Khudayar Mohla
While taking up plea relating to pre-mature transfer of former top police officer of the Punjab on Wednesday Lahore High Court (LHC) expressed displeasure over non-constitution of District Public Safety Commission, Provincial Public Safety Commission, and Police Complaints Authority as required by the Police Order 2002 despite passage of 16 years of the law in the province.
During course of hearing, single-member bench of the LHC Justice Jawwad Hassan showed annoyance over frequent transfer of the Inspector General Police of the province despite clear cut legal provisions and Supreme Court’s reported verdicts against such arbitrary transfers and postings.
Advocate Usama Khawar Ghumman on behalf of advocate Rahman Aziz has filed writ petition before the LHC, challenging the pre-mature transfer of former Inspector General Punjab Amjad Javed Saleemi and appointment of the new Inspector General retired Capt. Arif Nawaz Khan.
Terming the transfer against the slot illegal the petitioner argued that government action is sheer violation of the Police Order, 2002; the Punjab Government Rules of Business 2011; and reported verdicts of the Supreme Court in Anita Turab’s case and Sindh Inspector General A.D. Khawaja’s case.
Appearing before the bench on Wednesday in the matter, Usama Khawar Ghumman argued that the petitioner being a citizen and advocate is aggrieved as whose fundamental rights to life, liberty, security, dignity and right to fair trial are jeopardized by a compromised, partisan and inefficient law enforcement institutions.
He alleged that a mal-functioning executive, which primarily relies on a police force for enforcement of laws, cannot effectively and adequately ensure the guaranties secured by several provisions of the Constitution.
Substantiating his arguments, Ghumman said that right of an individual to be dealt in accordance with law which enjoys protection of law saying right to life provides safeguard as to arrest and detention whereas right to fair trial provides protection against inviolability of dignity of man.
Citing a number of precedents, Ghumman submitted that incumbent Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa has himself on numerous occasions stressed upon the need to reform the criminal justice system while emphasizing on Police Reforms and need to implement the Police Order 2002 in letter and spirit.
“The courts of law cannot ensure fair trial and expeditious justice if the Police force does not perform its part of the job. Investigation of a crime is police‘s responsibility”, Ghumman submitted.
Usama Ghumman at length argued that the frequent transfers and postings of the highest officials of the Police force compromise the independence and moral of the Police force.
He said that in a short span of less than a year, the incumbent IG four IGs have been changed saying average tenure comes of an IG in this period is three months while the Police Order and Rules of Business guarantee a tenure of three years to an IG.
Petitioner’s Counsel Advocate Usama Ghumman pointed out that it is simply not acceptable that the provincial government has repeatedly disregarded, disobeyed and indeed flouted the specific statutory requirement in relation to the term or tenure of the Inspector General.
“The Police Order and Rules of Business are binding and must be adhered to – they do not exist or apply at the government’s pleasure – they are not optional, to be applied or dispensed with at will. If the law specify a term of office, then that applies as stated and must be adhered to. That is certainly the case with the post of Inspector General”, Usama argued.
He further said, “of course, there may be exceptional circumstances that may allow for the tenure to be curtailed, and primarily that would mean only the “compelling reasons” as made permissible by para 22(ii) of the Anita Turab case. Even there the reasons have to be recorded in writing and are judicially reviewable”.
The petitioner counsel said that at all times it must be kept in mind that exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons, if any, are precisely that: exceptional and compelling. The norm must be strict adherence to the term as provided.
Usama argued that the history of repeated, abrupt and swift turnover in officers who hold the post of Inspector General, without any apparent cause or reason (and certainly none that is stated) is therefore something that must come to an end. It is contrary to law. It is a flagrant breach of the law. It cannot be countenanced or allowed to continue.
The Court expressed severe displeasure with the frequent transfer of the IGs despite clear cut legal provisions and Supreme Court’s judgments against such arbitrary transfers and postings.
During the course of proceedings, AIG legal appearing on behalf of the IG argued that the incumbent IG was posted in compliance with an earlier order of the Lahore High Court that had declared that the IG Captain retired Arif was entitled to full tenure.
To which Usama responded that contention by pointing out that more IGs (i.e., Muhammad Tahir and Amjad Javed Saleemi) were posted in Punjab in the intervening period.
Justice Jawwad Hassan observed that if the intention was comply with earlier LHC’s order, than why two IGs were posted earlier, adding there was nothing in the appointment notification regarding the Lahore High Court’s earlier order.
Justice Hassan also expressed displeasure over non-constitution of District Public Safety Commission, Provincial Public Safety Commission, and Police Complaints Authority as required by the Police Order 2002 and despite passage of 16 years of the law.
AIG (Legal) Police replied that due to changes in local government laws, the Punjab government has not been able to constitute these institutions.
Moreover, he admitted that earlier the LHC bench headed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah had also directed to the Punjab Government to constitute Provincial Public Safety Commission.
The Court after hearing both the parties at length and noting the arguments advanced by advocate Ghumman for petitioner issued directives the office to fix the matter in hand before the other similar case and adjourned the hearing till June 27.
