Inviolability of dignity of man

Out of the legal rights, the right to liberty is placed on a higher pedestal, which is to be respected by all and sundry

This is because courts are the guardians of the liberties of the citizens

Even the worst criminal in society is entitled to legal safeguards, and his legal rights cannot be taken away on one pretext or the other

Article 4 of the Constitution also safeguards the rights of individuals to be dealt with following the law and enjoy the protection of the law with the further explanation that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with the law

Article 14 of the Constitution inter alia safeguards the dignity of man and preserves the privacy of home and place of work

In this context, a guarantee has been provided that no person shall be subjected to torture or humiliation to extract evidence or compel him to make a disclosure or confession

Human dignity is a cherished and serene state in an individual's social and personal life

It encompasses being treated with respect and avoiding abusive and degrading treatment, whether in public or private

When a person is subjected to ill will, ridicule, disesteem, or contempt, his dignity is compromised

Dignity is inherent to every individual, bestowed by God as an inalienable right that deserves protection and promotion by the government and its officials

It serves as the foundation of society, from the dawn of civilization, and is the cause and purpose behind all social institutions

Consequently, all social institutions, governments, states, laws, human rights and respect for persons originated from the concept of dignity of a man or his personhood

Any attempt to undermine the dignity of a human being also undermines the dignity of human and the support on which an ordinary society is structured.

Said fundamental right of any citizen whenever violated and complained of, the Court must step into and investigate on the constitutional jurisdiction and pass such order as may be found just, legal and equitable

Right to live is not confined to mere living but it means a meaningful life, which can be enjoyed with dignity

No person in whatever capacity is allowed to detract, defame or disgrace any other person, thereby diminishing, decreasing and degrading the dignity, respect, reputation and value of life in particular the officials of the NAB, who are entrusted the sacred duty to investigate white collar crimes

Inhuman treatment meted out to the NAB victim violates not only the Convention Against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ratified by the Government of Pakistan, but also Art. 14 of the Constitution and directions issued time and again by the superior courts of the country.

Gender based violence impairs women's and girls' fundamental rights, particularly their right to life and dignity.

Torture in any form to extract evidence is prohibited.

Competent authority of a civil servant is the best judge to determine the factors to be given preference and to what extent, per se, after due consideration of the powers highlighted in S. 13(1)(i) and Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020

Test, criteria, qualifications, eligibility, and methodology provided in the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, is based on the subjective evaluation of each case, as conducted by a committee under R. 4 (for the retirement of civil servants in BPS-16 & BPS-17 to 19) and a Retirement Board constituted under Rule 3 (for the retirement of civil servants in BPS-20 or above)

These bodies are the best judges to assess each case and determine whether a civil servant has demonstrated average performance or has obtained adverse remarks regarding his efficiency

If a civil servant has been recommended for supersession by the CSB (Central Selection Board) on two occasions, despite having some time to serve till the age of superannuation and the higher position requires a high standard on the administrative side where an inefficient civil servant is not desirable; in such cases, if the civil servant continues to serve, he would not be considered an asset but rather a burden to the exchequer

Therefore, these individuals need to be granted a secure exit through a directory retirement concept, especially when they do not fall within the purview of compulsory retirement due to misconduct

Hence, the challenged Rules were formulated while considering the dignity of civil servants, as outlined in Art. 14 of the Constitution

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Appellants (neighbours) assailed approval granted by Environmental Protection Agency for construction of Multi-Storey School building

Validity

Plots which were purchased by the proponent were reserved for school

After functioning of school the flow of traffic would increase in the locality which would affect the environment but this effect was not quantified or ascertained

Such apprehended effect was not violative of fundamental right to life unless it was shown by placing incontrovertible material before the Environmental Tribunal that the same would lead to hazardous effects on environment and would seriously affect human living

Approval of project was granted by strictly complying with Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997 and regulations framed thereunder with conscious application of mind, considering all relevant material and attending circumstances

Project had neither contravened fundamental rights nor human dignity

Appeal was dismissed.

Any bar on this right is negation of the Divine principle of human dignity.

Right to reputation explained.

Act is rather in conformity with Art. 14 of the Constitution and promotes the right to dignity enshrined therein.

Courts have expanded the right to life over time and held that it includes the right to legal aid; the right to speedy trial; the right to bare necessities of life; protection against adverse effects of electro-magnetic fields; the right to pure and unpolluted water; the right to access to justice; the right to livelihood; the right to travel; the right to food, water, decent environment, education and medical care

Right to identity as concomitant to the right to lifeis protected under Arts. 9 & 14 of the Constitution.

Personal identity begins from the moment of conception and going beyond the information such as date of birth, encompasses his personal attributes like biographical data, physical traits and significant social relations, such as ties to family members, cultural or religion

Right to identity is associated with several other rights, e.g., the rights to a name, nationality, juridical personality, family and culture

Some legal experts consider it a part of the right of life while others posit that it is rooted in human dignity and thus fundamental and non-derogable.

Subsections (1) and (2) of S. 19 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, specify a few circumstances when the National Identity Card is compulsorily required

Such include grant of passport, permit or other travel documents for going out of Pakistan and identification of a voter at various elections

Section 19(3) empowers the Federal Government specify any other purpose for which the production of any card issued as aforesaid shall be necessary

However, the need for the CNIC has increased manifold during recent years

Now almost every government and private organization requires CNIC from a person before they attend him

Not possible to get higher education, apply for a job, open a Bank account, get a driving license or arms license, get utility connections, purchase railway and air tickets, execute any instrument, stay in a hotel or lodge, appear in a court proceedings and enter in certain buildings and premises without production of CNIC

CNIC is essential for enjoyment of a number of fundamental rights, hence, a person cannot be deprived of it without due process.

Un-successful candidates challenged the process of recruitment by means of filing a revision petition in terms of S.11-A of Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University Act, 1975, praying for the appointments to be reviewed and recalled

Validity

Chancellor of the University set aside the order of appointment approved by the Syndicate but did so without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners

Petitioners were dealt a marked hand inasmuch as they were condemned unheard

Petitioners were not even called

Postulates of Art.10-A of the Constitution were compromised, the ethos of due process contained in Art. 4 of the Constitution was offended and fairness, both substantive and procedural, was given a short shrift

Order of the Chancellor besides being violative of the proviso to S.11-A of the Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University Act, 1975, was also in derogation of Arts. 4 & 10-A of the Constitution

Petitioners having been treated and dealt with like objects and not humans, the impugned orders were also violative of the right to dignity contained in Art. 14 of the Constitution

Order passed by Chancellor was set aside

Constitutional petitions were allowed.

Petitioner claimed that the closure of a section of road by the respondents during peak hours of the evening for vehicular traffic had infringed his fundamental rights of dignity, movement, right to life and access to public places

Validity

Restriction imposed by authorities had not negated the right of movement rather it had regulated its exercise and the area still remained open and accessible for general public but only vehicular access was restricted for certain definite amount of time and pedestrian access through walking was available to the general public for that particular time

Freedom of movement was not infringed or denied in that limited area of sit out cafes rather the mode of moving freely through that specific portion of the area for specific amount of time was restricted only to the extent of vehicular access and not of the person himself

Petitioner had remained unable to point out any violation of fundamental rights, justiciable within the ambit of Art. 199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Pakistan is governed by the Constitution as amended from time to time which is a blend of secular law and Islamic law as is made clear by both the Preamble of the Constitution and the Objectives Resolution at Art. 2-A which form a part of the Constitution

When the Constitution is read in a holistic manner it is apparent that the form of Government in Pakistan is one of parliamentary democracy based on the trichotomy of powers between the Executive, Legislature and the judiciary where checks and balances on each organ's powers are ensured by the other organs of the State

Constitution through numerous of its Articles ensures the independence of the Judiciary and the rule of law and the due process rights of its citizens as would be expected in any civilized society and Islamic welfare State

One of the key attributes of the Constitution is that it seeks to protect and safeguard the rights of the individual from misuse or abuse of executive power and does so by enshrining a number of fundamental rights which are found in Chapter one of the Constitution which aims to strike a fair balance in respect of legal and legitimate preventive detention of citizens in appropriate cases in the interest of the State based on sound reasons and prevent such detention being misused for ulterior purposes by the executive.

While Arts. 4, 9 & 10-A of the Constitution are enough to provide a foothold to the concept of provision of reasons in judicial, quasi-judicial and even administrative orders and decisions, Art. 14 of the Constitution, which speaks about the right to dignity, may also be compromised if reasons are not forthcoming in a decision or an order

Article 14 of the Constitution provides for protection of dignity and in case an order or a decision is passed without reasons then the said Article may also be invoked to attack such an order or a decision on the basis that the order or decision so passed treats and addresses a living person as an object or a non-living thing

Therefore, and arguably, the right to reasons may also be premised as a concomitant right of the right to dignity

Such is indeed arbitrary and condescending to have a persons' status redefined without an adequate explanation of reasons for such change.

Test to determine whether interference in right to privacy was justified where same came into conflict with interest of community

Historical perspective, comparative jurisprudence, and nature of Fundamental Right to privacy, extensively examined.

Petitioners assailed action of Lahore Development Authority (Authority) whereby boundary wall of their house was demolished and a road was constructed on their property

Authority objected to the maintainability of the constitutional petition on the ground that civil suit was pending between the parties

Validity

Lis before the civil court was regarding title, declaration and mandatory injunction whereas the constitutional petition was filed against the illegal action of the Authority, which not only violated petitioners' Fundamental Right to privacy of home guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution but at the same time infringed their Fundamental Right of holding property under Art. 23 of the Constitution as well as undermined protection of their property rights as guaranteed under Art. 24 of the Constitution

Actions of the Authority had seriously jeopardized the constitutional protection of due process of law provided under Art. 10-A of the Constitution, therefore, actions of the Authority breached the Fundamental Rights of the petitioners provided and protected under the Constitution

Article 199 of the Constitution mandated that the High Court on the application of any aggrieved person could make an order or give such directions for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights

Objection on the maintainability of the petition did not hold water

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Dignity of man is guaranteed by the Constitution hence everybody, regardless of his status and position, has to show due respect to the dignity of a man while using words either in speaking or in writing.

Question before the High Court was whether words/terms "disabled", "physically handicapped" and "mentally retarded" appearing in disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981 were unconstitutional and whether the same should be struck down

Held, that disability was an evolving concept and disability resulted from interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hindered their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others

Discrimination against any person on basis of disability was a violation of inherent dignity and worth of human person

Use of terms or words like "disabled", "physically handicapped" and mentally retarded" labelled a person on the basis of an impairment, which negated reasonable accommodation, denying persons with disabilities enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others

Such words also amounted to discrimination and offended right to be a person thereby infringing Constitutional guarantees of right to life, right to human dignity and right to non-discrimination of person with disabilities

High Court observed that keeping words like "disabled," "physically handicapped" and "mentally retarded" in the statute would impair and offend human dignity of persons with different abilities

High Court, by application of the doctrine of severance, struck down words "disabled," "physically handicapped" and "mentally retarded" appearing in Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981 and held same to be violative of Arts. 9, 14 & 25 of the Constitution

High Court directed Federal and Provincial Government to discontinue use of such words in official correspondence, etc.

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Right to dignity was one of the cardinal principles of law and most valuable right, which had to be observed in every civilized society and more particularly in an Islamic country because human values were to be guarded and protected

Dignity of man was not only provided by Constitution, but under Islam, great value had been attached to dignity of man

Human dignity, honour and respect was more important than physical comforts and necessities.

When an accused was in custody, his Fundamental Rights were not abrogated in toto and his dignity could not be allowed to be comatosed

Any treatment meted to an accused while he was in custody which caused humiliation and mental trauma corroded the concept of human dignity

Police authorities had to remember that a citizen while in custody was not denuded of his fundamental right of protection of life (security of person)

Basic human rights of accused were not to be crippled so that the police officers could treat him in an inhuman manner, rather police was under obligation to protect his human rights and prevent all forms of atrocities.

Victim (appellant), while in police custody, was compelled to hold a placard in which self-condemning language was written and he was photographed with the said placard and the photograph was made public

State authorities found the erring police officers guilty

Victim sought public law remedy for grant of compensation and filed constitutional petition before the High Court contending that actions of police and other authorities affected his fundamental right to live with dignity and that he should be granted compensation

High Court recorded findings in favour of the victim but required him to submit a representation to the Provincial Government for adequate relief pertaining to grant of compensation with a further stipulation that if he was aggrieved by it, he could take recourse to requisite proceedings available to him under law

Validity

Facts borne out on record showed that victim had been tortured and humiliated and treatment inflicted on him was inhumane and caused mental trauma

When there was contravention of human rights, the inherent concern as envisaged in the fundamental right of protection of life (security of person) sprang to life and enabled the citizen to seek relief by taking recourse to public law remedy

Relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings before Supreme Court or High Court for established infringement of constitutional right of protection of life (security of person) was a remedy available in public law and was based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen

Purpose of public law was not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they lived under a legal system which aimed to protect their interests and preserved their rights, therefore, when court granted 'compensation' as a relief in proceedings before the Supreme Court or High Court seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it did so under public law by way of penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which had failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen

Payment of compensation in such cases was not to be understood, as it was generally understood in a civil action for damages under private law, but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, by not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen

Compensation in such cases was in the nature of 'exemplary damages' awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and was independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction and/ or to prosecute the offender under the penal law

Appeal was allowed and a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was granted to the victim as compensation.

Inhumane treatment had many a facet; it covered such acts which had been inflicted with an intention to cause physical suffering or severe mental pain and it would also include a treatment that caused humiliation and compelled a person to act against his will or conscience.