The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned high courts’ orders to release under-trial prisoners en masse in a bid to stem coronavirus outbreak in the country, ordering authorities to arrest all 519 detainees who have been released so far.
In its ruling, the apex court stated that the high courts do not have the powers to take suo motu notices on the matter as they had done, and also that the law cannot be upended under any circumstances. Simultaneously, the court approved the recommendation put forward by the attorney general to give the relief to vulnerable prisoners who pose a minimal threat to society.
The relief will therefore be granted only to those accused persons who have been charged for offences under non-prohibitory clauses or under vagrancy law or offences which carry a punishment of less than three years in jail, subject to the following terms:
The benefit shall not extend in cases involving abuse/violent acts against children and women.
The benefit shall first be extended to persons otherwise suffering from ailments or physical or mental disability.
The benefit shall be extended to under-trial prisoners (UTPs) who are 55 years of age or older, and then other male UTPs provided there is no history of past convictions.
The benefit shall be extended to all women/juvenile UTPs.
The Supreme Court passed the order during the hearing of a petition challenging the Islamabad High Court verdict, which was issued last month. The petition, which had been deemed maintainable under Article 184 (3) of the constitution, argued that the March 20 IHC order militated against the concept of trichotomy of powers since it was within the exclusive domain of the executive to frame any policy to deal with under-trial prisoners in a manner it deemed appropriate keeping in view the coronavirus emergency. The petition had also questioned whether the inherent powers vested in the high court under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were unfettered or whether they can only be exercised in situations where no express statutory provisions were available. Glaring omissions and mistakes have crept into the March 20 IHC order violating the law, the constitution and public policy, the appeal had contended.
The hearing of the case will continue, the top court’s order added.
