If you find yourself on the receiving end of police misconduct—whether it’s wrongful arrest, excessive force, or a case of bureaucratic tyranny—you’re not just up against an errant officer. You’re challenging an institution that, left unchecked, operates with an entrenched culture of impunity. The good news? The law is on your side, but only if you wield it correctly.
This primer is not about appealing to morality or hoping for institutional reform—it’s about strategy. The goal is not merely to win your case but to force accountability where it’s otherwise evaded.
1. Understand What You’re Up Against: The Nature of Police Misconduct
Police misconduct is an expansive legal concept. It includes everything from abuse of authority to fabricated charges and procedural malfeasance. The legal framework governing police behavior is outlined in Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002, which criminalizes:
- Neglect of duty
- Abuse of authority
- Misuse of power
- Violations of procedural safeguards
Courts have long recognized that misconduct isn’t limited to outright criminal acts—it includes any conduct that undermines police accountability (Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer, Gujrat, 2022 SCMR 1770).
The bottom line? If an officer misuses their badge to compromise your rights, you have legal ammunition.
2. Master the Law Before Making a Move
You don’t step onto a chessboard without knowing the pieces. Similarly, before engaging in litigation or complaint procedures, you must understand the governing laws.
Procedural Safeguards Against Police Overreach
- Non-Cognizable Offences: Police cannot investigate these without prior Magistrate approval (Haji Rehman SHO v. Provincial Police Officer, KP, 2012 PCrLJ 1526).
- Wrongful Arrest and Detention: Arrests must be legally justified. Otherwise, they fall under Section 220 of the PPC (Qari Muhammad Atta Ullah v. DPO, Sialkot, 2022 PLD 224).
- Fabrication of Evidence: Manipulating an investigation constitutes misconduct under Section 155(c) of the Police Order, 2002 (Tariq Aziz v. Mst. Kalsoom Bibi, 2012 PCrLJ 891).
If your rights have been violated, your best move isn’t to panic—it’s to document every detail meticulously.
3. First Steps: Document Everything
Litigation is war, and evidence is your ammunition. You need a perfect paper trail. Follow these steps:
- Secure Written Records: Every complaint, legal notice, and police communication should be documented. Verbal conversations mean nothing without written proof.
- Recordings and Video Evidence: Many successful misconduct cases hinge on recordings that contradict police reports.
- Independent Witnesses: The testimony of a third party carries significant weight, particularly if the case involves physical force or unlawful detention.
- Roznamcha Entries: If you were detained, demand the daily register (Roznamcha) entry. Failure to log your arrest is a procedural violation (Qari Muhammad Atta Ullah v. DPO, Sialkot).
Remember: If there’s one thing the courts dislike more than police misconduct, it’s sloppy police work.
4. Identify the Right Forum for Your Case
A brilliant lawyer doesn’t waste time in the wrong jurisdiction. Your case may fall under multiple forums, each with distinct advantages:
Judicial Remedies
- High Court Writ Petition (Article 199 of the Constitution): If your fundamental rights have been violated, a writ can force the police to comply with the law.
- Criminal Prosecution (Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002): If you seek criminal penalties against an officer, ensure an FIR is registered.
Departmental Complaints
- Police Complaints Authority (PCA): If seeking administrative action, file a complaint under Articles 102-105 of the Police Order, 2002.
- Public Safety Commissions: These bodies, though often inactive, serve as oversight forums (Haider Ali v. DPO Chakwal, 2015 SCMR 1724).
Pro tip: If internal disciplinary channels don’t respond, escalate directly to the courts. Bureaucracy works only when it fears accountability.
5. Play Offense, Not Defense
Police misconduct cases often involve an element of retaliation—don’t let it deter you. The best defense? A calculated offense.
- Seek a Judicial Order to Register an FIR: Under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C., an ex-officio Justice of the Peace can order the police to register a complaint against their own officers (Khizer Hayat v. IG Punjab, 2005 PLD 470).
- Move for Quashing of Frivolous FIRs: If a counter-case is lodged against you, challenge it under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.
- File for Civil Damages: Malicious prosecution entitles you to claim damages under tort law.
Your goal isn’t just to fight back—it’s to make retaliation legally costly for them.
6. Know When to Negotiate and When to Litigate
Not every case is worth a prolonged legal battle. Some cases are best resolved through strategic negotiation—especially when the officer involved faces internal pressure.
- Negotiation works when: The misconduct is minor, and the officer is willing to make amends.
- Litigation is necessary when: There’s a risk of recurrence, or the misconduct is severe (e.g., torture, wrongful conviction).
You’re not just looking for justice—you’re looking for leverage. If litigation achieves that, proceed. If negotiation gets you a better deal, take it.
7. Anticipate Institutional Bias and Disarm It
Expect institutional resistance. The police force is an old boys’ club, and they protect their own.
How to Counter Bias:
- Use Judicial Precedents to Corner the System: Courts have set firm standards for police accountability—use them (Faraz Naveed v. DPO Gujrat).
- Expose Internal Contradictions: Departments dislike officers who create liability. If the misconduct is undeniable, force an internal split.
- Keep Public Pressure in Your Arsenal: Media attention and human rights organisations can accelerate slow-moving cases.
Every legal battle is about shaping the narrative. Make it clear that fighting you is costlier than disciplining their own.
Final Thought: Winning the Long Game
Victory in police misconduct cases isn’t just about compensation or punishment—it’s about setting a precedent. The real power lies in forcing the system to think twice before abusing its authority again.
Be relentless, be strategic, and most importantly—be prepared.
Need sharp legal representation?
Josh and Mak International takes a surgical approach to police misconduct litigation. We don’t just argue cases—we build them with precision.
Email: [email protected]
Visit: https://joshandmakinternational.com
A Legal Definition of Police Misconduct
Police misconduct refers to any illegal, unethical, or improper act committed by a police officer in the course of their official duties, which violates legal provisions, professional ethics, or the rights of individuals. It encompasses acts such as abuse of authority, corruption, wrongful detention, excessive use of force, fabrication of evidence, failure to perform lawful duties, and any conduct that brings the police force into disrepute.
Under Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002, police misconduct includes:
- Neglect of duty
- Abuse of authority
- Misuse of power
- Conduct that tarnishes the integrity of the police force
- Violations of legal procedures and safeguards
The courts have reinforced this definition in Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer, Gujrat (2022 SCMR 1770), stating that misconduct extends beyond criminal violations and includes actions that compromise police accountability and public trust.
Types of Police Misconduct
Police misconduct is broadly classified into several categories, each addressed by different legal provisions:
(i) Procedural Misconduct
Failure to follow legal procedures or violating established protocols.
- Relevant Law: Section 155 Cr.P.C. (failure to obtain Magistrate’s permission in non-cognizable offences)
- Case Law: Haji Rehman SHO v. Provincial Police Officer, KP (2012 PCrLJ 1526) – Held that the police cannot investigate non-cognizable offences without prior permission.
(ii) Abuse of Authority
Exerting police powers unlawfully to oppress or wrongfully prosecute individuals.
- Relevant Law: Section 166 PPC (public servant disobeying legal directives)
- Case Law: Khizer Hayat v. IG Punjab (2005 PLD 470) – Declared that non-compliance with lawful directives of the Justice of Peace constitutes misconduct.
(iii) Corruption and Bribery
Accepting illegal benefits or engaging in financial misconduct.
- Relevant Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999; Pakistan Penal Code Sections 161-165.
- Case Law: Haider Ali v. DPO Chakwal (2015 SCMR 1724) – Highlighted lack of transparency in police funds as a misconduct issue.
(iv) Wrongful Arrest and Detention
Arresting or detaining individuals without legal grounds.
- Relevant Law: Section 220 PPC (wrongful confinement by a public servant)
- Case Law: Qari Muhammad Atta Ullah v. DPO, Sialkot (2022 PLD 224) – Ordered FIR against officers for illegal detention.
(v) Fabrication of Evidence and Malicious Prosecution
Filing false FIRs or tampering with evidence to manipulate investigations.
- Relevant Law: Section 155(c) of Police Order, 2002.
- Case Law: Tariq Aziz v. Mst. Kalsoom Bibi (2012 PCrLJ 891) – Identified police officers manipulating investigations for wrongful gains.
(vi) Excessive Use of Force and Torture
Using unnecessary or disproportionate force in violation of legal standards.
- Relevant Law: Article 14 of the Constitution (protection of dignity of man)
- Case Law: Faraz Naveed v. DPO Gujrat (2022 SCMR 1770) – Declared that a police officer’s actions, even after acquittal, could be grounds for dismissal if they involved excessive force.
Legal Consequences of Police Misconduct
Misconduct by police officers can lead to:
- Criminal Liability – FIRs registered under Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002.
- Disciplinary Action – Removal, suspension, or departmental penalties under Article 113.
- Judicial Review – Courts may intervene through writs under Article 199 of the Constitution.
- Civil Remedies – Victims may seek damages for wrongful acts under tort law.
The Supreme Court in 2015 SCMR 1724 (Haider Ali v. DPO Chakwal) emphasised the importance of accountability mechanisms and transparency in deterring police misconduct.
Judicial Interpretation of Police Misconduct
Courts have consistently interpreted police misconduct as including not only criminal actions but also breaches of duty and procedural violations. The Supreme Court in Ghulam Sarwar Zardari v. Piyar Ali (2010 SCMR 624) held that misconduct extends beyond legal infractions to actions that undermine public confidence in law enforcement.
The Lahore High Court in Tariq Aziz v. Mst. Kalsoom Bibi (2012 PCrLJ 891) reinforced that high-handedness, mala fide investigations, and disregard for judicial directives constitute serious misconduct warranting strict action.
Avenues and Forums for Redress Against Police Misconduct
Victims of police misconduct in Pakistan have multiple avenues and forums available for seeking redress, each designed to address specific aspects of misconduct. These mechanisms ensure accountability while safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals.
1. Internal Police Mechanisms
- Police Complaints Authority (PCA): Established under Articles 102-105 of the Police Order, 2002, the PCA is tasked with handling complaints against police officers, particularly in cases involving neglect, misconduct, or abuse of power.
- The PCA operates at the district, provincial, and national levels to provide accessible forums for citizens.
- Complainants can submit written complaints for investigation and disciplinary action.
- Departmental Inquiries: Police officers can be subjected to internal disciplinary inquiries for breaches of conduct. Article 113 of the Police Order, 2002, empowers supervisory officers to initiate inquiries and recommend appropriate penalties.
2. Judicial Remedies
- Constitutional Petitions: Victims can file petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to seek judicial intervention. Courts may issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari to compel compliance with the law or quash illegal actions by police officers.
- Criminal Proceedings: Complaints can lead to the registration of an FIR under Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002, against delinquent officers. This provision allows for criminal prosecution of officers who engage in misconduct, with punishments including imprisonment for up to three years.
- Quashing of FIRs: Victims of false or malicious FIRs can seek relief under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. for quashing such FIRs on grounds of mala fide intentions or lack of jurisdiction.
3. Oversight and Accountability Bodies
- Public Safety Commissions:
- Established under Articles 73-108 of the Police Order, 2002, these commissions ensure civilian oversight of police activities.
- Their mandates include reviewing police performance, addressing public grievances, and recommending policy reforms to prevent misconduct.
- Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace: Under Section 22-A(6) of the Cr.P.C., an ex-officio Justice of the Peace can direct the police to act lawfully or register a complaint against officers for non-compliance.
4. Human Rights Organisations
- Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and human rights commissions, such as the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), can provide assistance in documenting and addressing instances of police misconduct.
5. Civil Suits
- Victims may file civil suits seeking damages for unlawful detention, torture, or malicious prosecution under tort law.
Legal Framework Addressing Police Misconduct
The legal framework governing police misconduct in Pakistan is derived from several statutes and judicial precedents:
1. The Police Order, 2002
- Article 155: Criminal liability for police officers who engage in misconduct, neglect of duty, or abuse of authority.
- Article 113: Disciplinary action against officers for breaches of duty or conduct.
- Article 36: Establishes procedures for addressing complaints, ensuring they are investigated impartially and resolved efficiently.
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.)
- Section 155: Prohibits the police from initiating investigations into non-cognizable offences without prior approval from a Magistrate.
- Section 22-A(6): Provides remedies for non-compliance with lawful directives issued by a Justice of the Peace.
- Section 561-A: Grants courts the power to prevent abuse of process and quash malicious or frivolous FIRs.
3. The Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
- Article 199: Empowers High Courts to intervene in cases of abuse of authority, ensuring fundamental rights are protected.
- Article 14: Guarantees the dignity of individuals, prohibiting torture or inhumane treatment by police officers.
4. The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC)
- Section 166: Penalises public servants, including police officers, for disobeying legal directives.
- Section 220: Criminalises acts by public servants that result in wrongful confinement.
5. Judicial Precedents
- Haji Rehman SHO v. Provincial Police Officer, KP (2012 PCrLJ 1526): Clarified procedural safeguards for non-cognizable offences.
- Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer, Gujrat (2022 SCMR 1770): Distinguished between criminal and departmental accountability, reinforcing dual mechanisms for addressing misconduct.
- Khizer Hayat v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore (2005 PLD 470): Established remedies for non-compliance with lawful directives.
Challenges in Addressing Police Misconduct
Despite the robust legal framework, systemic challenges persist, including:
- Inactivation of oversight bodies such as public safety commissions.
- Delays in the resolution of complaints.
- Resistance to transparency and accountability within police departments.
Addressing these challenges requires concerted efforts to strengthen institutional mechanisms, enhance judicial oversight, and foster a culture of professionalism within law enforcement.
Q&A on Police Misconduct and Applicable Law
Question
What is the legal course of action for police officers in cases involving non-cognizable offences, and how does the Peshawar High Court interpret Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. in such cases?
Answer: In cases of non-cognizable offences, the only legal course of action for the police under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), is to obtain permission from a Magistrate after making an entry in the relevant register. The police cannot register an FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. or arrest the accused without a warrant in such cases. This interpretation was upheld by the Peshawar High Court in the case titled Haji Rehman SHO v. Provincial Police Officer, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar (2012 PCrLJ 1526), where the court clarified the boundaries of police authority under Section 155, Cr.P.C. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to ensure that police misconduct, such as arbitrary registration of cases or unlawful arrests, does not infringe upon the rights of individuals.
The court emphasised that a failure to follow the prescribed procedure in non-cognizable offences constitutes a violation of statutory obligations and can lead to legal consequences, including disciplinary or criminal proceedings against the delinquent police officer.
Question
Under Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002, is the offence of misconduct by a police officer classified as cognizable or non-cognizable, and what legal implications arise from this classification?
Answer: The classification of misconduct under Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002, has been a subject of judicial interpretation. In Haji Rehman SHO v. Provincial Police Officer, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar (2012 PCrLJ 1526), the Peshawar High Court held that offences under Article 155, punishable by imprisonment of up to three years, are cognizable by virtue of Section 4(f) of the Cr.P.C. and the provisions of Schedule II of the Cr.P.C. The court reasoned that where no express provision exists in the Police Order declaring such offences non-cognizable, the default rule under the Cr.P.C. applies, making the offence cognizable if the punishment is three years or more.
This interpretation allows police to register an FIR and arrest the accused without prior permission from a Magistrate. However, this judicial stance ensures that misconduct involving serious violations of public trust or abuse of authority can be addressed promptly while safeguarding procedural justice.
Question
Can police officers accused of misconduct under Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002, be granted pre-arrest bail, and what factors influence such decisions?
Answer: Yes, police officers accused of misconduct under Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002, can seek pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court in Asghar Ali v. State (2012 YLR 18) examined this issue, holding that offences under Article 155 are non-cognizable as per Schedule II and Chapter 23 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, police cannot arrest the accused without a warrant, and the accused are typically entitled to pre-arrest bail if certain conditions are met.
The court emphasised that the absence of a cognizable classification reduces the risk of arbitrary arrests, ensuring that the rights of accused police officers are safeguarded during investigations. In granting pre-arrest bail, courts evaluate factors such as the nature of the alleged misconduct, the likelihood of misuse of authority, and the absence of mala fide intentions in the investigation process.
Question
What constitutes police misconduct in cases of deliberate omission in recording arrests, and how has this been addressed by courts?
Answer: Deliberate omissions by police officers, such as failing to record an arrest in the Roznamcha (daily register), constitute misconduct under Article 155(c) of the Police Order, 2002. In Mst. Kalsoom Bibi v. Tariq Aziz (2012 PCrLJ 891), the Lahore High Court addressed this issue, highlighting that such omissions not only undermine the integrity of the investigation but also reflect a blatant disregard for procedural fairness.
The court held that an Investigating Officer does not possess the authority to release accused individuals in heinous offences without following the procedure outlined in Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. The deliberate failure to document arrests and subsequent release of accused persons without lawful authority was deemed a glaring example of high-handedness and disrespect toward judicial processes.
Question
Can concurrent disciplinary and criminal proceedings be initiated against a police officer for the same act of misconduct?
Answer: Yes, concurrent disciplinary and criminal proceedings can be initiated against a police officer for the same act of misconduct. The Supreme Court in Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer, Gujrat (2022 SCMR 1770) clarified that the nature and purpose of these proceedings are distinct. While criminal proceedings aim to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt, disciplinary proceedings are designed to ensure institutional integrity and accountability based on a balance of probabilities.
The court held that an acquittal in criminal proceedings does not preclude the initiation or continuation of departmental inquiries, particularly when the acquittal is based on benefit of doubt or technical grounds. This ensures that the disciplinary framework within police organisations remains robust and effective in addressing misconduct.
Question
How do courts address allegations of defective investigations conducted by police officers?
Answer: Allegations of defective investigations by police officers fall under the ambit of misconduct, as outlined in Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002. In Hafeez Ullah Shahid v. ASJ/JOP (2024 MLD 951), the Lahore High Court underscored the procedural requirements for addressing such allegations. The court directed that any defective investigation must be referred to the Police Complaints Authority for further action, as per Article 36 of the Police Order.
Additionally, the court emphasised that procedural safeguards must be strictly observed. For instance, in non-cognizable offences, entries must be made in the Roznamcha, and permission must be obtained from a Magistrate before commencing an investigation. Failure to comply with these requirements constitutes misconduct warranting departmental and judicial accountability.
Question
What role do public safety commissions and police complaints authorities play in ensuring police accountability?
Answer: Public safety commissions and police complaints authorities, established under the Police Order, 2002, serve as key accountability mechanisms for addressing police misconduct. However, their efficacy has been questioned due to inactivation or lack of operationalisation, as noted by the Supreme Court in Haider Ali v. DPO Chakwal (2015 SCMR 1724). The court observed that the absence of transparency and accountability mechanisms undermines public trust in law enforcement.
To address this, the court recommended revitalising these forums to ensure effective oversight of police conduct, including the allocation of funds, implementation of police plans, and assessment of annual performance reports. Strengthening these institutions is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the rule of law.
Question
What are the consequences for police officers who fail to comply with directives issued by an ex-officio Justice of the Peace under Section 22-A(6) of the Cr.P.C.?
Answer: Failure to comply with directives issued by an ex-officio Justice of the Peace under Section 22-A(6) of the Cr.P.C. constitutes misconduct under Article 155(c) of the Police Order, 2002. The Lahore High Court in Khizer Hayat v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore (2005 PLD 470) provided a detailed framework for addressing such non-compliance.
The court outlined three remedial measures:
- Filing a complaint with the ex-officio Justice of the Peace, who can direct the registration of an FIR against the delinquent officer under Article 155(c).
- Escalating the matter to higher police authorities or public safety commissions for appropriate action.
- Seeking a writ of mandamus from the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, compelling the police officer to act in accordance with the law.
These measures are intended to ensure that police officers adhere to lawful directives and maintain procedural propriety. Non-compliance not only erodes public confidence but also invites legal consequences, including disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.
Question
Can the High Court interfere with police investigations in cases of alleged misconduct, and what are the limitations of such interference?
Answer: The High Court’s jurisdiction to interfere in police investigations is circumscribed by principles of judicial restraint. In Ghulam Sarwar Zardari v. Piyar Ali (2010 SCMR 624), the Supreme Court clarified that while the High Court has inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C., these powers should not be exercised in a manner that disrupts the investigative process.
The court held that police misconduct, such as the use of excessive force or failure to follow procedural norms, should primarily be addressed through mechanisms provided under the Police Order, 2002, and related rules. High Court intervention is warranted only in cases where there is a manifest abuse of power or a violation of fundamental rights. The court emphasised that investigative autonomy must be respected to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Question
What procedural safeguards are in place to ensure the accountability of police officers accused of arbitrary detention?
Answer: The procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention by police officers include the requirement for proper documentation and adherence to rules governing arrests and custody. In Qari Muhammad Atta Ullah v. District Police Officer, Sialkot (2022 PLD 224), the Lahore High Court addressed a case where a detainee’s arrest was not recorded in the Roznamcha.
The court directed the registration of an FIR against the responsible officers under Article 155(c) of the Police Order, 2002, emphasising that case diaries and related records must be meticulously maintained. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of statutory duties and exposes the officer to disciplinary and criminal proceedings. This judgment underscores the necessity of transparency in custodial practices to prevent abuse of power.
Question
How has the judiciary addressed cases of torture or excessive use of force by police officers during investigations?
Answer: The judiciary has consistently condemned the use of torture or excessive force by police officers, categorising such actions as serious misconduct. In Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer, Gujrat (2022 PLC(CS) 1445), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the dual accountability of police officers through criminal trials and departmental inquiries.
The court observed that while criminal proceedings require proof beyond reasonable doubt, departmental inquiries operate on the balance of probabilities. This distinction allows for concurrent actions to address both the criminal and professional aspects of police misconduct. The court also highlighted the importance of maintaining discipline within the police force to prevent such abuses.
Question
Can a police officer accused of causing grievous injuries during the discharge of duties invoke self-defence, and what factors influence judicial evaluation?
Answer: Police officers accused of causing grievous injuries can invoke self-defence, but such claims are subject to judicial scrutiny. In Iftikhar Ahmad v. State (2024 YLR 1052), the Lahore High Court considered the defence argument that injuries occurred during a grappling incident where the officer’s rifle accidentally discharged.
The court examined medical evidence, including the presence of blackening around the injuries, which indicated close-range firing. While the court accepted that the injuries were caused without intent, it held the officer accountable under lesser charges, such as negligence or accidental harm under Section 337-I of the Penal Code. The judgment reflects a nuanced approach to balancing the defence of self-preservation against the duty to exercise restraint in the use of force.
Question
What mechanisms exist to address defective investigations by police officers, and how does the Police Complaints Authority function in this regard?
Answer: Defective investigations by police officers are addressed through both internal departmental reviews and external oversight by the Police Complaints Authority. In Hafeez Ullah Shahid v. ASJ/JOP (2024 MLD 951), the Lahore High Court underscored the role of the Police Complaints Authority as an independent body tasked with addressing grievances against police officers.
The court emphasised that complaints of neglect or failure in investigations should be channelled through this authority, which has the mandate to recommend disciplinary actions or initiate corrective measures. This institutional mechanism ensures accountability and adherence to investigative standards while safeguarding the rights of complainants and accused individuals alike.
Question
How does the judiciary view the role of police officers in maintaining transparency in the allocation and utilisation of public funds?
Answer: The judiciary has highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability in the allocation and utilisation of public funds by police departments. In Haider Ali v. DPO Chakwal (2015 SCMR 1724), the Supreme Court criticised the lack of publicly available information regarding police budgets and performance reports.
The court observed that transparency in financial matters is integral to fostering public trust and deterring misconduct. It directed police authorities to establish robust accountability frameworks and ensure that financial and operational records are accessible for public scrutiny. This approach aims to enhance institutional integrity and deter corrupt practices within the police force.
Question
What principles guide the judiciary in cases where police officers manipulate investigations for personal gain or exhibit mala fide intentions?
Answer: The judiciary takes a strict stance against police officers who manipulate investigations for personal gain or exhibit mala fide intentions. In Tariq Aziz v. Mst. Kalsoom Bibi (2012 PCrLJ 891), the Lahore High Court denounced actions where officers failed to arrest accused persons in a murder case despite the dismissal of their pre-arrest bail applications. The officers released the accused without formally documenting their arrest, reflecting a blatant disregard for judicial orders.
The court ruled that such actions constituted gross misconduct under Article 155(c) of the Police Order, 2002. It emphasised that police officers are bound by law to act impartially and respect judicial authority. Any deliberate deviation from these principles undermines the justice system and warrants severe legal consequences, including criminal prosecution and departmental action.
Question
Can police officers be dismissed from service for misconduct even after being acquitted in criminal trials?
Answer: Yes, police officers can be dismissed from service for misconduct even after acquittal in criminal trials. The Supreme Court in Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer, Gujrat (2022 SCMR 1770) held that acquittals based on benefit of doubt or technical grounds do not preclude departmental inquiries. Criminal proceedings and departmental inquiries serve distinct purposes—criminal trials aim to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while departmental proceedings focus on maintaining discipline based on the balance of probabilities.
The court emphasised that police officers must demonstrate integrity and a spotless character. Even when acquitted, their reinstatement depends on the nature of the allegations and their implications for public confidence in law enforcement. Dismissals for misconduct serve as a deterrent against future violations and reinforce the police force’s accountability.
Question
What are the legal implications of failure to maintain proper records during police investigations, such as Roznamcha entries or case diaries?
Answer: Failure to maintain proper records during investigations, including Roznamcha entries and case diaries, constitutes misconduct under Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002. In Qari Muhammad Atta Ullah v. District Police Officer, Sialkot (2022 PLD 224), the Lahore High Court directed that FIRs be registered against officers who failed to document a detainee’s arrest and investigation activities.
The court underscored that such omissions undermine transparency and accountability in policing. Accurate record-keeping is essential to ensure procedural compliance, protect the rights of detainees, and provide a verifiable trail for judicial scrutiny. Non-compliance with these requirements invites disciplinary and criminal action, reinforcing the importance of meticulous administrative practices in law enforcement.
Question
How has the judiciary addressed allegations of police involvement in cases of wrongful restraint or physical abuse of detainees?
Answer: The judiciary has categorically condemned police involvement in cases of wrongful restraint or physical abuse of detainees, treating such actions as violations of fundamental rights. In Shadab Akhtar v. State (2012 MLD 353), the Karachi High Court dealt with allegations of wrongful restraint, physical abuse, and extortion by police officers. The court rejected the pre-arrest bail applications of the accused officers, citing the gravity of the charges and the recovery of abductees during a judicial raid on the police station.
The court emphasised that police officers are entrusted with the responsibility to protect citizens, not to exploit or harm them. It directed that such cases be prosecuted vigorously to deter future misconduct and uphold the rule of law.
Question
What remedies are available to victims of police misconduct, and how do these ensure accountability?
Answer: Victims of police misconduct have access to multiple remedies to ensure accountability:
- Filing Complaints with the Police Complaints Authority: Victims can approach this body to seek redress for misconduct under Articles 104 and 36 of the Police Order, 2002.
- Judicial Intervention: Victims can file petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution to seek judicial review or direction for police compliance with legal standards.
- Criminal Prosecution: FIRs can be registered under Article 155(c) of the Police Order, 2002, against delinquent officers for specific acts of misconduct.
- Departmental Action: Victims can request higher authorities to initiate disciplinary inquiries under Articles 113 and 115 of the Police Order.
These remedies collectively ensure that police officers are held accountable for their actions, fostering transparency and public trust in law enforcement.
Question
What are the procedural requirements for initiating criminal proceedings against police officers accused of misconduct, and how does the need for prior sanction influence such cases?
Answer: The initiation of criminal proceedings against police officers accused of misconduct requires adherence to procedural safeguards, including obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority. In Hafeez Ullah Shahid v. ASJ/JOP (2024 MLD 951), the Lahore High Court emphasised that for judicial prosecution under Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002, sanction from the respective Deputy Inspector General of Police is mandatory.
The court clarified that in the absence of such sanction, proceedings cannot continue. This requirement ensures that frivolous or mala fide cases are filtered out while maintaining checks on police accountability. The process reflects a balance between protecting officers from undue harassment and addressing legitimate allegations of misconduct.
Question
How do courts differentiate between criminal liability and departmental accountability in cases of police misconduct?
Answer: Courts differentiate between criminal liability and departmental accountability based on the standard of proof and the objectives of each process. In Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer, Gujrat (2022 SCMR 1770), the Supreme Court highlighted that criminal liability requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, while departmental accountability relies on the balance of probabilities.
Criminal trials focus on punishing offences against individuals or society, while departmental proceedings aim to maintain discipline within the police force. Both processes can run concurrently without overlap, ensuring comprehensive accountability for misconduct.
Question
What steps can be taken to strengthen institutional accountability mechanisms within the police force?
Answer: Strengthening institutional accountability within the police force involves several measures:
- Revitalising Public Safety Commissions: Ensuring that these bodies are operational and adequately resourced to oversee police conduct.
- Enhancing Transparency: Mandating the publication of police budgets, plans, and performance reports for public access, as recommended in Haider Ali v. DPO Chakwal (2015 SCMR 1724).
- Training on Ethical Standards: Providing officers with training on ethical policing and the legal implications of misconduct.
- Independent Oversight: Empowering independent authorities like the Police Complaints Authority to investigate allegations of abuse impartially.
Question
What role does the balance of probabilities play in departmental inquiries into police misconduct, and how does this differ from the standard of proof in criminal trials?
Answer: The balance of probabilities is the standard used in departmental inquiries to determine whether a police officer has engaged in misconduct. This standard requires that the evidence presented makes it more likely than not that the misconduct occurred. In contrast, criminal trials demand proof beyond reasonable doubt, a much higher threshold, to establish guilt.
The Supreme Court in Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer, Gujrat (2022 SCMR 1770) explained that departmental inquiries focus on maintaining the discipline and integrity of the police force, and thus rely on the preponderance of evidence rather than absolute certainty. This distinction ensures that police officers can be held accountable for breaches of professional standards even if their actions do not meet the stringent criteria for criminal conviction.
Question
Can police officers invoke procedural irregularities as a defence against allegations of misconduct, and how have courts addressed such claims?
Answer: Police officers can invoke procedural irregularities as a defence; however, courts have generally scrutinised such claims to ensure they are not used to evade accountability. In Ghulam Sarwar Zardari v. Piyar Ali (2010 SCMR 624), the Supreme Court acknowledged that minor procedural irregularities, such as incomplete records in arrest memos, could be treated as administrative lapses rather than grounds for exoneration.
However, the court also noted that substantive violations of procedural law, especially those affecting fundamental rights or evidentiary integrity, constitute serious misconduct. Therefore, while procedural irregularities might mitigate liability in some cases, they do not absolve police officers of accountability when the irregularities are deliberate or egregious.
Question
How have courts addressed cases involving misuse of authority by police officers during custodial investigations?
Answer: Courts have taken a firm stance against misuse of authority during custodial investigations, categorising it as a violation of both legal and ethical standards. In Muhammad Zubair Waseem v. State (2022 PCrLJ 1382), the Lahore High Court addressed allegations that police officers abused their authority to extract ransom under the guise of lawful detention.
The court granted bail to the accused, citing contradictions in the prosecution’s narrative and highlighting the need for strict scrutiny of custodial practices. The judgment underscored that police officers must exercise their authority within the bounds of law, and any deviation invites disciplinary and criminal consequences.
Question
What is the judicial approach to cases of mala fide investigations by police officers, and how does this impact their accountability?
Answer: The judiciary has consistently condemned mala fide investigations, viewing them as a breach of trust and an abuse of the police mandate. In Tariq Aziz v. Mst. Kalsoom Bibi (2012 PCrLJ 891), the Lahore High Court criticised police officers who deliberately manipulated investigations to shield accused persons from prosecution.
The court held that such actions reflected blatant disregard for justice and warranted immediate disciplinary action under Article 155(c) of the Police Order, 2002. The decision reinforced the principle that police accountability must be prioritised to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system and maintain public confidence.
Question
How do courts evaluate claims of self-defence by police officers in cases involving allegations of excessive use of force?
Answer: Claims of self-defence by police officers are evaluated based on the circumstances of the incident and the proportionality of the force used. In Iftikhar Ahmad v. State (2024 YLR 1052), the Lahore High Court examined medical evidence and witness testimony to determine whether injuries caused by the officer were intentional or accidental.
The court concluded that the injuries were a result of grappling and did not indicate an intention to harm. It modified the conviction to reflect negligence rather than deliberate assault. This nuanced approach ensures that legitimate acts of self-defence are recognised while holding officers accountable for unnecessary or excessive force.
Question
What procedural safeguards are in place for police officers facing allegations of misconduct under the Police Order, 2002?
Answer: Police officers accused of misconduct under the Police Order, 2002, are entitled to several procedural safeguards:
- Prior Sanction for Prosecution: Article 155(c) requires prior approval from the competent authority for initiating judicial proceedings.
- Right to Appeal: Officers can challenge disciplinary actions or criminal charges through departmental and judicial appeals.
- Independent Oversight: The Police Complaints Authority ensures impartial investigation into allegations.
- Proportionality in Disciplinary Actions: Departmental inquiries are guided by the principle of proportionality to ensure fair treatment.
These safeguards protect officers from arbitrary or unjustified actions while ensuring accountability for genuine misconduct.
Question
Can public complaints against police officers be directly escalated to the courts, and under what circumstances?
Answer: Public complaints against police officers can be escalated to the courts, particularly when administrative remedies are exhausted or inadequate. In Khizer Hayat v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore (2005 PLD 470), the Lahore High Court clarified that aggrieved individuals can seek judicial intervention under Article 199 of the Constitution.
The court directed that complaints of police misconduct must first be addressed through internal mechanisms, such as the Police Complaints Authority. However, when such forums fail to act or when fundamental rights are at stake, the judiciary has the authority to provide redress and ensure accountability.
Question
What is the role of public safety commissions in deterring police misconduct, and how have courts addressed their inactivation?
Answer: Public safety commissions, established under the Police Order, 2002, are tasked with overseeing police conduct and ensuring accountability. However, their inactivation has been a recurring issue. In Haider Ali v. DPO Chakwal (2015 SCMR 1724), the Supreme Court criticised the lack of operational public safety commissions, noting that this undermines police accountability and transparency.
The court directed the government to revitalise these bodies and ensure they are adequately resourced to fulfil their mandate. Active public safety commissions are crucial for monitoring police behaviour, addressing complaints, and maintaining public confidence in law enforcement.
Question
What legal mechanisms exist to address the failure of police officers to comply with lawful orders issued by their superiors or the judiciary?
Answer: Failure to comply with lawful orders issued by superiors or the judiciary constitutes misconduct under Article 155(c) of the Police Order, 2002. Courts have consistently reinforced the obligation of police officers to adhere to such orders. In Khizer Hayat v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore (2005 PLD 470), the Lahore High Court delineated the remedies for addressing non-compliance:
- Criminal Prosecution: Filing an FIR against the officer for misconduct under Article 155(c).
- Departmental Action: Referral to higher authorities for initiating disciplinary proceedings.
- Judicial Review: Aggrieved parties may seek writs of mandamus to compel compliance.
The court emphasised that non-compliance undermines institutional integrity and disrupts the rule of law. Ensuring strict adherence to orders is critical for maintaining public trust in the legal system.
Question
How do courts handle cases where police officers are accused of forging documents or tampering with evidence during investigations?
Answer: Courts adopt a stringent approach to cases involving forgery or evidence tampering by police officers, treating such actions as serious breaches of public trust. In Hafeez Ullah Shahid v. ASJ/JOP (2024 MLD 951), the Lahore High Court addressed allegations of forgery by a police officer during an investigation.
The court ruled that the Police Complaints Authority is the appropriate body to handle such misconduct, ensuring an independent and impartial inquiry. Additionally, the court directed that entries in the Roznamcha and case diaries be cross-verified to prevent tampering. Such measures are vital for preserving the integrity of the investigative process and deterring future violations.
Question
What are the legal and ethical responsibilities of police officers when dealing with complaints of wrongful detention?
Answer: Police officers are legally and ethically obligated to investigate complaints of wrongful detention with diligence and impartiality. In Qari Muhammad Atta Ullah v. District Police Officer, Sialkot (2022 PLD 224), the Lahore High Court criticised officers who failed to maintain accurate records of a detainee’s arrest and custody. The court directed immediate registration of an FIR against the responsible officers under Article 155(c) of the Police Order, 2002.
Ethically, police officers must ensure that detention practices align with principles of fairness and human dignity. Legally, compliance with procedural safeguards such as timely documentation and judicial oversight is essential to prevent abuses of power and uphold the rights of detainees.
Question
What remedies are available for addressing delays or negligence in police investigations?
Answer: Delays or negligence in police investigations can be addressed through a combination of judicial and administrative remedies:
- Judicial Directions: Courts can issue writs mandating timely completion of investigations.
- Disciplinary Proceedings: Negligent officers can be subjected to departmental inquiries under Article 113 of the Police Order, 2002.
- Oversight by Public Safety Commissions: Complaints can be referred to these bodies for independent review and action.
In Hafeez Ullah Shahid v. ASJ/JOP (2024 MLD 951), the Lahore High Court highlighted the importance of procedural efficiency and directed that complaints against negligent investigations be promptly escalated to the Police Complaints Authority. Such mechanisms ensure accountability and reinforce public confidence in the justice system.
Question
How do courts address systemic issues in police accountability, such as the inactivation of oversight mechanisms?
Answer: Courts have actively addressed systemic issues in police accountability by calling for the activation and proper functioning of oversight mechanisms. In Haider Ali v. DPO Chakwal (2015 SCMR 1724), the Supreme Court criticised the inactivation of public safety commissions and the lack of transparency in police operations.
The court directed the government to revitalise these commissions and ensure their independence and accessibility. It also called for the publication of police budgets, plans, and performance reports to foster transparency. These steps are essential for addressing systemic challenges and strengthening institutional accountability.
Question
What safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of police authority during protests or public gatherings?
Answer: Safeguards to prevent misuse of police authority during protests or public gatherings include:
- Adherence to Police Rules: Officers must comply with the guidelines outlined in the Police Rules, 1934, and the Police Order, 2002.
- Judicial Oversight: Courts can intervene to address allegations of excessive force or unlawful actions.
- Departmental Accountability: Misconduct during public gatherings can result in disciplinary action under Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002.
The judiciary has consistently emphasised the importance of proportionality and restraint in crowd control, recognising the fundamental right to peaceful assembly under the Constitution.
Question
Can police officers rely on internal departmental inquiries as a defence against criminal prosecution for misconduct?
Answer: While departmental inquiries can address professional accountability, they do not shield police officers from criminal prosecution. In Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer, Gujrat (2022 SCMR 1770), the Supreme Court clarified that departmental and criminal proceedings serve distinct purposes and can proceed concurrently.
The court held that criminal liability is determined independently of departmental findings, ensuring that serious violations, such as physical abuse or corruption, are addressed comprehensively. This dual accountability framework ensures that police officers are held responsible both as public servants and as individuals subject to the law.
Question
How has the judiciary addressed allegations of bias or partiality in police investigations?
Answer: Courts have condemned bias or partiality in police investigations, recognising such practices as breaches of justice. In Tariq Aziz v. Mst. Kalsoom Bibi (2012 PCrLJ 891), the Lahore High Court identified mala fide intentions in an investigation where police officers colluded to protect accused individuals.
The court ordered disciplinary action against the officers involved and emphasised that investigations must be impartial and evidence-based. Judicial oversight and the availability of complaints mechanisms are critical for addressing and deterring biased practices in policing.
Question
What role does judicial oversight play in ensuring accountability for police misconduct?
Answer: Judicial oversight is pivotal in ensuring accountability for police misconduct. Courts provide a forum for redressal of grievances and act as a check on abuses of power. In Ghulam Sarwar Zardari v. Piyar Ali (2010 SCMR 624), the Supreme Court reinforced the judiciary’s role in scrutinising police actions and intervening when procedural or constitutional violations occur.
Through writ petitions, judicial inquiries, and directives, courts ensure that police officers adhere to the law and uphold the principles of fairness and justice.
Question
What are the implications of procedural lapses by police officers during arrests or investigations?
Answer: Procedural lapses during arrests or investigations can result in legal consequences for police officers, including disciplinary action and criminal prosecution. In Qari Muhammad Atta Ullah v. District Police Officer, Sialkot (2022 PLD 224), the Lahore High Court highlighted that failure to document arrests in the Roznamcha undermines transparency and violates statutory obligations.
Such lapses compromise the integrity of the criminal justice system and expose officers to accountability mechanisms under the Police Order, 2002. Courts have consistently emphasised the importance of procedural compliance to ensure the rights of accused persons and the credibility of police investigations.
Question
How do courts address the failure of police officers to obtain necessary authorisations in cases of non-cognizable offences?
Answer: Courts have strictly enforced the requirement for police officers to obtain prior authorisation from a Magistrate before initiating investigations in non-cognizable offences. In Haji Rehman SHO v. Provincial Police Officer, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar (2012 PCrLJ 1526), the Peshawar High Court clarified that in non-cognizable offences, police cannot register an FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. or arrest the accused without a warrant.
The failure to adhere to these procedural requirements constitutes misconduct under the Police Order, 2002, and exposes officers to disciplinary and legal action. This ensures that the rights of individuals are safeguarded and prevents arbitrary exercise of police authority.
Question
What remedies are available to individuals affected by false or frivolous FIRs registered due to police misconduct?
Answer: Individuals affected by false or frivolous FIRs can avail several remedies, including:
- Quashing of FIRs: Filing a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution or Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. to seek quashing of the FIR.
- Disciplinary Action: Reporting the misconduct to the Police Complaints Authority for departmental action against the responsible officers.
- Damages for Malicious Prosecution: Pursuing a civil suit for damages under tort law.
In Tariq Aziz v. Mst. Kalsoom Bibi (2012 PCrLJ 891), the Lahore High Court held that police officers who register false FIRs out of mala fide intentions are liable for both disciplinary and criminal proceedings, providing a robust framework for accountability.
Question
Can police officers face simultaneous criminal charges and disciplinary inquiries for the same act of misconduct?
Answer: Yes, police officers can face simultaneous criminal charges and disciplinary inquiries for the same act of misconduct. The Supreme Court in Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer, Gujrat (2022 SCMR 1770) upheld the principle that criminal and departmental proceedings serve distinct purposes and are governed by different standards of proof.
Criminal charges require evidence beyond reasonable doubt, while disciplinary inquiries operate on the balance of probabilities. This dual framework ensures comprehensive accountability by addressing the criminal and professional aspects of police misconduct without overlapping jurisdiction.
Question
What measures can be taken to improve transparency and accountability in police investigations?
Answer: To improve transparency and accountability in police investigations, the following measures can be implemented:
- Mandatory Record-Keeping: Ensuring that all actions, including arrests and evidence collection, are properly documented in the Roznamcha and case diaries.
- Independent Oversight: Strengthening the role of the Police Complaints Authority and public safety commissions.
- Judicial Review: Allowing courts to scrutinise cases of alleged misconduct and enforce compliance with legal standards.
- Training on Ethical Policing: Providing training programs to inculcate professionalism and adherence to legal and ethical standards.
These measures, endorsed in cases such as Haider Ali v. DPO Chakwal (2015 SCMR 1724), aim to reinforce public trust in law enforcement and deter abuses of power.
Question
How do courts address allegations of police complicity in shielding influential individuals from prosecution?
Answer: Courts adopt a strict approach to allegations of police complicity in shielding influential individuals from prosecution, viewing such actions as a betrayal of public trust. In Tariq Aziz v. Mst. Kalsoom Bibi (2012 PCrLJ 891), the Lahore High Court denounced the actions of police officers who deliberately failed to arrest accused individuals despite clear judicial directives.
The court ruled that such misconduct warrants immediate disciplinary action under Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002, and criminal prosecution for abuse of authority. The judgment reinforced the judiciary’s role in upholding accountability and ensuring that police officers act impartially, irrespective of external pressures or influences.
At Josh and Mak International, we approach the law with the gravitas it deserves, understanding that every legal matter carries profound personal and ethical weight. Guided by principles of justice, fairness, and unwavering integrity, we see our role as more than advocates—we are stewards of our clients’ rights and aspirations. Our work is shaped by a commitment to excellence, meticulous attention to detail, and a deep respect for the dignity inherent in every legal challenge. With a steadfast focus on achieving equitable outcomes, we bring clarity to complexity and champion your cause with the insight and care it merits. Let us stand as your devoted partners in the pursuit of justice and peace.
Contact us at [email protected] for Legal Consultation.
https://joshandmakinternational.com/
