KARACHI, March 27: A bench of the Supreme Court, Karachi Registry, on Wednesday put the federal and provincial governments on notice, but declined the HRCP’s plea for suspending the operation of Jan 9 judgment of a division bench of the Sindh High Court at Hyderabad, whereby 94 petitions, a vast majority of which were by bonded labourers/haris, had been dismissed.

The bench comprising, Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Syed Deedar Husain Shah and Justice Hamid Ali Mirza, put the Attorney-General and the Advocate- General Sindh on notice, in the petition.

When the petition filed by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan came up before the bench of the Supreme Court, Karachi Registry, its counsel, Syed Iqbal Haider and K. A. Wahab, contended, on record, that the division bench judgment of the SHC had disregarded constitutional provisions as spelt out in articles 9, 10, 11 and 14.

It was also Mr Haider’s contention that the SHC had also ignored Bonded the Labour System Abolition Act of 1992. It was also his contention that the judgment in question had also ignored that hundreds of haris had been released by the same High Court. He said the judgment being challenged did not even address facts and contentions of each one of the 94 haris.

The petitions, against the illegal detentions of haris/bonded labourers and some by zamindars in respect of the inhuman primitive practice of bonded labour had been fixed on October 19, 2000 before a division bench of the SHC at Hyderabad comprising Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi and Justice Musheer Alam.

On January 9, 2002, the SHC bench dismissed all the petitions. The HRCP, through its Secretary-General, Hina Jilani, filed a leave to appeal at Karachi together with an application seeking suspension of the above-mentioned order of the SHC.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the bench had erred in law by completely ignoring and disregarding the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1992 which overrode other laws.

The division bench had not considered or appreciated the fact that after the enforcement of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1992, provisions of the Sindh Tenancy Act of 1950, in particular its section 25 regarding alleged debt payable by hari, had become redundant, repealed and unenforceable in law.

It was the counsel’s contention that the SHC bench had also erred in law by holding that the provisions of the Sindh Tenancy Act of 1950 were applicable, and the remedies provided thereunder were available to the haris, without ascertaining the fact whether the haris under detention were registered under section 9 or recognized as haris under the said Act of 1950, or whether the Tribunal under section 26 of the said Act of 1950 was existing and functioned or not?

It was submitted that to the best of the knowledge and information of the petitioner neither the haris in question were registered under section 9 nor was any Tribunal established or functioning in the districts concerned of Sindh, under section 26 of the said Act of 1950.

The petitioner also claimed that the division bench had erred in law by holding that the provision of section 100 of CrPC and sections 341 to 345 of PPC provided adequate and efficacious alternative remedy for redressal of the grievance against wrongful confinement or detention or wrongful restraint as against the remedy under article 199 of the constitution and section 491 of CrPC.

The petitioner also contended that the bench had erred in law by not appreciating the fact that in none of the cases was there any dispute between tenant and zamindar regarding the terms and conditions of tenancy. In almost all the cases the complaint was against illegal arrest and detention of the haris by the zamindar with the connivance of the local administration.

It is also the case of the petitioner that the bench had also erred in law in holding that the remedy, if any, under the Sindh Tenancy Act of 1950 was an equally efficacious and adequate alternative remedy in law for a detainee hari in comparison with the remedy under section 491 of CrPC or in writ jurisdiction.