- SC prohibits using “Bakhidmat Janaab SHO” and the term “Faryadi“.
- Says “Janaab SHO” reflects correct constitutional relationship.
- Court stresses delays not be used to penalise victims, weaken cases.
ISLAMABAD: In a significant rights-based ruling, the Supreme Court has directed that archaic and demeaning expressions such as “Bakhidmat Janaab SHO” and the term “Faryadi” must no longer be used in police proceedings and courtrooms, emphasising that citizens approach law-enforcement authorities as a matter of legal right and not as supplicants, The News reported on Saturday.
The court clarified that a simple and lawful address, such as “Janaab SHO” reflects the correct constitutional relationship between the citizen and the police, where the latter is duty-bound to serve the public.
The judgement was authored by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and delivered by a three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim.
It arose from a criminal petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal by the Sindh High Court in a murder case, but the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the judgement to address systemic flaws in policing practices and courtroom language.
The case related to 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 had approached the police within minutes of the incident and the information was entered into the daily diary, the formal First Information Report (FIR) was registered several hours later. The defence relied heavily on this delay to challenge the prosecution case.
While upholding the conviction on merits, the Supreme Court noted that such delays are frequently caused by police inaction rather than by informants, and should not be used to penalise victims or weaken otherwise credible cases.
The court reaffirmed that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registration of an FIR in respect of a cognisable offence is mandatory and cannot be refused or delayed. It categorically rejected police practices of waiting for funeral rites, conducting preliminary inquiries, or insisting on written applications before registering an FIR.
The judges warned that a delay in FIR registration results in loss or contamination of evidence, particularly forensic evidence, thereby undermining the integrity of the criminal justice process.+
Taking a stern view, the court held that where an officer-in-charge of a police station deliberately delays the registration of an FIR, a legal presumption will arise that such delay was intended to benefit the accused, unless the officer proves otherwise.
Such conduct, the court ruled, may attract criminal liability under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the disappearance of evidence, in addition to departmental proceedings. Trial courts and magistrates were empowered to initiate such action after issuing a show-cause notice.
The judgement noted that the practice of delayed FIR registration is considerably more prevalent in Sindh. Consequently, the Prosecutor General, Sindh, was directed to submit a report within one month detailing the average delay in registration of FIRs relating to heinous offences over the last two years. The report is to be placed before the Supreme Court through its Karachi Branch Registry for judicial scrutiny.
A substantial portion of the ruling focused on language used in police papers and court proceedings. The court declared the term “Faryadi” legally misconceived and constitutionally impermissible, observing that it portrays 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 offends the dignity of citizens protected under the Constitution.
It 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 across Sindh were directed to ensure that in lower courts, no informant or complainant is referred to as “Faryadi” while calling a case.
The Supreme Court further ordered that copies of the judgement be circulated to all high courts and district courts across Pakistan for guidance and compliance, terming the ruling a necessary step toward citizen-centric policing, institutional accountability and restoration of constitutional dignity at the very first stage of the criminal justice process.
