SC bans colonial language in police complaints

In a landmark ruling aimed at dismantling colonial-era language and restoring the dignity of citizens, the Supreme Court has prohibited the use of the phrase "Bakhidmat Janaab SHO" in applications addressed to police officials, declaring it incompatible with constitutional values and democratic governance.

The verdict, authored by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, observed that such language reflects an outdated mindset inconsistent with the role of public servants in a modern democratic system, where police officers are meant to serve citizens, not the other way around.

The issue surfaced during court proceedings when Judicial Law Clerk Muhammad Subhan Malik, at the court's request, highlighted the widespread use of the phrase while addressing station house officers.

He explained that "Bakhidmat" translates to "at service of", adding that "it is not the citizen in service of the SHO, but the SHO in service of the citizen".

The judicial law clerk further pointed out that the terms "complainant" and "informant" are often used interchangeably, even in FIR matters, a practice the court termed incorrect.

Agreeing with the submission, the judgment authored by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar observed that from now on, for addressing the SHO, "Janaab SHO" is sufficient.

The SC further ruled that the term "complainant" would apply only to a person filing a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, while the person lodging an FIR would be regarded as an informant.

The 19-page verdict also barred the use of the term "Faryaadi" in police proceedings, observing that it conveys the impression of a citizen seeking mercy rather than exercising a legal right.

It noted that the word, of Persian origin, refers to one who cries for help.

"The description of such a citizen as a 'Faryaadi' is legally misconceived and constitutionally impermissible, as it demeans the citizen by portraying him as a seeker of favour rather than as a rightsbearing individual invoking the protection of law. Such terminology strikes at the very dignity of the citizen, which stands inviolable under Article 14 of the Constitution, and undermines the concept of equal protection of law envisaged by the constitutional framework," the ruling observed.

"Police officers are public servants entrusted with constitutional and statutory duties. They are bound to protect life, liberty and security of person, values which lie at the core of Article 9 of the Constitution," the SC noted, adding that police servants are required to serve the public and are remunerated from public funds.

"Citizens, therefore, approach the police as of right, and not as a matter of charity, grace or indulgence. Any institutional practice that reverses this relationship erodes public confidence in the rule of law and weakens constitutional governance."