0
• Dissenting note regrets practice of falsely implicating opposition politicians, others
• Calls for amending rules to align with parent law
• Says merely naming tests does not amount to full compliance
ISLAMABAD: Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan of the Supreme Court has expressed concern over the common practice of falsely implicating innocent individuals — including opposition politicians and those having enmity with police officials or influential persons — in narcotics cases.
In a dissenting note, the judge emphasised the need to eliminate, or at least minimise, the possibility of falsely implicating innocent people in cases registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, by strictly interpreting the provisions of the law and the rules framed thereunder.
The 14-page dissenting note was issued in a set of petitions involving the common question of the admissibility of a forensic expert’s report under Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act and Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001.
On May 13, a five-judge SC bench comprising Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim ruled by a four-to-one majority that the requirement to mention “full protocols” under the Control of Narcotic Substances Rules was not mandatory.
The bench declared that the requirement to mention “full protocols” in reports prepared under the unamended Rule 6 of the Rules, 2001 — which requires government analysts to submit test results together with full protocols of the tests applied — was directory rather than mandatory.
The majority judgement held that identification and mention of the names of the internationally recognised tests described in clauses (i) to (vii) of Explanation II to amended Rule 6 amounted to “full and sufficient compliance” with the rule.
In his dissenting note, however, Justice Malik Shahzad recalled that the Supreme Court had repeatedly held in various judgements that, since stringent punishments are prescribed for offences under the 1997 Act, the provisions of the law and the rules must be construed strictly. He noted that the apex court had also consistently emphasised that, in the interest of justice, all relevant legal provisions relating to procedure and the furnishing of expert reports must be followed in letter and spirit.
Justice Shahzad observed that government analysts’ reports in narcotics cases must contain complete test protocols, and that failure to include them would invalidate the evidence. He stressed that, under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution, every citizen has an inalienable right to be treated in accordance with the law and to receive a fair trial and due process.
“No action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person should be taken except in accordance with law,” Justice Shahzad wrote, quoting Article 4. He also recalled the Supreme Court’s repeated observation that “the harsher the sentence, the stricter the standard of proof”.
“Therefore, in my humble view, it will be highly risky to hold that non-mentioning of full protocols does not, of itself, invalidate the report of the government analyst and that merely mentioning the names of internationally recognised tests would amount to ‘full and sufficient compliance’ with the Rules, 2001,” he observed.
Concluding his note, Justice Shahzad stated that mentioning full protocols in a government analyst’s report was mandatory under the unamended Rule 6 of the Rules, 2001.
He held that the omission of full protocols and analysis from the report would invalidate the government analyst’s report. He further observed that neither the amended nor the unamended Rule 6 of the Rules, 2001, exceeded the scope of Section 36(2) of the parent law, the Act of 1997.
Published in Dawn, June 16th, 2026
