- People must not be deprived of life
The extra-judicial killing was barbaric, cold-blooded and shocking, to say the least. The mentally deranged Salahuddin Ayubi was tortured to death. He suffered a proverbial death by a thousand cuts. Three policemen have blood on their hands. One video shows how they took sadistic pleasure in torturing him and asked him to stick his tongue out, while he was constantly asking them a question, which was never hitherto asked: “Who taught you to torture?” The state of affairs prevailing in the police is simply despicable, deplorable and reprehensible.
A debate ensued as soon as the video went viral. Condemnations flowed in from all quarters and walks of life. As the debated raged, two narratives came to be formed. At the one end of the spectrum were those condemning the brutal murder in strongest possible words, demanding the culprits be brought to book. At the other end of the spectrum were those who were cautious in condemning the deplorable incident and called the victim an inveterate thief, coming up with his alleged videos to reinforce their claim.
A cue should be taken from this bill while legislating in respect of custodial torture and death. It should be either enacted by way of a Presidential Ordinance or be re-tabled in Parliament sooner rather than later
Given this horrific incident, a chain of questions bring up: Whether our law of the land grants carte blanche to the police to carry out custodial torture and cause deaths? Whether Article 14(2) of the Constitution does not explicitly debar the police to employ torture for the purpose of extracting evidence? Whether custodial torture is not an affront to human dignity and whether Article 14(1) does not mandate unequivocally that human dignity is “an inviolable obligation”? Whether the due process guaranteed by Articles 4 and 10-A is mere an illusory right? Whether it is an inviolable obligation of every citizen of Pakistan to obey the Constitution pursuant to Article 5 thereof? Whether civilians are treated as human beings or as “bloody civilians” by the police?
Lord Acton was right when he said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute powers corrupt absolutely”. The police have become a law unto themselves. They trample upon ironclad fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution with impunity. In the name of investigation, all sorts of torture are carried out on the persons of the accused to extract evidence. Thanas have become torture cells. The police are trained to torture and brainwashed into believing that to get higher ranks, promotions and bonuses, extrajudicial killings are a must and a necessary evil. Their chests swell with pride when they talk about how many alleged criminals have been done to death by them. Such is the tragedy! They consider each other “Payti bhira“. The police fraternity takes great pains to save each other’s asses. After Salahuddin’s death, more videos are going viral, showing police in its true colours, thereby bringing it into disrepute.
Unless an example is set, which would serve as a deterrent, evoking fear and terror to other would-be wrongdoers in the police, these incidents (God forbid) will reoccur. Given the record of these blood-curdling incidents, it is a familiar pattern to issue a flurry of condemnations, to meet the victim’s family and empathize with them, to hold out a set of promises, to order to constitute a judicial commission and the matter then slowly fades into insignificance and is finally forgotten. Alas!
To state the obvious, Article 184(3) of the Constitution confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to take suo moto action for the enforcement of fundamental rights, should there be any violation thereof and it involves a question of public importance. This article lay dormant for a considerable time ever since the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was drawn up and came into effect. It was the late Chief Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah, who took the first suo moto action under Article 184(3). Since then, it was invoked countless times. However, with the incumbent CJP picking up the reins of the SC, this article has virtually gone into hibernation, as if it had never existed.
Custodial torture and death are an anathema to the grain and spirit of our Constitution, which enshrines that “no person shall be deprived of life and liberty save in accordance with law”. Regrettable as it is, this fundamental right is being honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Leaving aside the Constitution, Islam lays great emphasis on saving the lives of others. As per its teachings, “To save one life is to save all of humanity”. People were and are still looking towards SC. Will the Supreme Court break the ice and uphold the dignity of justice and majesty of Constitution?
Custodial torture or custodial death is a plague not restricted to Pakistan alone, it is widespread in Indian police too. While delivering a speech in a symposium on Torture (reported as (1999) 7 SCC (Jour) 10), former Dr Justice A.S. Anand, Chief Justice of India, shed light on it in the following words:
“Custodial torture” which itself is very widespread is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward and the flag of humanity must on each such occasion fly at half-mast”.
Article 5 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 prohibits torture, cruelty, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Pakistan signed to the United Nations Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in 2008 and was ratified in 2012, during the last PPP government. However, to this day no legislation has been enacted in pursuance of it. In March 2015, the Senate of Pakistan passed the Torture, Custodial Death and Custodial Rape (Prevention and Punishment) Bill, 2014, which was tabled by Senator Farhatullah Babar. Nevertheless, it lapsed as it was not passed by the National Assembly within the stipulated period envisaged by the Constitution. This bill (available on the National Assembly website) was self-contained, as it not only defined torture and custodial death, but prescribed punishments, fleshing out the whole mechanism, and procedure to conduct the trial. A cue should be taken from this bill while legislating in respect of custodial torture and death. It should be either enacted by way of a Presidential Ordinance or be re-tabled in Parliament sooner rather than later.
