The 14-page order the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, issued the other day, in a suo motu action he himself had initiated on the arrest and detention of senior advocate, Muhammad Habib-ul-Wahab al-Khairi, serves as an indisputable endorsement of a long held public view of gross mishandling of criminal cases, thereby, beating the ends of justice in no insignificant a manner.
For besides ordering suspension of the concerned judicial magistrate for wrongly remanding Khairi in police custody and 'taking a brazen-faced stand' to support it, he has stripped him of all judicial powers, referring his case to the Lahore High Court (LHC) for further action.
As for Khairi's interrogation by the CIA staff on a nearly 38-year-old first information report (FIR) about the sale of a low-cost quarter, the Chief Justice has taken a serious view not only of the role of the police, but also of the four Rawalpindi lawyers who helped the erring judicial magistrate by filing 'false affidavits' in violation of the law on remand.
He has also asked the Punjab Bar Council to proceed against them according to the law, and to conclude proceedings within four months. Notably, in arriving at the conclusions that the magistrate had remanded Khairi in the absence of the accused, the Chief Justice relied on the statements of the police officers as well as of the lawyers, who had waited for Khairi's arrival at the Rawalpindi District Courts to oppose the police request and also move for his bail.
It will be noted that the magistrate, in his written statement, had said the police had produced the accused in his court, identifying him as Advocate Wahab Khairi and contending that since he did not know the accused personally, he had accepted the police statement, and allowed them to keep him in physical custody for investigation.
As against this, at the first hearing before the Chief Justice, the police officers had admitted that they had obtained the remand from the magistrate without producing the lawyer.
Consequently, as such, the IGP, Punjab, has been directed to report immediately to the Chief Justice on the actions he was asked to take against the DSP, Shahid Pervez, and Inspector Sohail Ehsan.
As for the court assistants, who filed the 'false affidavits' in support of the magistrate, he recommended their suspension and disciplinary action to the district and sessions judge of Rawalpindi. It will also be noted that in its comments on the conduct of the magistrate, the order said: "Unfortunately, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not possible to take a lenient view in respect of the magistrate, pointing out that in this particular case, the dispute is about a quarter/house, emanating from a general power of attorney executed as far back as 24.8.1966."
The Supreme Court finally decided the matter, pointing out that, obviously, it was a dispute of civil nature and the magistrate without applying mind to favour somebody, granted remand. It has also been observed that he has deliberately passed an illegal order, handing over a senior lawyer in police custody in an atmosphere and in a manner, which has seriously jeopardised the sanctity attached to a court of law.
All in all, this landmark judgement can be seen as having raised the curtain on a torturous distortion in the system of governance, particularly, in the sphere of enforcement of law.
This, of course, has reference to the handling of the public complaints by the police, in a manner contrary to the demands of law. Again, as it will be noted from the excesses in the Khairi case, it is the mischief behind the handling of FIRs that happens to be the root cause of denial of justice on a widening scale, while providing a fillip to all sorts of criminal activities. And the reason for this is not too far to seek either.
For the fact remains that the filing of the FIR, which is the right of every citizen, has, generally speaking, continued to be treated as a licence by the police, obtainable against an illegal price or pressure from above. It has certainly played a pivotal role in widespread corruption that has continued to gain alarming proportions.
Although quite some effort has gone toward eliminating corruption in high offices from the dual thrust of transparency and accountability during the past five years of reforms and restructuring, the need of nipping the evil in the bud, seems to have escaped the attention of the government.
Viewed in this perspective, the Supreme Court's judgement can be seen as sort of guiding light for curbing the menacing hold, thereby enabling the people enjoy the blessings of law and justice.
Comments
Comments are closed.