Human rights ministry averse to corporal punishment, IHC told

A bill prohibiting corporal punishment has been in limbo since last year

ISLAMABAD: The Ministry of Human Rights has asserted its opposition to corporal punishment in a reply submitted before the Islamabad High Court.

A divisional bench headed by Chief Justice Athar Minallah previously suspended Section 89 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and banned corporal punishment to children by parents, guardians and teachers. The order is applicable in the federal territory only and came on a plea filed by singer and activist Shehzad Roy.

In its reply, the human rights ministry appraised the high court about the delay in The Prohibition of Corporal Punishment Bill 2019. The bill was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Legislative Cases (CCLC) and the federal cabinet last year on March 12 and 19 respectively.

But the Law and Justice Division had pointed out that the bill did not fall under the domain of the human rights ministry – it fell under the Ministry of Interior.

The bill was then forwarded to the interior ministry on July 12, 2019. After a reminder on August 5, 2019, the interior ministry responded on September 24, 2019 advising to consult the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII).

A month later, on October 24, 2019, the CII was asked for input. It responded in February this year.

Asserting its aversion to corporal punishment, the ministry’s statement emphasised that Minister of Human Rights Shireen Mazari personally visited schools in the federal capital to create awareness among school staff on prohibition of the use of corporal punishment on students.

Furthermore, a private member’s bill introduced by Mehnaz Akbar Aziz was also approved by a standing committee of the lower house on the issue of corporal punishment.



Background

Section 89 allows parents, guardians and teachers to use corporal punishment in “good faith” and states: “Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age [...] by or by consent of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause.”

In his petition, Roy argued that Section 89 could be held contradictory to the Constitution as it violated basic human rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

He maintained that punishing children in educational institutions had become a norm. “Punishing children is being considered essential for improving learning. News of torture and punishment of children are reported every day in the media,” stated the petition.

Roy also sought full implementation of the child protection laws and prayed the court to direct the government to protect minors from physical and mental torture.