End ‘media parading' of accused in police custody, orders apex court
A three-judge, headed by Justice Athar Minallah and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan decided that in a murder case, acquitting the appellant (Shahid Ali), who was convicted under Section 302(b) of the PPC and sentenced to death by the trial court, and upheld by the High Court.
The crime, in this case, relates to the gruesome murder of Wasim Akram, who was around 7 or 8 years old when his lifeless body was discovered lying in a water tank and was recovered by police officials.
According to the case, the appellant was convicted on the basis of an interview recorded by a journalist Afzal Pervaiz (PW-9) while he was on physical remand and in the custody of the investigating officer. 'The appellant's interview was later aired on one of the private television channels ARY NEWS, in its program 'Jurm Bolta Hae''.
The trial court as well as the High Court had heavily relied upon this statement by treating it as a confession of guilt made by the appellant.
The judgment authored by Justice Athar Minallah noted that it is not unusual for the electronic media to show accused persons parading in front of the cameras or reporters aggressively questioning the accused in criminal cases while they are in custody during the course of investigation. This phenomenon is deprecated because it gravely violates and undermines the rights of the parties, particularly the accused and gravely interferes with the fairness of a trial.
It is an obligation of each government, federal and provincial, to take immediate effective measures in ensuring that this phenomenon comes to an end. The respective governments are responsible to safeguard the rights of the parties in criminal proceedings, particularly an accused, and the fairness of the process of investigation.
Giving access to persons not associated with the process of investigation and facilitating them to interfere, directly or indirectly, with the criminal proceedings violates the law and gravely affects the fairness of the trial and the rights of an accused. It is a misconduct in the case of an investigator or a person in authority, such as the In charge of a Police Station, to give access to or facilitate any person to interfere with the course of investigation in violation of the procedure prescribed under the CrPC, read with the enabling provisions of other statutes.
The media, whether print or electronic, directed to self regulate its reporting and airing of programmes by setting out and adopting standard operating procedures, having regard to the international best practices.
The Court expected from the regulatory authorities to consider proposing such standard operating procedures in consultation with the stakeholders with the object of safeguarding the rights of the parties, particularly during an investigation.
The judgment said that the power and authority of a magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC can also not be usurped and made redundant, directly or indirectly, by giving access to private persons to record confessions. Access and permission, therefore, cannot be given to a private person, such as a person engaged in the profession of journalism, to record the statement of an accused in the nature of a confession while he or she is in custody. Any such statement would be inadmissible under the mandate of Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
6 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Three neighbours arrested for rape, murder of teen girl
A case of sexual assault and murder has shaken Khokhrapar Malir Extension Colony, after the body of 16-year-old Areeba was found in a street with a noose around her neck. Police had registered a murder case under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), against unidentified armed suspects, on the complaint of the victim's father, and the post-mortem examination confirmed that the girl was sexually assaulted before being murdered. SHO Khokhrapar, Allah Bachayo Rind, stated that the victim's father had suspected residents, and based on that, police took three men into custody, including two brothers living in the same neighbourhood. The arrested individuals include Muhammad Anas, Asad, and a third suspect. Reportedly, Areeba was returning home from her uncle's house, carrying a dish of khichdi, when the incident took place. Investigators recovered one of her sandals from the arrested suspects' house and found the khichdi in a plastic bag on their rooftop. Further investigations are ongoing, with a final forensic report to provide conclusive evidence.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order after SC ruling
CONCORD: A federal judge on Thursday has again barred President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing his executive order limiting birthright citizenship across the country after the US Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to block his policies using nationwide injunctions. US District Judge Joseph Laplante in Concord, New Hampshire, made the ruling after immigrant rights advocates implored him to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any babies whose citizenship status would be threatened by the implementation of Trump's directive. Laplante agreed the plaintiffs could proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president's policy nationally. The question of whether to issue an injunction was 'not a close call,' he said, noting children could be deprived of US citizenship if Trump's order took effect. 'That's irreparable harm, citizenship alone,' he said. 'It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.' The judge said he would stay his ruling for seven days to allow the Trump administration to appeal and would issue a written decision by the end of the day. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Under the Supreme Court's decision, Trump's executive order had been set to take effect on July 27. The ACLU and others had filed the suit just hours after the Supreme Court on June 27 issued a 6-3 ruling, powered by its conservative majority, that narrowed three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in separate challenges to Trump's directive. The suit was filed on behalf of non-US citizens living in the United States whose babies might be affected. CLASS ACTIONS Looking to seize upon an exception in the Supreme Court's ruling, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the decision allows judges to continue to block Trump policies on a nationwide basis in class action lawsuits. The three judges who issued nationwide injunctions found that Trump's directive likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The amendment states that all 'persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' The Justice Department has argued that Trump's order conforms with the Constitution and has asked Laplante to find that the plaintiffs cannot sue as a class. The Supreme Court's ruling did not address the legal merits of Trump's order, which the Republican president issued as part of his hardline immigration agenda on his first day back in office in January. Trump's order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a 'green card' holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if it takes effect nationally, according to Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who have challenged it. UNIVERSAL INJUNCTIONS The Supreme Court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of the three injunctions that had blocked Trump's order from being enforced anywhere in the country against anyone after finding judges lack the authority to issue so-called 'universal injunctions' that cover people who are not parties to the lawsuit before the judge. Although the Trump administration hailed the ruling as a major victory, federal judges have continued to issue sweeping rulings blocking key parts of Trump's agenda found to be unlawful. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the decision for the court, made clear that it did not prevent plaintiffs from obtaining essentially the same type of relief as provided in a nationwide injunction by instead bringing class action lawsuits that seek to represent all similarly situated people, among other exceptions. Immigrant rights advocates launched two proposed class actions that same day, including the one before Laplante, who in a related case also concluded in February that Trump's order was likely unconstitutional. Laplante, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, ruled that Trump's order contradicted the 14th Amendment and a 1898 Supreme Court ruling interpreting it.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Employees transferred from T&T to PTC, and subsequently to PTCL: SC judgement
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court by majority of 2 to 1 held that the employees transferred from T&T to PTC, and subsequently to PTCL, retained not only their right to pensionary benefits but also the character of those benefits as dynamic and evolving rights. A three-judge, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Ayesha A Malik, on Thursday, announced the judgment regarding of pension of PTCL ex-employees. Multiple judgments of various High Courts were impugned before the Court, essentially on the same subject matter being the entitlement of the employees of the erstwhile Telegraph and Telephone (T&T) Department to receive the same pension and pensionary benefits accorded to civil servants, as notified by the federal government from time to time. Justice Yahya and Justice Amin disagreed with the judgment of Justice Ayesha. Justice Yahya judgment said while employees transferred from T&T to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), and subsequently to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) ceased to be civil servants, the statutory framework governing their transfer safeguarded their pensionary entitlements in full: not just as frozen benefits fixed at the time of transfer, but as living rights that were to progress in accordance with prevailing standards applicable to similarly situated public servants. The scheme under Section 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991, and Section 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorga-nization) Act, 1996 guarantees the continuation of these entitlements, and the administrative mechanism created under the PTCL Act, including the establishment of Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) was intended to facilitate, not frustrate, this guarantee. PTCL and PTET are duty-bound to ensure that the full measure of these entitlements is met, and any interpretation that reduces these rights to static or discretionary payments is contrary to the legislative mandate. The majority judgment clarified that this conclusion and these dispositions, have not been reached in ignorance of the financial concerns raised by PTCL and PTET. The submissions regarding the financial burden and claims of fiscal unsustainability have been duly considered. However, financial difficulty does not absolve a statutory entity of its legal obligations. If the existing pension model is incapable of sustaining the financial burden, it is the model that must be recalibrated, not the statutory entitlements curtailed. That said, the practical challenges identified by PTCL and PTET are real, and it is recognised a rigid timeline for disbursement may not be financially viable. Accordingly, PTCL must acknowledge its continuing financial liability towards former civil servants and reflect this as a declared liability on its financial records in accordance with applicable accounting and corporate law principles. Thereafter, PTCL, through PTET, may determine a feasible disbursement schedule for revised pensionary payments, the needful be done within 90 days, and that the payment process remains transparent and equitable in addressing the rightful claims of the affected pensioners. The chief justice held; CPLA Nos. 412, 420–424, 461–463, and 506 of 2019; CPLA Nos. 424-K, 357-K, and 365-K of 2019; CPLA Nos. 6005, 6006, 6023–6030, 6087–6096, 6101–6106, 6268–6273, and 6364 of 2021, 6453-6456 of 2021; and CPLA Nos. 134–135 of 2022 are dismissed. The impugned judgments of the High Courts are upheld to the extent that they grant pensionary revisions to those transferred employees who were civil servants at the time of their transfer. Such employees are entitled to the continuation of pensionary benefits, including revisions notified by the federal government. The CPLA Nos 2107, 2140, 2141, 2143, 2144, 2145, 2146, and 2147 of 2022 are allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside. The petitioners, being civil servants at the time of transfer, are entitled to continued pensionary revisions as per federal government notifications. The CPLA Nos 2138, 2139, and 2142 of 2022 are allowed, subject to classification confirmation. The matters are remanded to the relevant High Court for factual determination of the service status of the petitioners at the time of transfer. If the petitioners are found to have been civil servants, they shall be entitled to the continuation of pensionary benefits, including revisions notified by the federal government. The CPLA Nos 6205, 6222-6225, 6332, 6333, 6358-6363, 6379, 6437, 6485, 6545-6550, 6553-6556 of 2021, and CPLA Nos 30, 112-114, 118, 139-145, 329, 330, 368-371, 465-471, 645 of 2022 are remanded for determination whether each petitioner held civil-servant status at transfer end, and if so, for corresponding pension revisions. The CPLA No 426-K of 2019; CPLA Nos 1919 and 2066 of 2019; and CPLA Nos 369, 373, and 603 of 2018 are dismissed, as the petitioners either availed VSS, were not civil servants at the time of transfer, or did not establish a statutory entitlement to pensionary revisions under the applicable legal framework. The CPLA Nos 2197, 2199, and 2200–2205 of 2022; CPLA Nos. 2563 and 2564 of 2022; and CPLA Nos 495-K and 496-K of 2023 are remanded to the relevant High Court for determination of the petitioners' employment classification and entitlement to relief in light of the legal principles laid down in this judgment. The CA No 1509 of 2021 is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Crl.O.P. No 28/2018 in Crl.O.P. No 54/2015; Crl.O.P. Nos 56/2018 and 84/2018 in C.P.L.A. No 1643/2014; Crl.O.P. No 144/2022 and Crl.O.P. No 29/2023 in C.P.L.A. No 568/2014 are dismissed as infructuous. Crl.M.A. No 139/2025 in Crl.O.P. No 56/2018 is also dismissed. CMA Nos. 5783/2022, 5641/2022, 5784/2022, 5785/2022, 5786/2022, 5624/2022, 5787/2022, 5788/2022, 5638/2022, 5789/2022, 5883/2022, 5862/2022, 6066/2022, 6075/2022, 6076/2022, 6079/2022, 6074/2022, 6601/2022, 6602/2022 (interim applications for injunctive relief in various CPLAs) are disposed of as infructuous, the main matters having been decided. CMA Nos. 1470/2020 and 7698/2022 in CPLA No. 463/2019; CMA Nos. 1636 and 1637/2022 in CPLA No. 6005/2021; CMA Nos. 1633 and 810/2022 in CPLA No. 6358/2021; and CMA No. 11521/2023 in CPLA No. 6379/2021, and CMA No. 7515/2024 in CPLA No. 6104 of 2021 all seeking impleadment, are dismissed. CMA No. 8153 of 2023 in CPLA No. 424-K of 2019, seeking de-clubbing of the petition, is dismissed. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
