- SC prohibits using “Bakhidmat Janab SHO” and the term “Faryadi“.
- Said “Janab SHO” reflects a correct constitutional relationship.
- The Court emphasizes that delays must not be used to penalize victims or weaken cases.
ISLAMABAD: In an important rights-based ruling, the Supreme Court has ordered that archaic and demeaning expressions such as “Bakhidmat Janab SHO” and the term “Faryadi” should no longer be used in police proceedings and in courtrooms, emphasizing that citizens approach law enforcement authorities as a matter of legal right and not as supplicants, News reported Saturday.
The court clarified that a simple and lawful address, such as “Janab SHO” reflects the correct constitutional relationship between the citizen and the police, the latter having a duty to serve the public.
The judgment was written by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and delivered by a three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim.
The ruling stemmed from a criminal petition challenging the Sindh High Court’s rejection of an appeal in a murder case, but the Supreme Court broadened the scope of the judgment to address systemic flaws in police practices and language used in the courtroom.
The case concerned the conviction of Muhammad Bux alias Shahzaib for the murder of Muhammad Abbas, who was shot dead in August 2017 in Tando Ghulam Ali.
Although the informant contacted the police within minutes of the incident and the information was recorded in the daily diary, the formal first information report (FIR) was registered several hours later. The defense relied heavily on this delay to challenge the prosecution’s arguments.
While upholding the conviction on the merits, the Supreme Court noted that such delays are often caused by police inaction rather than informants, and should not be used to penalize victims or weaken otherwise credible cases.
The court reiterated that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registration of an FIR for a punishable offense is mandatory and cannot be withheld or delayed. He categorically rejected police practices of waiting for funeral rites, conducting preliminary investigations or insisting on written requests before registering an FIR.
The judges warned that delay in registration of FIR results in loss or contamination of evidence, especially forensic evidence, thereby compromising the integrity of the criminal justice process.+
Taking a stern view, the court held that when an officer-in-charge of a police station deliberately delays in registering an FIR, there will be a legal presumption that such delay was intended to benefit the accused, unless the officer proves otherwise.
Such conduct, the court ruled, can attract criminal liability under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing disappearance of evidence, in addition to departmental proceedings. High courts and magistrates were empowered to initiate such action after issuing a show cause notice.
The judgment noted that the practice of late registration of FIR is considerably more prevalent in Sindh. Accordingly, the Sindh Attorney General has been directed to submit a report within a month detailing the average delay in registration of FIRs relating to heinous offenses in the last two years. The report is to be submitted to the Supreme Court through its Karachi branch registry for judicial review.
A significant part of the decision focused on the language used in police documents and court proceedings. The court said the term ‘Faryadi’ was legally erroneous and constitutionally impermissible, observing that it portrayed a citizen as a seeker of mercy rather than a rights-bearing individual invoking the law. The misuse of these terms, the Court observed, blurs statutory distinctions and undermines the dignity of citizens protected by the Constitution.
He clarified that a person providing information for registration of an FIR is legally an “informant”, while a “complainant” is one who files a complaint before a magistrate.
Accordingly, district and sessions judges in Sindh have been directed to ensure that in lower courts, no informant or complainant is called “Faryadi” during the appeal of a case.
The Supreme Court further ordered that copies of the judgment be distributed to all high courts and district courts of Pakistan for guidance and compliance, terming the decision a necessary step towards citizen-centric policing, institutional accountability and restoration of constitutional dignity at the very first stage of the criminal justice process.
