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 term “Bakhidmat Janaab SHO” in applications to police officials, declaring it inconsistent with constitutional values and democratic governance.
The judgment, authored by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, noted that such language reflects an outdated mindset inconsistent with the role of public servants in a modern democratic system where police officers are supposed to serve the citizens, not the other way around.
The issue came up during the trial when, at the request of the court, Registrar Muhammad Subhan Malik highlighted the widespread use of the term while addressing station house officers.
He explained that “Bakhidmat” translates to “at the service of”, adding that “it is not the citizen at the service of the SHO, but the SHO at the service of the citizen”.
The registrar further pointed out that the terms “complainant” and “complainant” are often used interchangeably even in FIR cases, a practice which the court termed as incorrect.
Similar to the submission, the judgment authored by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar observed that henceforth “Janaab SHO” is sufficient to address the SHO.
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 informer.
The 19-page judgment also barred the use of the term “Faryaadi” in police cases, noting that it conveys the impression of a citizen seeking mercy rather than exercising a legal right.
It noted that the word, of Persian origin, refers to someone crying for help.
“The description of such a citizen as a ‘Faryaadi’ is legally misconceived and constitutionally impermissible as it demeans the citizen by portraying him as a seeker of favor rather than as a right-bearing person invoking the protection of the law. Such terminology impinges upon the very dignity of the citizen which is inviolable under Article 14 of the Constitution and equal protection of the concept and under the protection of the Constitution. constitutional framework,” observed the judgment.
“Police officers are public servants entrusted with constitutional and statutory duties. They are bound to protect life, liberty and security of persons, values that lie at the heart of Article 9 of the Constitution,” the SC observed, adding that police officers are bound to serve the public and are remunerated from public funds.
“Citizens therefore turn to the police as a matter of fairness and not as a matter of charity, mercy or leniency. Any institutional practice that reverses this relationship erodes public confidence in the rule of law and weakens constitutional governance.”
