- SC prohibits use of “Bakhidmat Janaab SHO” and the term “Faryadi“.
- says”Janab SHO” correctly reflects constitutional relationship.
- The court emphasizes that delays should not be used to punish victims, weaken cases.
ISLAMABAD: In a landmark rights-based judgment, the Supreme Court has directed that archaic and derogatory terms like “Bakhidmat Janaab SHO” and the term “Faryadi“must no longer be used in police cases and courtrooms, emphasizing that citizens approach law enforcement authorities as a matter of legal rights and not as petitioners, The news reported Saturday.
The court clarified that a simple and legal address, such asJanab SHO” reflects the correct constitutional relationship between the citizen and the police, where the latter is obliged to serve the public.
The judgment 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 case challenging the rejection of an appeal by the Sindh High Court in a murder case, but the Supreme Court extended the scope of the judgment to address systemic flaws in police practices and courtroom language.
The case related to the conviction of Muhammad Bux alias Shahzaib for the killing 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 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 case.
While the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, it noted that such delays are often caused by police inaction rather than by informants and should not be used to punish victims or weaken otherwise credible cases.
The court confirmed that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registration of an FIR in respect of a cognizable offense is mandatory and cannot be denied or delayed. It categorically rejected the police practice of waiting for funeral rites, conducting preliminary investigations 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, especially forensic evidence, thereby undermining the integrity of the criminal justice process.+
The court took a strict view 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, could incur criminal liability under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the disappearance of evidence, in addition to departmental proceedings. Courts and magistrates were empowered to take such action after issuing a notice of the case.
The judgment noted that the practice of delayed FIR registration is considerably more prevalent in Sindh. As a result, the Attorney General Sindh was asked to submit a report within one month detailing the average delay in registration of FIRs related to heinous offenses during the last two years. The report shall be submitted to the Supreme Court through its Karachi Branch Registry for judicial scrutiny.
A significant part of the decision focused on language used in police papers and court proceedings. The court declared the term “Faryadi” legally misconceived and constitutionally impermissible, noting that it portrays a citizen as a seeker of mercy rather than a rights-bearing person invoking the law. The misuse of these terms, the court noted, blurs statutory distinctions and violates the dignity of citizens protected under the Constitution.
It clarified that a person who provides information for registration of an FIR is legally an “informer” while a “complainant” is someone who files a complaint before a magistrate.
Therefore, District and Sessions Judges across Sindh were asked to ensure that no informer or complainant in lower courts is referred to as “Faryadi” while initiating a case.
The Supreme Court further ordered that copies of the judgment be circulated to all High Courts and District Courts across Pakistan for guidance and compliance, terming the order as a necessary step towards citizen-centric policing, institutional accountability and restoration of constitutional dignity in the very first stage of criminal justice.
