LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has directed the Punjab Police to implement within 30 days its 2020 judgment, ordering the appointment of a woman as a sub-inspector, observing that the department failed to comply with the court’s direction in its “letter and spirit.”

Justice Raheel Kamran passed the order while disposing of a contempt of court petition filed by Syeda Amira Batool against the Punjab inspector general of police (IGP) over non-implementation of the court’s 2020 judgment.

The petitioner had approached the court after she was denied appointment as police sub-inspector (SI) despite the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) recommendation to the effect, under the women’s quota.

The PPSC had advertised 27 posts of sub-inspector (BS-14) for Sargodha Region. Amira Batool qualified for the job after going through the selection process and was recommended for her appointment as an SI, but the police department refused to issue her appointment letter due to certain objections to her character verification report.

The petitioner had been denied a sub-inspector job despite LHC direction issued in 2020

The department had cited alleged drug trafficking cases against the petitioner’s father and brother, claiming that she did not meet the requirement of “having a good family background.”

The petitioner challenged the decision before the LHC, which in December 2020 set aside the police department’s order with a direction to issue the petitioner the appointment letter.

In the earlier judgement, the court had observed that there was no allegation against the petitioner herself and no law prevented a person from joining police service merely because other family members were allegedly involved in criminal activities.

Justice Kamran noted that despite the court’s order, the police issued a conditional appointment letter to the petitioner in 2021, making her appointment subject to the outcome of an intra-court appeal filed by the department.

The petitioner did not join the service, arguing that she was already serving as an assistant education officer on a permanent basis and could not leave her existing job for a conditional appointment.

Later, the police withdrew the appointment in 2022 on the grounds that she failed to join the department.

The police department had withdrawn its intra-court appeal in 2026, after which the petitioner again sought implementation of the 2020 judgment. However, the department rejected her request through a speaking order in May 2026.

In the contempt petition, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the police had deliberately frustrated the court’s judgment through administrative measures, depriving her of the benefit granted by the court.

The police department argued that it had complied with the judgment by issuing the appointment order and that the petitioner herself had refused to join the service.

Rejecting the department’s stance, Justice Kamran held that a judgment remains binding unless suspended, modified or set aside by a competent forum, and the mere filing of an appeal does not absolve a party from complying with it.

The judge ruled that the conditional appointment order issued by the department could not be considered effective compliance of the court order, as it was linked to the outcome of the appeal, which had not stayed the original judgment.

The judge also held that the petitioner’s decision to wait for the outcome of the appeal could not be treated as abandonment of her right, especially when the uncertainty was created by the department itself.

The judge observed, “Compliance with a judicial determination cannot be cosmetic, conditional or illusory. It must be real, effective and faithful to the command of the court.”

The judge, however, refrained from initiating punitive contempt proceedings at this stage and granted the police department an opportunity to purge the alleged contempt by complying with the judgment.

He directed the IGP to implement the 2020 judgment within 30 days and submit a compliance report before the court’s deputy registrar (Judicial).

The judge warned that if the order was not implemented within the stipulated period, the petitioner would be free to initiate fresh contempt proceedings against the officials concerned.

Published in Dawn, June 15th, 2026