Right to fair trial

News regarding a crime is always of interest to people, particularly when case is of high profile or nature of crime is of interest to general public

Unusual interest of public leads to a media trial and consequences can be irretrievable, not only for accused but victims as well

Public interest may also be harmed by preventing actual perpetrators of crime from being held to account and instead facilitating conviction of an innocent person on the basis of a perceived imputation of guilt

Such phenomenon and its adverse consequences becomes more important in sensitive cases when it is an unseen occurrence and victim is a child

Media has enormous power and ability to create narratives which may be true or false

Media can cause irretrievable damage to reputations by ruining lives of accused and their family members

Media has unique power to make heroes or villains, intentionally or unintentionally and such powers are susceptible to be abused in a society where State suppresses freedom of expression and manipulates media

Greater responsibility rests with media to strictly observe high standards of ethical codes in order to strike balance between rights of parties involved in criminal proceedings and public interest i.e. what information should be disseminated to general public

Bedrock of criminal justice system is to ensure in each case the right to a fair trial

Fundamental principle of right to fair trial is presumption of innocence; every accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty by a competent Court and by observing safeguards and requirements in the context of a fair trial.

The first principle is a highly effective rule devised by the Courts to ensure that a statutory authority arrives at a just decision and it is calculated to act as a healthy check on the abuse or misuse of power

Hence its reach should not be narrowed and its applicability circumscribed

The purpose of this rules is to prevent miscarriage of justice

This principle when conjoins with the maxim 'nemo judex in re sua' these constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing as enshrined in Art. 10-A of the Constitution, for fair trial and justice which is not the preservice of any particular class of people or institution, but is shared in common by everyone.

A former Prime Minister of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir/AJ&K (sitting Member of Legislative Assembly) filed writ petition of quo-warranto calling into question the claim to premiership of the incumbent Prime Minister of the AJ&K (Mr. Sardar Tanvir Ilyas Khan)

Held: In a writ of quo-warranto, generally the office holder is asked to explain by what authority of law he is holding the said office and the authority is also questioned that by what authority of law the person holding the public office is appointed (in the present case, elected)

The election of the Premier is challenged in the present petition, even though the incumbent enjoys the support of 48 out of 53 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs')

Therefore, by adhering to the constitutional guarantee incorporated in Art. 4(4)(19) qua 'right to fair trial', all the voters/Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs') are arrayed as "Necessary party" in the line of respondents, except petitioner

High Court directed Office to obtain list of all the MLAs' who voted in favour of the respondent-office holder and inserted their names in the line of real-respondents, except petitioner

Certain law points were required to be resolved

Constitutional petition was admitted for regular hearing.

Withholding of NDCs while marking "caution" regarding the remaining plots by DHA on the grounds of pendency of suit and land conveyed to DHA with reference to Khasra Numbers was different from land in possession of DHA

Validity

Act of marking "caution" on the remaining exempted plots of the land owner/petitioner was in gross violation of Arts. 23 & 24 of the Constitution, which guaranteed a fundamental right to every citizen to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restriction imposed by law in public interest and that no person should be deprived of his property save in accordance with law

After purchase of property of the petitioner by DHA it the latter became exclusive owner of the conveyed land and as such, it had every right to defend the alleged pending suit for partition to protect its rights under the sale deed executed in its favour by the petitioner

Mere pendency of the suit was no ground to mark "caution" on the remaining exempted plots of the petitioner

If there was any grievance of DHA with respect to breach of obligations by the petitioner pursuant to the sale deed executed by him, the DHA was free to avail appropriate remedies available to it under the law to safeguard its interest, however, DHA in its capacity as a Regulator could not transgress its authority by marking "caution" on its own regarding the remaining exempted plots of the petitioner

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances, with a direction to DHA to remove "caution" and issue NDCs to the petitioner regarding the remaining exempted plots.

State institutions must ensure fulfillment of obligations in line with principles of substantial justice rather than procedural technicalities

Article 3 of the Constitution of Pakistan relates to elimination of exploitation of citizens of Pakistan

From the bare perusal of the said Article, it can safely be observed that State run institutions, working in a representative form, are not expected to exploit the vulnerability of citizens

Undeniably, State is like a mother and its primary duty is to protect the rights of its children (citizens of Pakistan)

In addition to above, High Court emphasized upon importance of Art.24 of the Constitution which deals with protection of property rights

Fundamental rights were a crucial aspect of State's role in protecting its citizens

The High Court observed that substantial justice should not be ignored as it is a key principle of a fair and just society

This principle was held to be fundamental to ensuring that the law was applied fairly and that people's right were respected

It goes hand-in-hand with the right to fair trial (as mentioned in Art.10-A of the Constitution), where the goal is not just to follow procedures but to achieve just outcomes.

Record showed that Trial Court had committed illegality while recording examination-in-chief of a witness in absence of defence counsel, amounting to denial of a fair trial

Another illegality committed by the Trial Court was regarding examination-in-chief of another witness and his cross-examination on the same day by newly appointed defence counsel without preparation and instructions for the offence under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was punishable with death or imprisonment for life

Fair opportunity should have been provided by the Trial Court for conducting the trial

Right to fair trial is a fundamental and Constitutional right belonging to every citizen

While deciding a criminal lis, the recording of evidence including the right of cross-examination of the witnesses, hearing of arguments and a reasoned judgment were essential attributes of criminal justice system based on the Constitutional command

Illegalities committed by the Trial Court in the present case were not curable under the law

Appeal was allowed by setting aside conviction and sentence and case was remanded to the Trial Court for recording evidence of witnesses afresh in the presence of defence counsel.

Basic ingredients for a fair trial in the light of Article 10A of the Constitution are that there should be an independent, impartial court, a fair and public hearing, right of counsel, right to information of the offence charged for with an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and an opportunity to produce evidence

It also includes the right to a reasoned judgment and finally the remedy of appeal

Hence, the ultimate objective is to ensure fairness in the process and proceedings and fairness itself being an evolving concept cannot be confined to any definition or frozen at any moment, with certain fundamentals which operate as constants

Independence of the decision maker and their impartiality is one such constant

A reasoned judgment before a judicial forum is another constant without which the right to fair trial would become meaningless

Right of an independent forum of appeal is another relevant constant which ensures fair trial.

Appellant invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court as the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Board, while relying upon S. 23C (4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 ("the Act, 1947"), had required the petitioner/ appellant to deposit before the Appellate Board a surety equivalent to the amount of penalty imposed upon him holding the same as a sine qua non for the appeal to be entertained and decided

Petitioner prayed for holding the provisions of S. 23C(4) to be unconstitutional on the ground that the same offended the rights of the petitioner/accused to be treated in accordance with law fairly and justly and his right to access of justice was also infringed

Validity

Provisions set out in S.23C(4) of the Act, 1947 provides that no appeal shall be admitted for hearing unless the appellant before the Appellate Board deposits in cash amount of penalty or at the discretion of the Appellate Board furnishes security equal in value to such amount of penalty, therefore, there is a complete prohibition enacted by subsection (4) of S. 23C of the Act 1947 to the hearing of the appeal unless the pre-condition is satisfied by an appellant, which is an infringement of the right which inheres in the petitioner to access to justice

One of the most important planks of the right of access to justice is the right to file at least one appeal against the order which affects the rights of a person

Right to file an appeal must be unimpeded and should not be circumscribed by a condition which surely takes away that right

Subsection (4) of S. 23C of the Act 1947 is one such provision which in fact is tantamount to taking away the right of the petitioner in not only filing of the appeal but also the hearing to be granted on that appeal irrespective of whether it fulfills the condition or not

It is one thing to say that petitioner may be burdened with a condition in case he seeks the suspension of the determination of a liability against him pending the appeal but another aspect entirely to provide in the law that the hearing of the appeal will be contingent upon the fulfillment of a condition precedent which if unfulfilled takes away the right of appeal

Distinction will have to be drawn between the two circumstances

Surely, under civil law a money decree can only be suspended if adequate security is provided by the judgment debtor and as determined by Appellate Court, but that mere fact does not mean that in case of failure to do so the appeal shall not be heard on its merits and that the appellant will be deprived of grant of hearing in the appeal itself unless he deposits the security equivalent to the amount of penalty

Subsection (4) of S. 23C of the Act 1947is a clog on the right of the petitioner to be dealt with in accordance with law

Petitioner has the right of filing at least one appeal and for that appeal to be heard without any pre-conditions attached to it, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution and springs from Art. 10A of the Constitution which provides, inter alia, that for the determination of civil rights and obligations, a person shall be entitled to due process, which also emanates from Art. 4 of the Constitution

Said right is absolute and cannot be taken away by laying down a condition which undermines that right

Rule 8 of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1998, makes the receipt of an appeal by the Appellate Board subject to compliance with subsection (4) of S. 23C of the Act, 1947, thus, said Rule too prohibits the Appellate Board from hearing the appeal unless the condition is satisfied

High Court set-aside the impugned orders, and struck down subsection (4) of S. 23C of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, as well as R. 8 of the Rules 1998 (to the extent said Rule makes the receipt of an appeal subject to the compliance with subsection (4) of S. 23C of the Act 1947) holding the same as unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner/appellant

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Defendants filed an application under O. IX, R.7 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking to set aside ex-parte / debarring order

Said application was dismissed by the Civil Court and the Revisional Court maintained the dismissal order

Grounds against the petitioners / defendants were that they failed to file their written statement within time prescribed by law and the very application for setting aside of ex-parte order was time barred

Validity

Admittedly, the suit was still pending before the Trial Court; the valuable rights of the petitioners were said to be involved in the subject litigation, therefore, in such a situation, it would be unjustified to dislodge them from the active contest on basis of technicalities, which obviously was against the mandate contained in Art. 10-A of the Constitution, which prescribed right to fair trial for everyone

If the petitioners were permitted to file written statement then it would not only meet the ends of justice but would help the Trial Court to arrive at the right conclusion

Even otherwise, no time had been prescribed either in Civil Procedure Code or Limitation Act, 1908 for setting aside of the ex-parte order, therefore, the same was to be governed by Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908, which prescribes period of three years for filing such application when the right to apply occurs

High Court set-aside the impugned order; consequently, the petitioners were permitted to file their written statement in the suit before the Trial Court within 30 days, after making payment of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff as costs

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

In pursuance of the ex-parte order passed in the year 2013 by the Custodian Evacuee Property, the modification was madein relevant Proprietary Rights Transfer Order (PRTO) qua land having been allotted to late father of the petitioner in the year 1979

Petitioner filed constitutional petition challenging dismissal of his review petition filed in the year 2015 against the said ex-parte/ modification order(s)

Assertion of the petitioner was that he, and the other legal heirs, had no knowledge of the impugned orders as they were residing abroad, thus, a review petition was filed before the respondent (Custodian of Evacuee Property) after getting knowledge of the impugned orders

Validity

Record revealed that land measuring 5 kanal 9 marlas out of survey No.163 was allotted in the name of father of petitioner through allotment chit dated 22.12.1979 and subsequently PRTO dated 07.09.1989 was also issued

It was an admitted fact reflecting from the (words/contents of) impugned decision that order qua modification was given on back of the petitioner and proforma non-petitioners, although by the same (words/contents) the Custodian also emphasized that the decision was being passed on merit without giving any benefit to the respondents for being ex-parte proceedings in absence of petitioner and others

On the other hand, the petitioner had taken a specific stance before the Custodian regarding inability not to defend their allotment, as to how the process of summoning of the petitioner itself was defective elaborating that the ex-parte proceedings were conducted after proclamation in the local newspaper whereas the petitioner and other stake-holders were living abroad at relevant time

Record also revealed another important fact that the Custodian, during the proceedings, sought inquiry/ report from the Commissioner (Rehabilitation) pertaining to status of property, which inquiry/report was pending adjudication

Impugned decision was not sustainable as the modification took place in the allotment at the back of the necessary party as well as the summoning was defective, thus, doctrine of audi alteram partem had been violated

Right of fair trial was recognized by the Constitution and ex-parte modification in the allotment without adopting due process of law and providing opportunity of hearing was bad in law

High Court set-aside the impugned decision and the case was deemed to be pending before the Custodian for de novo decision on merits, after receiving the supra report of the Commissioner and after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned

Writ petition was allowed accordingly.

Concept of reverse onus i.e. placing the burden on the person against whom an allegation has been made runs contrary to the established principle of presumption of innocence

It is therefore, for this reason that Courts lean in favour of interpreting or reading down such provision in an effort to safeguard the fundamental principles of fair trial.

Concept of reverse onus i.e. placing the burden on the person against whom an allegation has been made runs contrary to the established principle of presumption of innocence

It is therefore, for this reason that Courts lean in favour of interpreting or reading down such provision in an effort to safeguard the fundamental principles of fair trial.

Petitioner showed his inability to attend the office due to tribal enmity and eminent threat to his life, as such, filed several applications for grant of leave

Manager of the transferee branch through an 'Absence Notice' informed the petitioner that the competent authority had disregarded his leave applications and directed him to attend the office within three days

Petitioner belatedly joined his duty, filed an application for grant of leave, joining report was accepted, his application for grant of leave was forwarded to the head office with the recommendation that the leave period be treated as leave without pay, however, vide impugned memorandum, the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of unauthorized absence and the period of his absence was treated as leave without pay

Held; period of absence was already condoned and his joining report was accepted by issuing a stern warning to the petitioner, therefore, no ground was available with the Bank to terminate the petitioner

Neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before passing the impugned office memorandum

Entire record was silent in respect of any inquiry conducted against the petitioner

Termination order and the order whereby departmental appeal was dismissed were set aside, in circumstances

Bank was directed to reinstate the petitioner into his service with all back benefits from the date of his dismissal

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

First and foremost aspect in a pending lis is, the fairness and grant of ample opportunity to both parties involved in litigation to prove its stance so that no one feels discriminated.

Right to a fair trial requires affording of proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, so their valuable rights could be protected

Doctrine of equality of arms i.e. due consideration to the complainant / plaintiff at the trial is also part of the right to a fair trial.

After insertion of Article 10-A of the Constitution, the due process of law including speedy and fair trial has been recognized as a fundamental right of every accused person

Policy of criminal law is to bring an accused person to justice as speedily as possible and if he is found guilty he may be punished and if he is found innocent he may be acquitted.

Petitioner assailed action of the competent authority whereby it was not confronted with the list of witnesses sought to be produced by the complainant

Validity of said contention rests on the rule of fairness and due process of law, which requires an investigation and determination of rights to be conducted fairly and based on the primary principles governing the rule of law

Firstly, the competent authority investigating a complaint against a healthcare service provider must formulate the primary issues arising from the complaint that need to be confronted and responded to by the healthcare service provider

Secondly, the parties must be obliged by the competent authority hearing the complaint to file a list of witnesses along with affidavits prior to the commencement of the proceedings in the complaint

This would be in consonance with the principles of fairness and would prevent any party from being taken by surprise

Undoubtedly, any proceedings in the complaint and investigation against a healthcare service provider must adhere to the basic rule of administrative law relating to rationality and reasonableness

It would be in the interest of fair proceedings and would work reasonably in favour of both the complainant and the healthcare service provider against whom the complaint has been made if the issues are clearly identified, and the parties are notified of the witnesses and other evidence sought to be produced against each other

Constitutional petition was partly allowed, impugned order was set aside, and the application submitted by the petitioner was deemed to be pending and was to be decided in light of the observations made in the present case.

Article 10-A of the Constitution provides right of fair trial and due process for determination of rights and obligations.

Concept of due process rests in the idea that the legal proceedings be carried out in accordance with the established rules, express statutory provisions and settled principles for deciding the rights of litigants.

Investigating Officer has to collect entire relevant facts of the occurrence irrespective of the fact that such facts favour prosecution or accused; he is under obligation to collect the evidence honestly, justly and fairly for bringing the truth on record not only to build up the case of complainant with evidence enabling the Court to record conviction but also for reaching to a just and fair decision

If investigation is not conducted on merits then ultimately it causes frightful harm to the concept of fair trial guaranteed by Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Criminal Procedure Code has no express provision for making order regarding change or re-investigation is available yet same subject has been dealt in the light of S. 551, Cr.P.C. and under administrative control of police hierarchy

However, in Police Order, 2002, such subject was expressly dealt by Art. 18 and not being dealt under Article 18-A introduced through the Punjab Police Order (Amendment) Act, 2013.

Fair investigation is concomitant to the right to fair trial guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution.

Expression "fair and proper investigation" connotes two things: firstly, that the investigation should be honest, unbiased and in accordance with law, and secondly, the entire emphasis should be to dig out the truth and bring it before the court of justice.

Investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law.

No one should be condemned unheard and if any adverse order is passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the opposing party, such an order is deemed illegal and passed in violation of the principle of "due process of law" enshrined in Art. 10-A of the Constitution.

Principle of equality of arms means giving each party a reasonable possibility to present its cause in such conditions as would not put one party in disadvantage to its opponent

In other words, there must be a fair balance between the opportunities afforded to the parties involved in litigation.

Principles of fair trial, as guaranteed by Art. 10A of the Constitution, are to be read as an integral part of every sub-constitutional legislative instrument that deals with determination of civil rights and obligations of any person.

Principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) is enshrined in the Constitution and forms the bedrock of any decision-making process which affects the right of any party

Right to be heard is read as an integral part of every statute affecting the rights of a person, especially after the insertion of Art. 10-A of the Constitution

All the pre-trial proceedings including investigation are covered under the right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Fundamental right to have a fair trial and due process should be read into every statute affecting the rights of a person.

Such laws and Constitution are like a protective shield guarding life, liberty, reputation, body and property of persons within Pakistan

Any action adverse to rights of a person must therefore be through the mechanism or in accordance with laws which protect such persons

To be treated in accordance with law is to proceed against a person strictly under the law which provides protection to the persons in the first place

Right to fair trial under Art.10-A of the Constitution further buttresses Art.4 of the Constitution

Right to fair trial provides for determination or civil rights and obligations of a person through a fair trial and due process

Executive action, instructions or policy, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot hold ground unless those are backed by law.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of any criminal charge against him and he shall have all the guarantees necessary for his defense. [Para. 27 of the judgment]

No matter how heinous the crime, the constitutional guarantee of fair trial under Art. 10-A cannot be taken away from the accused. [Para. 28 of the judgment]

Constitution prescribes important safeguards against depriving a person of his "life or liberty" and with regard to arrest and detention, which includes "the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice"

Constitution also mandates a "fair trial and due process"

Person arrested for an offence (1) must be informed of the grounds of his arrest; (2) must be permitted to consult with and be defended by a lawyer; (3) must be provided with the information of the offence he is charged for; (4) must be provided with an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who depose against him; (5) must be given an opportunity to explain the circumstances disclosed in evidence against him; and (6) must also be provided an opportunity to produce evidence in his defense

Such are also necessary ingredients to ensure the fairness of a trial. [Para. 29 of the judgment]

Record showed that counsel for the accused was not present at the time of framing of charge and recording examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses

During the framing of the charge and examination in chief of any prosecution witness, it was mandatory that accused was to be represented by legal counsel in a capital case so that his/her rights could be protected

Said fact was moreso in respect of the charge which formed the very foundation of the case against the accused to which he had to defend

Due to absence of counsel inadmissible documents could be admitted into evidence, the witnesses could be tutored and many other prejudicial things to the accused could come on the record

Said facts having not been objected to/challenged by the accused which might not have formed a part of the record if his counsel had been present and might have weakened the prosecution case against him especially in cases such as the present one when the two concerned witnesses were crucial witnesses being eye-witnesses against the accused whose evidence mainly led to his conviction

Absence of counsel for accused during their evidence in chief where they fully implicated the accused in the murder caused great prejudice to the accused

Absence of counsel for the accused when the charge was framed against him and or during the evidence in-chief of a prosecution witness in a capital case, would lead to the case being remanded to the Trial Court

While setting aside convictions and sentences awarded to the accused through impugned judgment

Case was remanded to the Trial Court to conduct a de novo trial.

Provisional and final medical certificates with regard to injury allegedly sustained by the injured person were taken on record by the Trial Court without putting the accused or his counsel on notice

Case being a murder appeal in all fairness, after closure of side; those documents ought to have been brought on record in terms of mandate contained by S. 540, Cr.P.C., by summoning its author

Without having such recourse by taking those documents on record, the accused had been prejudiced in his defence seriously, which was contrary to the mandate contained in Art. 10-A of the Constitution, which prescribed the right of fair trial to every person

Impugned judgment was set aside with direction to the Trial Court to bring the documents on record in terms of mandate contained in S. 540, Cr.P.C. by summoning its author and then decide the case afresh

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Applicant assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby applicant was acquitted of the charge under Ss. 3 & 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, but a direction was issued to the Mukhtiarkar to demarcate the disputed land and put the complainant in possession whereof, if the applicant was found to be in its possession

Case of complainant was that the applicant had occupied his property by dispossessing him but the complainant had failed to prove such assertion beyond shadow of doubt

Trial Court had no jurisdiction to issue direction to the Mukhtiarkar and that too without providing chance of hearing to either of the parties on that particular point, which was against the mandate of Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Trial Court had assumed the jurisdiction of civil/revenue court, which was authorized under the law to resolve such dispute between the parties

Impugned judgment was set aside to the extent of direction to Mukhtiarkar

Application was disposed of accordingly.

Right to liberty and dignity is also protected under Arts. 9 & 14 of the Constitution as is the right to fair trial under Art. 10-A

In the event that after a fair trial the accused is found to be innocent, there is no mechanism to offer restitution for his loss of liberty pending trial.

Right of fair trial means grant of proper hearing to an accused person by an unbiased competent forum and that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done

Adjudicatory tribunal or forum is duty bound to treat a person in accordance with law, to grant him a fair hearing, and for itself to be an impartial and fair tribunal.

Right of appeal or review as enshrined in R. 8 of the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, fulfills the constitutional requirements, which expand the principle of natural justice, well defined in our jurisprudence and the same are treated as inherent rights with underline element of fairness, both in terms of hearing as well as impartiality of the forums

Hence, the minimum requirement of Art. 10-A of the Constitution, has also been adhered to in the impugned Rules by the rulemaking authority

Such preconditions fulfill the minimum conditions of due process, fair trial and other fundamental rights protected by the Constitution

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Article 10-A of the Constitution provides a right to fair trial and due process at all forums, which is the fundamental right, as such, any deviation from such principle conclusively vitiates the proceedings, if any

Similarly, Art. 4 acknowledges the right of due process where a person shall have a notice of proceedings which affected his right; such person must be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself; the adjudicatory tribunal or forum must be so constituted as to convey a reasonable assurance of its impartiality and that such tribunal or forum must possess composite jurisdiction.

Absolute authority given under S. 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, has been regulated through the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, as such, the Rules have provided a separate remedy of appeal and review to retired servant if he is aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority

Due protection of Art. 10-A of the Constitution has been envisaged in the Rules, hence it is not justified to declare them ultra vires to the Constitution as the test laid down in different pronouncements of the Supreme Court has fully been observed while making the Rules more effective which are also need of the hour to save the Country from all those officials whose services are no more required in the public interest

Moreover, under Rule 6(6) of the Rules a complete procedure, including issuing show cause notice and affording opportunity of personal hearing, is provided, as such, a civil servant, who has been proposed for directory retirement would have full opportunity to explain his position and he cannot claim that he has been condemned unheard.

Petitioner assailed order passed by respondent (employer) whereby he was removed from service on account of unauthorized absence from duty

Held, that petitioner, at the relevant time, had more than 20 years' service to his credit

Respondent had not placed on record a single document to show that whether any disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules were initiated against him

It was not the case of respondent that they had ever served the petitioner with a show cause notice, not a single document was annexed with the written comments to show that the petitioner was proceeded against on account of unauthorized absence in due course of law in accordance with rules

Entire stress had been on the point that the petitioner admitted his willful absence at the time of personal hearing afforded to him pursuant to an order passed in the present writ petition

Treatment afforded to the petitioner for throwing him out of service after rendering 20 years' service as being regular employee in no way could be termed justified and in accordance with the canons of law

Treatment under due process was right of every employee while principle of fair trial was also a fundamental right in terms of Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Termination notice was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.

Said right includes the right to be treated according to law, to have a fair and proper trial and an impartial Court or Tribunal

Term "due process" includes issuance of proper show-cause notice in respect of proceedings initiated against an employee that may affect his rights and he shall also be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before imparting any pervasive order towards his rights guaranteed under any law of the land.

Right of fair trial means grant of proper hearing to an accused person by an unbiased competent forum and that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done

Adjudicatory tribunal or forum is duty bound to treat a person in accordance with law, to grant him a fair hearing, and for itself to be an impartial and fair tribunal.

Article 10-A of the Constitution provides a right to fair trial and due process at all forums, which is the fundamental right, as such, any deviation from such principle conclusively vitiates the proceedings, if any

Similarly, Art. 4 acknowledges the right of due process where a person shall have a notice of proceedings which affected his right; such person must be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself; the adjudicatory tribunal or forum must be so constituted as to convey a reasonable assurance of its impartiality and that such tribunal or forum must possess composite jurisdiction.

Absolute authority given under S. 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, has been regulated through the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, as such, the Rules have provided a separate remedy of appeal and review to retired servant if he is aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority

Due protection of Art. 10-A of the Constitution has been envisaged in the Rules, hence it is not justified to declare them ultra vires to the Constitution as the test laid down in different pronouncements of the Supreme Court has fully been observed while making the Rules more effective which are also need of the hour to save the Country from all those officials whose services are no more required in the public interest

Moreover, under Rule 6(6) of the Rules a complete procedure, including issuing show cause notice and affording opportunity of personal hearing, is provided, as such, a civil servant, who has been proposed for directory retirement would have full opportunity to explain his position and he cannot claim that he has been condemned unheard.

Right of appeal or review as enshrined in R. 8 of the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, fulfills the constitutional requirements, which expand the principle of natural justice, well defined in our jurisprudence and the same are treated as inherent rights with underline element of fairness, both in terms of hearing as well as impartiality of the forums

Hence, the minimum requirement of Art. 10-A of the Constitution, has also been adhered to in the impugned Rules by the rulemaking authority

Such preconditions fulfill the minimum conditions of due process, fair trial and other fundamental rights protected by the Constitution

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Any unreasonable or shocking delay in conclusion of trial would amount to denial of justice or to say, denial of fundamental right of speedy trial.

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.

Fair investigation is concomitant to the right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution.

Article 10-A of the Constitution protects civil rights and obligations of all the citizens in granting them a fair trial and due process.

Absence of due process offends Arts. 4, 10-A and 25 of the Constitution.