PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has declared as unconstitutional changes made in federal narcotics law, prohibiting remissions to convicts in drug cases, and directed the government that prisoners convicted under the said law should be extended the benefits available to them prior to the changes.

A bench consisting of Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Inamullah Khan in a 44-page detailed judgement issued multiple directions to relevant jail authorities and all other functionaries exercising powers related to remission, sentence administration and prison management.

“Any remission, concession, benefit, or reformative incentive already granted to prisoners convicted under Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, (CNSA) shall not be withdrawn, recalled, curtailed, or adversely altered in any manner whatsoever, as the same shall be deemed to have accrued as vested rights protected under law,” the bench ordered.

The bench directed: “All prisoners convicted under CNSA, who were denied remission, concession, or allied reformative benefits solely on account of the impugned amendments, shall forthwith be reconsidered and extended such benefits strictly in accordance with the legal regime existing prior thereto, subject always to satisfactory conduct and fulfilment of the statutory requirements otherwise governing remission and prison discipline.”

Issues detailed judgment; terms the amendments in federal narcotics law arbitrary, destructive of reformative philosophy

“The concerned provincial and federal prison authorities shall undertake an immediate review of all pending and previously rejected cases pertaining to prisoners convicted under CNSA and ensure that no such prisoner is deprived of equal treatment, reformative opportunity, or remission-related consideration merely on account of the impugned amendments declared unconstitutional hereinabove,” the bench ordered.

It directed that compliance report in respect of the aforesaid directions should be furnished before the registrar of high court within a period of 45 working days from the date of receipt of the judgement.

The petitions were filed by Mohammad Arshid, Iqbal Shah and other convicts, imprisoned in different jails, requesting the court to declare unconstitutional and against the basic human rights provision of Sections 9(A)(1) introduced through Control of Narcotics Substance (Amendment) Act, 2022.

They sought declaration of the court to the effect that the petitioners were entitled to remissions in their sentences and refusal of remissions including self-earned and labour as illegal and unlawful.

Advocates Fawad Afzal Safi, Farhana Marwat, Amjid Noor and Amjid Ali Afridi appeared for the petitioners, whereas Shumail Ahmad Butt appeared as amicus curiae in the case.

After discussing in detail constitutional provisions, judgements of superior courts and provisions of different narcotics and prison-related laws and rules, the bench ordered: “In view of the foregoing discussion, the comparative jurisprudence analysed, and peculiar facts and circumstances of the present controversy, we have arrived at the considered conclusion that the impugned amendments, insofar as they seek to deprive or exclude prisoners convicted under CNSA from the benefit of remission, reformative concessions and allied statutory incentives, cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. We determine that Section 9(A) (1) of CNSA is ultra vires the Constitution.”

“The amendments, in their practical operation and constitutional effect, offend the guarantees enshrined under articles 4, 8, 9, 1.4, 25 and 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”

“The provision is arbitrary, discriminatory in character and destructive of the reformative philosophy, which forms an integral component of modern criminal justice administration,” the bench ruled.

The bench also held that remissions already earned by a prisoner were not acts of executive grace or indulgence, they were statutory earnings that crystallised into vested rights. “To view them otherwise would be to allow the state to confiscate an accrued reward after the prisoner has irrevocably performed the act required to earn it,” the bench ruled.

The bench also discussed the retrospective withdrawal of remissions and ruled: “Furthermore, the retrospective withdrawal of remissions constitutes a direct and grave violation of Article 12(1) (b) of the Constitution, which provides an absolute shield against the imposition of a penalty greater than that prescribed by law at the time of the commission of the offense.”

The judgement, authored by Justice Sahibzada Asadullah, threadbare discussed the reformative philosophy and United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners called as Nelson Mandela Rules.

“The prison gate is not a constitutional frontier beyond which fundamental values cease to exist. Human dignity survives conviction. Hope survives incarceration. And the possibility of redemption survives even the commission of grave wrongs,” the bench observed.

It further observed that a civilised legal order must remain firm against crime, yet it must never become indifferent to the capacity of human beings for change.

“The administration of criminal justice achieves its highest purpose not when it merely punishes wrongdoing, but when, without compromising public safety or the rule of law, it preserves the possibility that those who have fallen may one day rise again as responsible members of society,” the court maintained after discussing the evolution of different aspects of the criminal justice system.

The bench pointed out that modern penology no longer proceeded upon the assumption that prisons existed merely to isolate offenders or inflict hardship, rather incarceration was viewed as a process through which society sought, wherever reasonably possible, to reclaim those who had transgressed its laws.

Published in Dawn, June 29th, 2026