A good beginning

The Supreme Court has ruled that a convict's sentence shall be counted from the day of his arrest. This ground-breaking ruling came on Monday when a specifically constituted larger bench overruled an earlier judgement which had contended that the sentence of a prisoner would be counted from the date of court verdict.
The ruling also envisaged that this benefit to the convict shall not deprive him of remissions granted by any authority. Also, his sentences, if more than one, will commence simultaneously. This is a good beginning for the new judicial policy that came into effect the day before.
Over 10,000 convict-prisoners are expected to benefit from this ruling. However, those undergoing imprisonment for offences under the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Ordinance, Anti-Terrorism Act and 'karo-kari offence will not be entitled to any relief under this ruling. To ensure that the prisoners entitled to this relief get it in time, within two weeks, the court directed that the copies of the verdict be sent to all concerned authorities as well as prisoners for compliance "in letter and spirit" - and be reported to the registrar of the Supreme Court.
The fair deal promised in the Supreme Court ruling is expected to positively impact the psyche of the convict-prisoners. At the same time large-scale evacuation of prisoners expected as follow-up of the ruling would surely decrease pressure on prison compounds which are generally overcrowded and occasionally produce mutinies. Lean and clean prisons have more potential to reform their inmates.
Given lethargic police investigation and slow prosecution process in courts it is not surprising that in some cases the pre-conviction detention exceeds the prescribed sentence. Oftentimes an under-trial detainee would have spent double the term of penalty fixed for the charge he faced only because either the police failed to come up with a challan in time or the prosecution could not keep up the momentum of trial by the court.
This amounts to committing injustice in the name of procuring justice. The court's ruling that the sentences if more than one would run concurrently would help overcome the probability that a person convicted of lesser offence undergoes longer imprisonment than the one convicted for a more serious crime. The targets set by the new judicial policy indeed appear to be too ambitious. But isn't it a fact that in the absence of a mechanism to secure speedy and inexpensive justice things came to such a pass that the entire Malakand division is in ferment. The Supreme Court's verdict is a welcome first step on the long and difficult journey to obtain a just and legal society in Pakistan.