recent verdict by Lahore High Court affirming the right of an accused to access video evidence in a narcotics case is a defining moment for due process in Pakistan’s legal system, particularly as it relates to protecting the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial (Article 10-A). The court’s decision, built upon the foundation of fundamental rights and precedent, is a necessary response to Pakistan’s longstanding struggle with allegations of police corruption in narcotics enforcement, where allegations of fabricated evidence, manipulated raids and procedural opacity are disturbingly frequent.

At the core of this ruling is the recognition that denying access to potentially exculpatory evidence—like video footage of a police raid—renders the trial process fundamentally unfair. Article 10-A of the constitution provides that all accused individuals are entitled to a transparent judicial process. However, for decades, procedural justice has been compromised in cases where police, unbound by proper accountability, have allegedly resorted to evidence tampering and procedural misconduct to secure convictions, particularly in high-stakes narcotics cases. The new ruling challenges the status quo by emphasising that all police claims must be verifiable and that all evidence must be accessible to defendants.

This ruling also aligns with a plethora of judicial precedent that allows for the admissibility of video evidence as per Article 164 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat. It therefore only makes sense for all exculpatory evidence to be made available to the accused during trial. The Islamabad High Court has held in Tahir Zahoor vs The State (2022) that an accused is entitled to access to all evidence. By extending this principle to video recordings in the recent Lahore High Court ruling, the judiciary has effectively modernised the scope of evidence to include digital evidence, a step that acknowledges how essential transparent evidence collection is to justice today. When police actions are recorded, the risk of evidence tampering or misconduct is reduced and the defence is empowered to challenge potentially flawed or abusive practices that might otherwise go unchecked.

This is especially pertinent in the context of narcotics cases, which have gained a dark reputation for abuse of power, false charges and planted evidence. Police corruption in narcotics enforcement is, unfortunately, a documented reality in Pakistan, where certain officers have faced accusations of planting drugs to frame people, using false testimonies or inflating the quantity of narcotics seized to impose harsher penalties. The practice is not only a betrayal of the public trust but also an explicit violation of the constitutional rights of the accused under Article 10-A. The right to a fair trial is hollow if law enforcement agencies are free to fabricate evidence with impunity. The High Court’s ruling is a timely judicial repudiation of such practices, emphasising that transparency and verifiable evidence are essential to curtailing ingrained corruption.

The ruling also reflects Pakistan’s growing recognition of the importance of digital evidence. In some ways, it mirrors international legal standards. Around the world, courts have acknowledged that withholding evidence, especially video footage, amounts to a miscarriage of justice. The United Kingdom’s Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, for example, mandates that the prosecution disclose evidence to the defence. Pakistan, through this recent ruling, aligns itself with these international norms by acknowledging that all material evidence, particularly in cases where the evidence may counteract prosecution claims, should be available for scrutiny by the defence. Transparency in evidence presentation is foundational to trust in the criminal justice system. The judiciary has affirmed that the right to access digital evidence, such as raid footage, is now part of that foundation.

Article 10-A guarantees due process and a fair trial. This article, enshrined in the constitution, asserts that all accused individuals are entitled to a transparent judicial process.

Yet, while the Lahore High Court’s ruling is an important step forward for accountability, it also highlights the systemic challenges that Pakistan’s legal and law enforcement institutions face. Despite the court’s clear directive, effective implementation of this ruling will require considerable change within police forces that have historically operated with inadequate oversight. Pakistan’s law enforcement agencies, especially those involved in narcotics control, are notorious for lacking accountability. Video evidence from raids, when made accessible, is likely to expose procedural flaws or, worse, deliberate abuse. In this sense, the High Court’s ruling functions as both a legal tool for defence attorneys and a powerful symbol of the judiciary’s stance on transparency and the limits of state power.

From a broader perspective, the ruling indicates the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing legal standards that curb abuses of authority, especially in a realm as vulnerable to corruption as narcotics enforcement. Courts have repeatedly emphasised the importance of fair and transparent practices. This case signals to the lower courts and law enforcement that they must uphold these principles. For instance, the Lahore High Court Muhammad Arif vs The State (2006), a case that examined evidence tampering, illustrated that compromised evidence undermines the credibility of the prosecution and severely impacts the legitimacy of the trial process. Lahore High Court’s insistence on video evidence access echoes the reasoning in the Muhammad Arif case, reinforcing that when the prosecution’s case rests on opaque or tampered evidence, the right to a fair trial is decisively undermined.

The High Court’s directive should thus be seen not just as a procedural mandate but also as a constitutional safeguard against police practices that threaten the fundamental rights of individuals accused of crime. It signals a shift in judicial priorities, where due process and transparency are given precedence over prosecutorial advantage. The fact that this decision emerged from a narcotics case is particularly meaningful, as it draws attention to the acute need for oversight in narcotics enforcement, where accusations of corruption and procedural abuse are widespread. By mandating that accused individuals have access to video recordings of police raids, the court has laid down a precedent that aims to prevent the unchecked manipulation of evidence, curbing potential abuses by the police.

The Lahore High Court’s decision to ensure the disclosure of video evidence in narcotics cases serves as a powerful message against the pervasive culture of corruption in law enforcement. By reinforcing the procedural rights under Article 10-A and holding police conduct to a higher standard, the court has taken a definitive step towards a fairer and more transparent judicial system. The ruling reflects the judiciary’s awareness of the role that credible evidence plays in a just trial and highlights the critical need for reforms that will allow law enforcement and the judiciary to function without compromising constitutional rights. The impact of this ruling will be profound, both in the courtroom and in police operations, as Pakistan’s criminal justice system moves towards greater accountability and, ultimately, greater justice.

The writer is an advocate of High Court, a founding partner at Lex Mercatoria and a visiting teacher at Bahria University’s Law Department. She can be reached at minahil.ali12@yahoo.com