The Sindh High Court (SHC) has said the high courts have consistently condemned police harassment, and stressed that the misconduct of one family member does not justify subjecting others to dishonour, disrespect and harassment.
Issuing an order on a woman’s plea against harassment, a single SHC bench headed by Justice Adnanul Karim Memon said that as an Islamic state, Pakistan must uphold high ethical standards, and such police actions violate the law, legal ethics and human rights.
Zoya and her son had filed a petition against several individuals, claiming that the private respondents have been threatening and harassing them, and have been involved in other illegal actions.
The petitioners’ counsel said his clients have been facing serious threats to their lives from the respondents and their associates. He said these threats are related to the murder of Asfand Yar, for which Zoya’s husband Ahmed Khan Depar has been falsely implicated.
He also said the respondents had attacked his clients’ homes and businesses, robbed their valuables and set their property on fire. The respondents have also threatened Zoya and her children at their Karachi residence, forcing them to vacate the premises, he added.
The counsel said the respondents have taken control of Zoya’s husband’s agricultural lands, preventing cultivation, and are also threatening to disrupt the couple’s children’s education.
He said the husband has been falsely implicated in Yar’s murder, and has been missing for a month. The petitioners suspect the respondents’ involvement in his disappearance, he added. He sought protection for his clients, and legal action against the respondents.
A Gulistan-e-Jauhar police official confirmed that Depar is named as a suspect in Yar’s murder case, and is also wanted in another murder case in Larkana. He said police are actively pursuing Depar’s arrest, denied any wrongdoing, and claimed that the petition is an attempt to obstruct legitimate police work.
The provincial law officer and the additional prosecutor general said in unequivocal terms that neither the petitioners nor the respondents would be harassed, and police would act strictly in accordance with the law.
The court said this is a harassment case, emphasising that harassment encompasses a broad range of harmful actions. It stressed the police department’s responsibility, particularly the SSP concerned, to address such issues at his end.
The court also said that while the petitioners have a fundamental right of protection from both police and private respondents, it clarified that police retain full authority to act legally if either party commits a criminal offence.
The court explained that Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to be treated in accordance with the law, which includes fairness and the elimination of any factors that obstruct legal processes.
The court directed police to properly investigate the issue at their end in accordance with the law by hearing the parties, as the petitioners have apprehension of foul play at the hands of police because they are registering multiple FIRs against them, as pointed out by the petitioners’ counsel.
The court directed police officials to act strictly within legal boundaries, ensuring no harassment to either party if they act in accordance with the law.
The court said the law enjoins police to be scrupulously fair to the offender, and the magistracy is to ensure a fair investigation and fair trial for an offender. Unfortunately, it added, these objectives have remained unfulfilled.
“Deviations of police officers and police excesses in dealing with the law and order situation have been the subject of adverse comments from this court as well as from other courts, but they have failed to have any corrective effect on it.”
The court said police have the power to arrest a person even without obtaining a warrant of arrest from a court for cognisable offences, but the presence of this power casts an obligation on the police.
Police must bear in mind, as held by the court from time to time in its various pronouncements, that if a person is arrested for a crime, their constitutional and fundamental rights must not be violated, it added.
The court disposed of the petition in view of the statement of the government law officers, and made it clear that if there is any private/civil/criminal dispute between the parties, it should be dealt with by the competent court of law / forum.
The court pointed out that it would not travel into that dispute, and leave it for the competent forum to redress the same, if approached by the aggrieved party in accordance with the law within a reasonable time.
The court directed the DIG concerned to see to the issue of harassment at his end, and take prompt action in accordance with the law if the petitioners approach him.
However, it said, that is subject to a fact-finding inquiry to be conducted by the DIG about the high-handedness, if any, of the area police in connivance with the private respondents.