The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that every prisoner must be treated fairly and humanely up until the end of their term.
“The prisoner is thus entirely dependent on the state and is at its mercy for the purposes of safeguarding the right to life and the state; therefore, owes a duty of care to every prisoner, regardless of the nature of offence for which the latter has been incarcerated,” reads a five-page judgment written by Justice Athar Minallah.
The order of the proceeding held on May 23, 2023, in which the court had requested reports from the federal government and the relevant provincial governments on the status of implementation of enforced enacted laws relating to the release of inmates on the basis of “probation,” was issued by a two-member bench of the apex court, headed by former chief justice Umer Ata Bandial and Justice Athar Minallah.
The court stated that the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan (“Commission”) had read the reports provided by the respective governments.
The judgment reads, “The latter, in its report, has raised crucial questions regarding the inability of the respective governments to extend the benefit of release provided under the relevant enforced laws,” and it adds that the proceedings before this court and the reports submitted by the respective governments show that severe conditions impinging on fundamental rights are present in prisons all across the nation.
According to the fundamental rights of inviolability of human dignity guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, the court found that only freedom and the right to free movement had been restricted and definitely not the constitutional rights to life and to be treated with respect.
Read more:Court summons PM Kakar over fuel price increase
Furthermore, the court ruled that officials had a responsibility to make sure that no prisoner’s right to liberty was arbitrarily denied, even if it was due to their being released on probation.
According to the ruling, “it is an undeniable fact that inmates’ living circumstances and treatment in overcrowded and underequipped prisons profoundly affect the constitutionally guaranteed rights.”
The court observed that those from economically and socially disadvantaged groups made up the majority of those who were victims of a broken criminal justice system.
According to the ruling, “They lack the resources to access the courts, and the state has not upheld its constitutional duty to ensure affordable and prompt justice as contemplated by Article 37(d) of the Constitution.”
The court remarked that the current criminal justice system “allows its exploitation by the privileged and those who wield influence,” denying justice to the weak and disadvantaged.
The court said that the prisons functioned as facilities for reformation and social rehabilitation of those prisoners found guilty by a competent court following a fair trial, noting that the appalling conditions in the prisons were intolerable in a country ruled by a Constitution.
The verdict states that “the prisoner has been defined as a person legally committed to a prison as a punishment for a crime or while awaiting a trial,” adding that there are primarily two categories of prisoners: those who have been found guilty and those who have not, with the latter being presumed innocent until guilt is proven.
The court emphasized that the reason the convicted inmates were behind bars was because they had to serve a sentence. “The object of undergoing a sentence pursuant to being convicted by a competent court of law is to make the convicted person and others realize that what the former has done or his/her acts, omission, and conduct which have led to the conviction or handing down of the sentence were unacceptable,” according to the judgment.
The court emphasized that a sentence revoked a prisoner’s freedom and right to be free, and that this restriction on freedom might have only minor effects on some other rights.
The judgment states that “a non-convicted prisoner retains the presumption of innocence, which is an integral and fundamental part of the right to a fair trial”, and that the prisoner, whether convicted or not, has no choice but to place sole reliance on the authorities holding him/her in custody for his/her right to life and other needs, such as medical care.
The court noted that the Constitution’s Article 9 guarantees the right to life and that the state and its agents have a responsibility of care as a result of this reliance.
The court determined that, in the context of a prisoner, Article 9 impliedly required the state to ensure that everyone who is imprisoned, including those who have been found guilty of a crime and are serving a sentence, is treated humanely and that this duty extends for the duration of the person’s incarceration.
When ruling on the petition, the court ruled that the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, including those under Articles 9, 10-A, 14, and 25 ibid, are violated when laws relating to prisoner release on the basis of probation are neglected or not effectively enforced.
The court ordered the various chief executives of the federal government and the provinces to make sure that the passed laws relating to a prisoner’s release on the basis of probation be faithfully carried out and made operational.
The court ordered that the federal and provincial administrations, depending on the situation, must make sure that the inmates who qualify for probationary release under the established rules be located and that their cases are handled quickly.
