ISLAMABAD, Jan 30 (Alliance News): In a landmark 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, stressing that citizens approach law-enforcement agencies as a matter of legal right and not as supplicants.
The court clarified that a simple and lawful address like “Janaab SHO” accurately reflects the constitutional relationship between citizens and the police, where law-enforcement officials are 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.
While the case originated from a criminal petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal by the Sindh High Court in a murder conviction, the apex court expanded the scope of the ruling to address systemic flaws in policing practices and courtroom language.
The case pertained 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 and the incident was recorded in the daily diary, the formal FIR was registered several hours later, a delay used by the defence to challenge the prosecution case.
Upholding the conviction on merits, the Supreme Court observed that delays in FIR registration are often due to police inaction rather than the fault of informants and should not be used to undermine otherwise credible cases.
The court reaffirmed that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registration of an FIR for a cognisable offence is mandatory and cannot be refused or delayed under any pretext.
The judges warned that delaying FIR registration leads to loss or contamination of evidence, particularly forensic material, weakening the criminal justice process.
The court held that if a station house officer deliberately delays registration of an FIR, a legal presumption would arise that the delay was intended to benefit the accused, unless proven otherwise.
Such conduct could attract criminal liability under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code, in addition to departmental action, with trial courts and magistrates empowered to initiate proceedings after issuing show-cause notices.
Noting that delayed FIR registration is more prevalent in Sindh, the court directed the Prosecutor General Sindh to submit a report within one month detailing the average delay in registration of FIRs in heinous offences over the past two years for judicial scrutiny.
A significant portion of the judgement addressed the language used in police papers and court proceedings.
Declaring the term “Faryadi” legally misconceived and constitutionally impermissible, the court observed that it wrongly portrays citizens as seekers of mercy rather than rights-bearing individuals invoking the law.
It clarified that a person giving information for FIR registration is legally an “informant,” while a “complainant” files a complaint before a magistrate.
Accordingly, district and sessions judges across Sindh were directed to ensure that no informant or complainant is referred to as “Faryadi” in court proceedings.
The Supreme Court also ordered circulation of the judgement to all high courts and district courts across Pakistan, calling it a vital step toward citizen-centric policing, institutional accountability and restoration of constitutional dignity at the very first stage of the criminal justice process.
