Gill to move SC against ‘custodial torture’

ISLAMABAD:

The legal team of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Shahbaz Gill has decided to approach the Supreme Court against alleged ‘custodial torture’ and challenge the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) order under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.

Gill's counsel Chaudhry Faisal Hussain told The Express Tribune on Tuesday the ‘custodial torture’ was matter of public importance because it had been used against journalists as well. He would take the matter to the apex court on behalf of Gill, who is currently in police custody.

When asked about the IHC order for the constitution of an inquiry commission, Chaudhry expressed his disappointment, saying that judges should be more sensitive about torture on the accused persons. He added that if the IHC was asking the government to appoint inquiry officer then how the two-day further remand could be justified.

In its written order, the other day, Acting IHC Chief Justice Amir Farooq said that the police authorities had vehemently denied allegation of torture, when the matter was referred to the inspector general of Islamabad police for preliminary inquiry.

“The register/record of the Central Jail Adiyala does mention certain bruises and other marks on the body of the petitioner, when he was taken in. Under Rule 20 of the Prison Code Rules for the Superintendence and management of Prisons in Pakistan when a prisoner with injuries on his body is admitted into a prison from police custody he shall be examined immediately by the Medical Officer,” it said.

“It is also provided that if the examination reveals unexplained injuries not already recorded in the medico-legal report accompanying the prisoner, a report shall at once be made to the Sessions Judge and officer Incharge of the prosecution and Superintendent police,” it added.

“As noted above the Medical Officer does mention certain marks on the body of the petitioner; however, it seems that no further action was taken on the same inasmuch as no communication was made to the Sessions Judge or even to the Superintendent of Police or office of Advocate-General, Islamabad.”

The order said that on August 13 and 15, the medical examination of the Gill was sought to be conducted by a board of the professors of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad, and the board was constituted by the additional district magistrate, Islamabad, but according to the prosecution, Gill declined to have himself examined.

Also read: IHC orders inquiry into claims of torture on Gill

“The examination of body of the petitioner was also made on 17.08.2022 which does mention some infirmity of the health of the petitioner but in conclusion it was clearly mentioned that he needs monitoring and assessment but nothing was stated about physical torture or his condition being in such state due to the same,” the written order continued.

“The torture in any form to extract evidence is prohibited. The basic prohibition exists in Article 14 (2) of the Constitution which provides that no prisoner shall be subjected to torture for the purpose of extracting evidence. Much judicial ink has been expended safeguarding the rights of the prisoners and accused persons and to protect them from torture,” it said.

“In view of the said position the petitioner may adopt recourse for further probe in the matter; however, it would be only appropriate that Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan should look into the matter and appoint an Inquiry Officer preferably a retired Judge of the High Court to examine the issue and make a detailed findings on the same and also suggest ways to curb the practice,” the order added.

The order said that it was only appropriate that during the physical custody, when the police authorities had remand of the petitioner, the same be directly supervised by a senior police officer not below the rank of Senior Superintendent Police.

The written order also explained that it was the settled proposition of the law that the remand should not be allowed in a mechanical way or refused on the basis of conjectures or surmises without application of mind.

Rather, it added, it ought to be done on the basis of material available on record, including the police diaries, and the examination of police diaries led the revisional court to the conclusion that further 48 hours of the remand in police custody was required.

“The Investigating Officer also made the reference to the reasons for which the physical custody is required and i.e. to recover the cellular phone from where the statement was allegedly read out. Hence the order impugned does not suffer from any error of law inasmuch as the yardstick provided under High Court Rules and Orders.”