Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building, in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
In a landmark judgment aimed at dismantling colonial-era language and restoring dignity to citizens, the Supreme Court has banned the use of the phrase “Bakhidmat Janaab SHO” in petitions to police officials, declaring it incompatible with constitutional values and democratic governance.
The verdict, written by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, observed that such language reflects an outdated mentality, incompatible with the role of civil servants in a modern democratic system, where police officers are expected to serve citizens, not the other way around.
The issue surfaced during court proceedings when judicial registrar Muhammad Subhan Malik, at the request of the court, pointed out the widespread use of the phrase when addressing officers at the police station.
He explained that “Bakhidmat” means “in the service of”, adding that “it is not the citizen in the service of the SHO, but the SHO in the service of the citizen”.
The judicial lawyer further pointed out that the terms ‘complainant’ and ‘informant’ are often used interchangeably even in FIR cases, a practice which the court termed as incorrect.
Agreeing with this argument, the judgment written by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar observed that now, to address the SHO, “Janaab SHO” is sufficient.
The SC further ruled that the term ‘complainant’ would apply only to a person filing a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC, while the person filing an FIR would be considered an informant.
The 19-page verdict also bans the use of the term “Faryaadi” in police procedures, observing that it gives the impression of a citizen seeking mercy rather than exercising a legal right.
He noted that the word, of Persian origin, refers to one who calls for help.
“The description of such a citizen as a ‘Faryaadi’ is legally erroneous and constitutionally impermissible, as it demeans the citizen by portraying him as a favor seeker rather than a rights-bearing individual invoking the protection of law. Such terminology undermines the very dignity of the citizen, which is inviolable under Article 14 of the Constitution, and undermines the concept of equal protection of law envisaged by the constitutional framework,” the judgment observed.
“Police officers are public servants charged with constitutional and statutory functions. They are required to protect life, liberty and security of the person, values which are at the heart of Article 9 of the Constitution,” the SC noted, adding that police officers are required to serve the public and are remunerated from public funds.
“Citizens therefore approach the police as a right, not as a matter of charity, grace or indulgence. Any institutional practice that reverses this relationship erodes public confidence in the rule of law and weakens constitutional governance.
