Latest news with #AtharMinallah
Business Recorder
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
End ‘media parading' of accused in police custody, orders apex court
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court said phenomenon of accused persons' parading in front of cameras or reporters aggressively questioning the accused in criminal cases while they are in police custody for investigate must end. 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
Express Tribune
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
'Why only carriers face music in narcotics case?'
The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the systemic failure of law enforcement in tackling the narcotics trade beyond its most vulnerable participants, observing that prosecutions overwhelmingly target only drug "carriers" – mostly from underprivileged backgrounds – while major perpetrators remain untouched. The observations came in a 17-page written judgment authored by Justice Athar Minallah, in which the court acquitted two individuals who had earlier been sentenced to life imprisonment in a narcotics case. The ruling was issued by a three-member bench headed by Justice Minallah, and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan. "There are several law-enforcement agencies vested with powers to apprehend and prosecute those who are involved in the crimes relating to narcotic drugs, including a special agency, the Anti-Narcotics Force established under the Act of 1997," the verdict notes. The judgment calls into question the effectiveness of these institutions, particularly when viewed against the scale and pervasiveness of the drug menace. "The people of Pakistan have to bear the financial burden for maintaining these law enforcement agencies entrusted with the onerous task to eradicate the menace of narcotic drugs from the society. Have they achieved their designated goal? The answer is an emphatic 'No'," it reads. The court further lamented the growing spread of narcotics across the country, stating: "The evil of narcotic drugs has spread throughout the country and it cannot be disputed that it has reached the educational institutions where they are freely accessible." The bench pointed out that even in the few cases where arrests are made, prosecutions often do not result in convictions, raising further doubts about the integrity and professionalism of investigative processes. "The law enforcement agencies have not gone beyond arresting carriers and then, in many cases, failing to prove the guilt even to their extent. If the society has to be freed from the evil of narcotic drugs then each law enforcement agency has to perform effectively and in the most professional manner." "They have to be held accountable for their omissions and lapses committed during the investigations or while prosecuting a case. The future generations cannot be exposed to the menace of narcotic drugs merely because the several law enforcement agencies entrusted with the onerous duty to free the society from this evil fail to perform effectively or are seen as complicit. "The buck stops with the Federal and Provincial Governments, as the case may be, because they are ultimately responsible for the overall and general supervision of the law enforcement agencies. The responsibility does not end with the Executive branch of the State because the Judicial branch is also equally responsible in ensuring that the trial is conducted fairly and that a just decision is reached. "This case also shows that the trial court had failed in exercising its powers vested under the law. "We, therefore, expect that the Government of Sindh which, according to section 5 (1) of the Act of 2009, exercises general superintendence over the Prosecution Service and is responsible for ensuring achievement of the objectives of the Act of 2009, will take effective steps so that cases involving crimes relating to narcotic substances are dealt with effectively and in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of the investigators and Prosecutors. "The Prosecutor General Sindh is expected to examine this case and take appropriate action so that the omissions observed in this case are not repeated. The prosecutor General is further advised to consider issuing guidelines in exercise of its functions under section 9-A (1) of the Act of 2009 for the Prosecutors and officers responsible for investigations relating to effective and efficient prosecution. The High Court is also expected to consider laying down a policy of regular training of judicial officers relating to conducting of criminal trials. The order also said that this case has emanated from the province of Sindh where the Provincial Assembly of Sindh has promulgated and enacted the Sindh Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution Functions and Powers) Act 2009. "The Criminal Prosecution Service of Sindh has been established under this legislation. The Act of 2009 sets out the powers, functions and responsibilities of the prosecution service in conducting prosecutions on behalf of the Government. "The administration of this service vests in the Government. Section 9 (1) explicitly provides that the Prosecutors shall be responsible for the conducting of prosecutions on behalf of the Government. The Prosecutor General is empowered under section 9-A (1) to issue general guidelines for the Prosecutors or officers responsible for investigation for effective and efficient prosecution.
Express Tribune
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
LHC's May 9 ruling
Listen to article It seems political instability and an unpleasant crisscross with the judiciary is there to stay. The detailed order of a division bench of the LHC that found former PM Imran Khan involved in a 'conspiracy' linked to the May 9 upheavals has come too late, thus putting a question mark on its veracity. The court ironically has summarised its entire contention, reliance and judgment merely on the testimony of two police officials presented by the state prosecution. This is simply a travesty of justice and is in need of a holistic approach to dispense fair play in all judiciousness. It is irksome to note that both the sleuths were present on two different occasions in various parts of Punjab with the accused, and were the only ones to hear him instigate his workers to vandalise state properties in case of his arrest. Thus, the charges of criminal conspiracy and abetment slapped on the incarcerated leader have come to not only delay his lawful bail application, but also to prolong an episode of controversy and discontent that has wrecked socio-political harmony for long. The May 9 buzzword has come a long way. Hundreds of arrested men and women have gone through trials and tribulations. And when the tale was nearing its legal and logical end, as judgments and lawful interpretations of proceedings are in order, this new trial after two years hints at nothing but vendetta. It is a foregone conclusion that the judiciary is under pressure, especially after the 26th amendment, and dispensing an impartial trial to the imprisoned opposition party members is a remote possibility. It is, thus, incumbent upon the judiciary to see that justice is seen to be done, and the cases should not be heard and decided in limbo without seeking relevant pieces of witnesses as ordained by law. Learned Justice Athar Minallah had a point, when he told an audience at the Supreme Court, that the society is polarising owing to the phenomenon that the state is trying to construe self-concocted decisions. Time to step back from this disgusting tendency.
Express Tribune
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Broken justice system fuels corruption and elitism: SC
Listen to article The Supreme Court has ruled that a weak and compromised criminal justice system undermines the rule of law and thus encourages corruption, authoritarianism and the rule of the powerful and privileged. "An effective and responsive criminal justice system, free from political interference and corruption, is a fundamental right of every citizen while inexpensive and expeditious justice is a commitment of the State under the Constitution. The criminal justice system will only serve its purpose when the actual stakeholders, the people of this country, will have trust and confidence in a system which is free, accessible, impartial, responsive, independent and free from corruption or any other influence. "It is, therefore, a constitutional duty of every organ of the State, the executive, judiciary and the legislature to take urgent steps so as to ensure that the criminal justice system serves the people of this country and they repose their trust and confidence in its fairness, impartiality and independence", reads a 20-page judgement authored by Justice Athar Minallah, which commuted the death sentence of an inmate imprisoned for the past 25 years into life imprisonment. A three-member bench of the apex court led by Justice Minallah heard the criminal appeal in a murder case. The judgement notes that the appellant has remained incarcerated for more than 25 years. "The appellant had escaped from judicial custody and that obviously constitutes a separate offence and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to make any observation lest it may prejudice the case of the parties in any matter that may be pending before a competent court/forum." The appellant was young in 1991 when the occurrence had taken place. He was accompanying his father and the motive was attributed to him and not the appellant. It cannot be ruled out that the appellant may have acted under the influence of his elders, particularly his father. He did not have any criminal record prior to the occurrence and, therefore, he was a first time offender. The court further noted the recovery of the fire arm weapon is not free from doubt and the evidence brought on record in this regard is not safe to be relied upon. In addition to these recognized mitigating factors, the appellant has served the full term prescribed for the alternate punishment of imprisonment for life without the benefit of remissions. "We are, therefore, of the opinion that on account of these mitigating and extenuating circumstances, the sentence of death on five counts was not justified. We, therefore, partly allow the appeal only to the extent of modifying the sentence of death on five counts to imprisonment for life on five counts. The sentences, except those required to be served in default of payment of compensation, shall run concurrently. The benefit under section 382b of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is extended in favour of the appellant," says the judgement. The court lamented on the abysmal condition of the criminal justice system in general and the unjustified delays in the ultimate disposal of cases in which the appellant or petitioner has challenged the sentence of death. In the case before the court, the appellant was sentenced to death by the trial court on September 3, 2008. The appeal was preferred within time. "The High Court decided the appeal on September 18, 2014, and the reference was answered in the affirmative and, thus, the sentence of death was confirmed. There is six years delay in deciding the appeal of a prisoner who has been handed down the sentence of death which cannot be justified." The necessary time for taking up the appeal and its ultimate disposal should not have been more than 12 months, stated the apex court. "The appellant had then sought leave by filing a petition before this Court and the necessary and reasonable time required for its final disposal should not have been more than twelve months." The petition, which was filed in 2014, was for the first time fixed for hearing after seven years i.e on March 22, 2021, and finally on January 29, 2025. It took more than 17 years for the appeal process to complete from the date when the death sentence was handed down. "The condemned prisoner was in a death cell and he was not responsible in any manner for this inordinate delay nor were the procedures in his control." The delay had definitely exceeded the necessary and reasonable time required for the appellate procedures to be completed. This inordinate delay brings the criminal justice system into disrepute and undermines the confidence of the people in the courts and the criminal justice system. The abysmal conditions in most of the overcrowded prisons across the country and the inhumane and degrading conditions often reported not only adds to the unimaginable agony and hardship of a condemned prisoner but becomes a form of unauthorized punishment not intended by the legislature. The court also noted that the judiciary is no doubt responsible when the process of appeal exceeds the necessary and reasonable time required for its completion, but the other branches of the State, the executive and legislature, are also equally responsible for ensuring that the conditions in the prisons are humane and that the treatment of prisoners is not cruel, inhuman and degrading. "It is an onerous task of the High Courts and this Court to ensure that the appeal process and remedies provided under the law are completed within the time which is necessary and reasonable for this purpose." The executive branch is equally responsible to ensure that treatment of the inmates of a prison is not cruel, degrading and inhumane. "The legislature is also expected to review the legislation with the object of making the criminal justice system responsive to the needs of the citizens and accountable for violations of their rights." The unauthorized punishment which an inmate of a prison is forced to endure on account of a compromised, weak and failing justice system cannot be legalized nor condoned. We have noted with concern that most of the victims of the inordinate delays in completion of the appellate process are those who are financially so weak that they cannot even afford to engage a lawyer of their choice. "It appears that the criminal justice system, from the stage of investigation to the fixation of appeals, is vulnerable to be exploited by the privileged and powerful while the victims are those who belong to politically, economically and socially marginalized and underprivileged classes." Every branch of the State having a role in the running of the criminal justice system is under an obligation to take urgent steps to remedy the wrongs. A system which fails in protecting and enforcing the rights alienates the actual stakeholders; the people of this country."
Business Recorder
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SC to hear ‘PTI's reserved seats case' tomorrow
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court will resume hearing of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) reserved seats case from tomorrow (Monday). It is expected that an 11-member Constitutional Bench, which has been hearing the case since May 6, 2025 will conclude it next week, if the lawyers of Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) complete their argument by June 17. Advocates Faisal Siddiqui and Hamid Khan are representing the SIC in this case. Faisal in the last proceedings had assured the bench that he would conclude his submissions in the next hearing. The PML-N, PPP and the ECP have submitted their written arguments. The ECP has contended that as PTI was evidently not party to proceedings before the ECP; therefore no relief could have been lawfully granted to it vide the majority judgement, even by exercising power under Article 187(1) of the Constitution. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who had authored the majority judgment (8 judges), and Justice Munir Akhtar, Justice Athar Minallah, and Justice Shahid Waheed, who agreed with Justice Mansoor are not part of the bench, hearing the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The Supreme Court's 11 judges on July 12, 24 ruled that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is a political party and entitled to reserved seats of women and non-Muslims to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in the National and the Provincial Assemblies. A Full Court of 13 judges had announced five separate short orders. Eight judges comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan passed one set of order, while Chief Justice Qazi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel released separate note. Similarly, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Amin ud Din Khan, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan wrote their own independent notes. The order of eight judges had set aside the Peshawar High Court (PHC) judgment and declared the ECP order on reserved seats ultra vires the constitution. They held that the PTI was and is a political party, which secured or won general seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies in the General Elections of 2024. The two judges' order also set aside the PHC judgment to the extent to exclude the PTI for calculation and allocation of reserved seats. They also held that the PTI as a Parliamentary Party is entitled to the reserved seats. Similar stance was taken by Justice Yahya Afridi in dismissing the SIC appeal against the PHC verdict. However, Justice Amin and Justice Afghan simply turned down the SIC appeal and said detailed reasons be recorded later. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
