ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) held on Monday that functions performed by ex-officio ‘Justice of Peace’- a judge of a lower court – by ordering registration of FIRs under section 22-A(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1898 complements the police rather than interfere with its investigations.

“Being quasi-judicial in nature, the functions of the Justice of Peace cannot be termed executive, administrative or ministerial and thus cannot be held to be in violation of the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court,” said the verdict, announced by a five-judge SC bench headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali.

Sub-section (6) was incorporated in Section 22-A of the CrPC through an amendment in 2002, authorising the Justice of Peace to order registration of cases on complaints or transfer investigations to another police officer. A District Sessions judge has the authority to act or nominate a judicial officer to work as Justice of Peace.

On Feb 12, the apex court had reserved its ruling on determining the authority of the Justice of Peace with an objective to revisit its March 2014 decision of declaring the power of the Justice of Peace to direct registration of an FIR as an administrative order and not judicial in nature.

The law enabled the poor and the downtrodden to see eye-to-eye with those who infringed their rights with impunity in the past, judgment reads

The main verdict was written by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, one of the members of the bench, whereas Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik wrote additional notes.

Justice Khan explained in the verdict that when the Justice of Peace gives orders, issues directions or takes action under the aegis of the judiciary rather than the executive, he brings the executive under the thumb of law.

With the insertion of sub-section 6, an aggrieved person could get at his doorstep, what he could not get despite approaching the high court. Prior to this law, the grievance of a person having no means and resources went largely unattended and un-redressed altogether, the judgment said.

Wealthy, well off and well-connected people exploited this situation, committed crimes and went scot-free, the judgment regretted, adding ever since sessions judges or additional sessions judges became justices of peace, no rich and well-off person could break the law with impunity or obstruct the person oppressed and assaulted from seeking remedy at his doorstep.

An examination and empirical verification of the provisions show that they do not breach any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. Rather, they facilitate their enforcement by guarding against their infringement by providing expeditious and inexpensive justice to people at their doorstep, the judgment said.

We, therefore, without a moment’s hesitation hold that these provisions cannot be declared ultra vires and they do not even remotely impinge upon the independence of the judiciary nor do they militate against the concept of its separation from the executive, the verdict reads.

Referring to the transfer of investigation from one police officer to another under the law, the court held that the investigating authorities do not have the unfettered power of running investigations according to their whim and caprice. “They can be pushed back to their allotted turf if and when they overstep it,” the judgment explained.

No doubt the transfer of investigation was in vogue, the judgment said, but it was done only at the bidding of wealthy and well-off people. A poor man, whose entry into the well-guarded offices of high-ranking police officers was well nigh impossible, could never dream of getting such relief, it said.

Article 18(6) of the Police Order 2002 also provides a remedy for change of investigation but it, in a set up where the police do not have operational independence, is illusory and inadequate. It is more so where even the high-ranking police officers are posted and transferred with the intervention of the class-wielding influential persons inside and outside the lounges of power. In this state of despair, a legislation establishing equality before the law and breaking the idols of influence and affluence was desperately needed.

Thus the legislature rose to the occasion, enacted sub-section 6 of Sections 22-A and 25 of the CrPC and enabled the poor and the downtrodden to see eye-to-eye with those who infringed their rights with impunity in the past.

Meanwhile, the additional note of Justice Malik regretted that the past experience of around 14 years would unmistakably reveal that Section 22-A, though beneficial and advantageous to the public at large, has been misused and abused in some cases.

Once, a false criminal case is registered against an individual, it becomes exceedingly difficult for him to get rid of it. The time and money that is spent on acquiring a clean chit by way of cancellation of the case or acquittal is not hard to fathom. There is no denying the fact that at times, false and frivolous cases are registered just to humble and harass the opposite party.

In such a scenario, powers given to the Justice of Peace to order the registration of a criminal case or for transfer of investigations should not be unbridled or open-ended. These provisions must be defined, structured and their contour delineated to curb misuse by influential and unscrupulous elements, the judgment said.

Published in Dawn, March 29th, 2016