprived of the right to liberty even if it is on the basis of being released on probation. It is a right of every eligible prisoner to be considered for the purposes of enjoying liberty on the basis of probation. The neglect of the executive authorities to perform their obligations and duties imposed by law and to give effect to the enforced laws, particularly relating to the inmates of prisons amounts to a breach of the duty of care that is owed to the incarcerated prisoner. This breach of a fiduciary duty could expose the concerned authorities and the State to be sued by the inmates of the overcrowded prisons for damages. Neglect or refusal to effectively enforce the enacted laws relating to release of a prisoner on the basis of probation is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, inter alia, under Articles 9, 10-A, 14 and 25. The respective Chief Executives' of the Federal Government and the provinces are directed to ensure that the enacted laws relating to release of a prisoner on the basis of probation are effectively implemented and made functional. The Federal and Provincial Governments, as the case may be, shall ensure that the prisoners who are eligible under the enacted laws for availing the benefit of being released on probation are identified and their cases are processed expeditiously. ------ (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9, 10-A, 14, 25 & 37(d)---Prisoners---Release on probation---Fundamental rights---Duty of care of State and prison authorities---Scope---Proceedings arose out of reports sought by Supreme Court regarding implementation of laws relating to release of prisoners on probation---Reports revealed grave prison conditions, overcrowding and non-functional enforcement of probation laws---Held, that a prisoner, whether convicted or under trial, remains entitled to constitutional protection of life, dignity and fair treatment---Incarceration curtails only liberty and freedom of movement and not the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution---Because prisoners are wholly dependent upon the State for protection of life, health and humane treatment, such dependence gives rise to a duty of care on the part of the State and its functionaries---Failure to ensure humane treatment and lawful consideration of eligible prisoners for probation amounts to infringement of constitutional guarantees, particularly where weak and marginalized prisoners suffer due to a dysfunctional criminal justice system---State was bound to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice in terms of Art.37(d) of the Constitution and could not permit prison conditions or administrative neglect to defeat rights guaranteed under Arts.9, 10-A, 14 and 25 of the Constitution. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9 & 14---Right to life and dignity of prisoners---Prisoner’s dependence on State---Extent of protection---Held, that in the case of a prisoner, the right to life under Art.9 of the Constitution includes the State’s obligation to ensure that every incarcerated person is treated in a manner which does not expose him to harm and that humane treatment is extended throughout the period of incarceration---A prisoner is entirely dependent on the State and remains at its mercy for safeguarding life and dignity---Therefore, the State owes a duty of care to every prisoner regardless of the nature of the offence for which he has been incarcerated---What stands curtailed is only liberty and free movement, and not the constitutional right to be treated with respect consistent with the inviolability of dignity of man guaranteed by Art.14 of the Constitution---Functionaries of the State are also under obligation to ensure that no prisoner is unjustifiably deprived of liberty, including where release on probation is lawfully available. (c) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9, 10-A, 14 & 25---Probation laws---Non-enforcement---Effect---Right of eligible prisoner to be considered for probation---Held, that the benefit of release on probation is of pivotal importance in the context of unjustified deprivation of liberty and every eligible prisoner has a right to be considered for such release in accordance with law---Neglect or refusal by executive authorities to perform duties imposed by enacted probation laws and to give effect thereto, especially in relation to prison inmates, amounts to breach of the duty of care owed by the State and its functionaries---Such neglect is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts.9, 10-A, 14 and 25 of the Constitution---Failure to enforce probation laws effectively may also amount to breach of fiduciary duty, exposing the concerned authorities and the State to claims for damages by inmates of overcrowded prisons. (d) Administration of justice and prison administration ----Overcrowded prisons---Marginalized prisoners---Need for effective implementation of probation regime---Held, that overcrowded and inadequately equipped prisons seriously impair constitutionally protected rights and most victims of the non-functional criminal justice system belong to economically and socially marginalized classes who are least able to access courts---Prisons exist as institutions for reformation and social rehabilitation, and the failure of governments to operationalize probation laws defeats that purpose---Accordingly, the respective Chief Executives of the Federal Government and Provincial Governments were directed to ensure that enacted laws relating to release of prisoners on probation are effectively implemented and made functional and that all prisoners eligible under such laws are identified and their cases processed expeditiously. Disposition: Proceedings were disposed of by declaring that neglect or refusal to effectively enforce enacted laws relating to release of prisoners on probation is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 9, 10-A, 14 and 25 of the Constitution; the Federal and Provincial Chief Executives were directed to ensure effective implementation of probation laws and expeditious processing of all eligible prisoners’ cases. Raja Azmat Ali v. Abu Malik Naseem and another, 2023 SCMR 1867, decided on 23.05.2023.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9, 14, 15 & 199 Fundamental rights—Right to dignity, reputation, and freedom of movement—Post-acquittal continuation of name in police records—Scope of relief—Petitioner, acquitted under S. 249-A Cr.P.C. from FIR No. 40/2022, sought deletion of his name from all police databases and issuance of a clear Police Character Certificate (PCC)—Held, once an acquittal attains finality, no stigma or adverse inference can lawfully persist against the acquitted person—However, police may retain internal historical records of FIRs for administrative, operational, or inter-agency purposes so long as such records are not misused—Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 cannot be invoked merely to interfere with internal record-keeping unless misuse or targeted discrimination is shown—Relief for expunction of entire record declined. (b) Police administration—Character certificate—Post-acquittal status ----Issuance of Police Character Certificate (PCC)—Obligation of police authorities—After acquittal based on complainant’s own clarification exonerating the accused, the police must issue a PCC omitting reference to the concerned FIR—Continued mention of an obsolete and unchallenged FIR in the PCC would unjustly stigmatize an exonerated citizen and offend the dignity guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution—Direction issued to authorities to issue PCC within fifteen (15) days without reference to the FIR. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 249-A—Acquittal—Finality—Once an accused is acquitted under S. 249-A Cr.P.C., and the prosecution does not challenge the decision, the acquittal attains finality and fully exonerates the accused from criminal liability—No adverse record or inference can subsist thereafter. (g) Disposition — Petition partly allowed—Request for complete expunction of FIR from police database declined—Respondents directed to issue Police Character Certificate to the Petitioner omitting reference to FIR No. 40/2022 within fifteen days.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)––Arts. 9, 10, 10-A, 14 & 19-A––Fundamental rights––Scope––Right to liberty, dignity, and access to information––Petitioner alleged harassment by FIA officials and lack of disclosure regarding purpose of their visit––Held, constitutional rights to life, liberty, and fair trial are fundamental but not absolute; they are subject to reasonable restrictions and must operate within the framework of law––Where formal call-up notice was duly issued and inquiry related to large-scale financial impropriety, FIA’s visit to serve notice and record statement was lawful and within jurisdiction––No evidence of coercion, harassment, or illegal detention found––Petition to that extent infructuous. (b) Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974––Investigation powers––Lawful exercise––Visit by FIA officials to workplace––Held, such visit valid when conducted to effect service of previously issued notice and to record statement; not intended for arrest or detention––Investigative authorities possess legal authority to probe complex financial crimes involving national economic security, provided inquiries remain fair, transparent, and respectful of individual dignity. (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898––S. 160 et seq.––Procedure before arrest––Held, no arrest or coercive action may be taken against an individual without compliance with due process including formal notice, disclosure of grounds, and adherence to procedural safeguards––Authorities directed not to initiate any coercive measures against petitioner unless legal prerequisites are fulfilled. (d) Constitutional petition––Maintainability––Relief sought already redressed––Petitioner’s grievance regarding lack of information stood resolved once he joined inquiry and recorded statement––Primary relief rendered infructuous––However, protective direction issued restraining respondents from adopting any coercive action absent legal authorization. Disposition: Petition partly allowed––Directions issued restraining arrest or coercive measures without due process––Petitioner to cooperate with ongoing investigation.