Judgment on PTI appeal against IHC verdict: It’s hard to believe reps, activists and media persons can indulge themselves in anti-state activities: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court stated it is hard to believe that the chosen representatives of the people, political activists, rights activists, and mediapersons can indulge themselves in anti-state activities.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel and Justice Shahid Wahid said that in a judgment passed on an appeal of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) against the Islamabad High Court’s judgment.

The judgment authored by Justice Jamal Khan set aside the IHC and the trial court’s verdicts endorsing Gill’s custody to the police despite allegations of torture and acquitted him from the high treason case. It ruled; “On the basis of the material available on the record, no case was made out against the petitioner.”

The judgment said; “The act of indulging its citizens in malicious and frivolous prosecution by the government without any substance on the plea that the thoughts are anti-State, amounts to undermining the constitutional command and as such, depriving citizens from their fundamental rights of freedom of movement, assembly, speech, and right to information.”

Such misuse of authority creates a sense of fear and insecurity in the society, which result into hatred against the State’s institutions. When citizens are put in fear, they cannot perform their functions freely, which amounts to preventing them from contributing towards the society in accordance with the Constitution, law and as per their conscience.

In such a hostile atmosphere, the media cannot also perform its functions freely, rather it will undermine the freedom of speech, expression, and access to information of the citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution, resulting into mistrust in the institutions.

A democratic government is considered to be by the people, of the people and for the people. It must, therefore, develop an atmosphere of tolerance, to promote political and social justice; to create a habit of listening to healthy criticism, which is the beauty of democracy.

Thus, the government must accept the will of the people, instead of considering its critics and political opponents as enemy of the State, to avert hatred and mistrust of citizens upon the institutions, by refraining itself from misusing the power and authority and to avoid malicious, baseless and frivolous prosecution against its citizens.

The record reflects that vide a Notification No8/85/2020- Law dated 14.12.2020, the federal government has empowered the secretary to file complaints on its behalf, against a person(s) for the offences mentioned in section 196.

Admittedly, the secretary did not file any complaint against the petitioner, rather, the FIR was registered against the main accused under the said sections by the magistrate after getting permission from the secretary, through a letter dated 09.08.2022. The secretary being a delegate himself, has no jurisdiction to re-delegate the authority to anyone else.

In the present case, the FIR was registered with permission of the secretary without considering the provisions of Section 196 of the Code that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the above-referred sections of the PPC. Neither an FIR can be registered nor can a permission from the secretary justify the act of the Magistrate.

As contemplated in Section 196 of the Code, no Court shall take cognizance of the offences of the PPC, mentioned therein, unless upon a complaint filed by the authorities concerned, therefore, the trial court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of sections 121-A, 124, 153-A, and 505 of the PPC, on the basis of the FIR, hence, the judicial proceedings initiated by it to the extent of such offences are coram non judice.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023