"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"2020J16_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eFUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: \u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eMuhammad Adil Hafeez\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eMuhammad Adil Hafeez\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2020-09-03T09:29:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2020-09-03T09:29:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e6477\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e36923\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eOratier\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e307\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e86\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e43314\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e11.5606\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotHyphenateCaps/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e0\u003c/w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e3\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003efalse\u003c/w:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003efalse\u003c/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003efalse\u003c/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003efalse\u003c/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotUnderlineInvalidXML/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotShadeFormData/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Compatibility\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:FootnoteLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ShapeLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:AlignTablesRowByRow/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ForgetLastTabAlignment/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutRawTableWidth/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutTableRowsApart/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord97LineBreakingRules/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:SelectEntireFieldWithStartOrEnd/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord2002TableStyleRules/\u003e\r\n  \u003c/w:Compatibility\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:BrowserLevel\u003eMicrosoftInternetExplorer4\u003c/w:BrowserLevel\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" LatentStyleCount=\"156\"\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:LatentStyles\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n /* Page Definitions */\r\n @page\r\n\t{mso-page-border-surround-header:no;\r\n\tmso-page-border-surround-footer:no;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 10]\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0in;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-ansi-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-fareast-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-bidi-language:#0400;}\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003c/head\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in;text-justify-trim:punctuation\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eFUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003ePROSPECTS OF\r\nCOMPENSATORY JURISPRUDENCE\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eIN PAKISTAN \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eDr. Muhammad Tariq\r\nMasood \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eAdvocate High Court\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eLL.M. (Harvard),\r\nI.T.P. (Harvard) (Diploma in\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eInternational\r\nTax)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eFormer Member (Legal) Federal\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eBoard of Revenue,\r\nPakistan \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eProtection of fundamental rights, which\r\nare otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution, lies not only in the separation\r\nof judiciary from the executive but in allowing necessary and wide powers to\r\nthe judiciary so that it can influence, if not control, the otherwise\r\nall-powerful government and its functionaries. In a good modern democratic\r\nState it is essential that Constitution should not only ensure that courts have\r\nvast powers to provide relief to the aggrieved person but that relief should be\r\nmore than a mere paper relief, meaning thereby that relief should be an\r\nadequate or sufficient remedy to do justice if not the complete justice. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn Pakistan fundamental rights always\r\noccupied a place of pride in all the three Constitutions and in almost similar\r\npattern reaching to its zenith in the 1973 Constitution.\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e Chapter 1\r\nof the Part II of the 1973 Constitution catalogues the rights from Articles 9\r\nto 28 but this list would be incomplete if we exclude Articles 4 and 8, as both\r\nthese Articles provide key for the enforcement of fundamental rights. High\r\nCourt of the Province is the prime protectorate of these rights\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nwhereas the Supreme Court also has the powers to help securing them.\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eFundamental rights can broadly be divided\r\ninto positive and negative rights.\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e Positive rights usually oblige\r\nan action, a positive duty on the State; examples of positive rights include\r\nright to education (Article 25A), protection of person and property (Articles 9\r\nand 24 respectively) and the promotion of social justice and eradication of\r\nsocial evils (Article 37). Negative rights usually oblige inaction and the\r\nholder of a negative right is entitld to non-interference on the part of\r\nthe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eState in free enjoyments of those\r\nrights. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eFundamental rights guaranteed by the\r\nConstitution in fact put restraints on the arbitrary exercise of power by the\r\nState in relation to any activity that an individual can engage into. With the\r\npassage of time and evolution of civil society, changes occur in the political,\r\nsocial and economic conditions of the society but the language of the\r\nConstitution remains the same, creating a need to reevaluate the essence and\r\nsoul of the fundamental rights as originally provided in the Constitution.\r\nTherefore, fundamental rights are not defined and interpreted by the courts in\r\na static or literal sense or manner; they are generic in nature and their\r\nmeaning and scope keeps on changing; usually enlarging but at times even\r\nshrinking according to the changed circumstances and the freedom available to\r\nor exercised by the courts under democratic or autocratic regimes. Fundamental\r\nrights essentially require to be construed in consonance with the changed\r\nconditions of the society and to be viewed and interpreted with a vision to the\r\nfuture.\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAnother expansion to the scope of\r\nfundamental rights was given when some of the Articles falling within the scope\r\nof Chapter 2 of the Part II of the 1973 Constitution defining the \u0027Principles\r\nof Policy\u0027 and clauses of the \u0027Objectives Resolution\u0027 dealing with the human\r\nrights were read together by the courts to provide lawful vehicle for\r\ninterpretation, definition, refinement and enforcement of the fundamental\r\nrights enshrined in the 1973 Constitution.\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eCourts in Pakistan have been usually\r\nliberal in adopting the widest possible meanings to rights regarding provision\r\nof health care\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e and access to education.\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e The words\r\n\u0027life\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;liberty\u0026quot; and anything or everything related to the\r\nenjoyment of life has been brought into the concept of fundamental rights \u003ci\u003e\u003cu\u003e(Re:\r\nShehla Zia v. WAPDA)\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/i\u003e,\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e an extract from the judgment will\r\nshow the latitude given to these words: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;The\r\nword \u0026quot;life\u0026quot; has not been defined in the Constitution but it does not\r\nmean nor can be restricted only to the vegetative or animal life or mere\r\nexistence from conception to death. Life includes all such amenities and\r\nfacilities which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with\r\ndignity, legally and constitutionally. \u0026quot;The word \u0026quot;life\u0026quot; in the\r\nConstitution has not been used in a limited manner. A wide meaning should be\r\ngiven to enable a man not only to sustain life but to enjoy it. Article 14 of\r\nFundamental Right provides that the dignity of man and subject to law the\r\nprivacy of home shall be inviolable; the fundamental right to preserve and\r\nprotect the dignity of man under Article 14 is unparalleled and could be found\r\nonly in few Constitutions of the world. The Constitution guarantees dignity of\r\nman and also right to life under Article 9 and if both are read together\r\nquestion will arise whether a person can be said to have dignity of man if his\r\nright to life is below bare necessity like without proper food, clothing,\r\nshelter, education, health care, clean atmosphere and unpolluted\r\nenvironment.\u0026quot; \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe process of wider application of the\r\nfundamental rights has been slow but evolutionary; it is spread over decades\r\nand it is not restricted to the executive authority but has been extended to\r\nthe legislative authority and any law which violates the fundamental rights is\r\nlikely to be struck down.\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e Wider application to the meaning and scope\r\nof the fundamental rights is not restricted to Pakistan only; it is a global\r\nphenomenon, for example in Ireland\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e courts have also adopted very\r\nbroad meaning and have exercised wide powers when Constitutional rights were\r\ninfringed by the State functionaries. The enlightening observations of the\r\nChief Justice, Cearbhall   D laigh., in a human rights case\u003csup\u003e12\u003c/sup\u003e\r\ndeserve special notice. The learned Chief Justice said: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u0026quot;It\r\nwas not the intention of the Constitution in guaranteeing the fundamental\r\nrights of the citizen that these rights should be set at naught or\r\ncircumvented. The intention was that rights of substance were being assured to\r\nthe individual and that the courts were the custodians of those rights. As a\r\nnecessary corollary, it follows that no one can with impunity set these rights\r\nat naught or circumvents them, and that the court\u0027s powers in this regard are\r\nas ample as the defence of the Constitution requires.\u0026quot; \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Indian SC emphasized that while\r\ninterpreting the articles related to fundamental rights the approach must be\r\nguided not by any verbal or formalistic canons of construction but by the\r\nparamount object and purpose underlying the article and its interpretation must\r\nreceive illumination from the trinity of provisions which permeate and energize\r\nthe entire Constitution viz. the preamble, fundamental rights and directive\r\nprinciples of State policy.\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWith this expensive meaning and\r\ninterpreting the fundamental rights some questions arise which need to be\r\nanswered; such as whether courts in Pakistan are providing sufficient and\r\nadequate remedy or the relief provided is merely a legal victory? Is there\r\nanything missing? Can something more be done in this context? Can compensation\r\nbe granted or ordered for violation of fundamental rights by the State\r\nespecially for violation of rights to life, liberty and the like while\r\nexercising the Constitutional discretionary jurisdiction? \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhile writing on the subject, flashback\r\nfrom an old Pakistani movie\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e was in my mind where the accused on\r\nhis acquittal demanded back twelve years of his life spent in the prison. That\r\ndialogue from the movie thus suggesting that mere honorable acquittal was not\r\ncomplete or befitting remedy, especially in cases of State violation of\r\nfundamental rights to life and liberty. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAn injury to person or property can of\r\ncourse be redressed under the civil law through personal civil suit in ordinary\r\ntort proceedings by a time consuming procedure to get an enforceable judicial\r\npronouncement. If violation of rights is committed by the State then it becomes\r\nstill more difficult to cross the hurdle of \u0027sovereign immunity\u0027. In such a\r\nsituation where fundamental rights are violated by the State, is it proper to\r\nforce the individual to pass through that process or the courts which are the\r\nultimate and real custodians of those rights have some additional duty to\r\nperform? \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eCan pecuniary compensation be awarded by\r\nthe superior judiciary while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction in cases of\r\nserious and flagrant violation of fundamental rights by the State apparatus?\r\nThere is apparently no express Constitutional provision for such an award and\r\nvery few judicial precedents on the subject in the country. There is\r\nconsiderable development on the subject of compensatory jurisprudence in other\r\ncountries and we can learn and follow from encouraging examples. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe rights to life, personal liberty,\r\nsecurity and freedoms go back a long way in the history of the law and their\r\nenforcement is well entrenched jurisprudential concept but recognition of right\r\nto compensation on account of violation of right to liberty and security of\r\nperson is comparatively new. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eArticle 5.5 of the European Convention on\r\nHuman Rights\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e provides that everyone who has been a victim of\r\narrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of the Article 5 of the\r\nConvention shall have an enforceable right to compensation. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eInternational Covenant on Civil and\r\nPolitical Rights (International Covenant) was adopted by the UNO on December\r\n16, 1966\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e to which Pakistan is also a signatory\u003csup\u003e17\u003c/sup\u003e.\r\nDifferent aspects of right to liberty and the security of a person are covered\r\nby the Article 9 of the Covenant, for facility of reference the said Article is\r\nreproduced as under: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eArticle 9 \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e1.\r\nEveryone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be\r\nsubjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his\r\nliberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are\r\nestablished by law. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e2.\r\nAnyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons\r\nfor his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e3.\r\nAnyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly\r\nbefore a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power\r\nand shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall\r\nnot be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in\r\ncustody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any\r\nother stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for\r\nexecution of the judgement. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e4.\r\nAnyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled\r\nto take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without\r\ndelay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention\r\nis not lawful. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e5.\r\nAnyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an\r\nenforceable right to compensation. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eA plain reading of the text shows that\r\nalmost all aspects of rights covered by the Article 9 (except 9.5) of the\r\nInternational Covenant [or Article 5 (except 5.5) of the European Convention]\r\nare even otherwise guaranteed by the Articles 9, 10 and 10A of the 1973\r\nConstitution. Pakistan signed the International Covenant with some reservations\r\nregarding Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 and almost all the\r\nreservations were to the extent of repugnancy to the 1973 Constitution or to\r\nthe Sharia Laws of the country. Interestingly there was no reservation shown\r\nwith respect of the Article 9 and more specifically the Article 9.5 of the\r\nInternational Covenant dealing with the enforceable right to compensation which\r\nmanifests the intent of the State to abide by the provisions of the said\r\nArticle without any reservations. However India adopted the International\r\nCovenant\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003e with reservation regarding Article 9.5 that the\r\nprovisions of the Article shall be so applied as to be in consonance with the\r\nprovisions of clauses (3) to (7) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India\u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nwhich is parametric to the Article 10 of the 1973 Constitution. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eArticle\r\n2 of the International Covenant\u003csup\u003e20\u003c/sup\u003e imposes responsibilities on the\r\nStates to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect\r\nto the rights recognized in the Covenant and to develop the possibilities of\r\njudicial remedy. It also places specific responsibility on the State to ensure\r\neffective remedy even if the violation has been committed by persons acting in\r\nan official capacity and also to ensure that the competent authorities shall\r\nenforce such remedies when granted. Thus the basic duty of the State is to\r\nensure that any breach of Article 9 and therefore a right to compensation as\r\nprovided in Article 9.5 of the International Covenant must be provided for\r\nwithin the national legal system, that is, a remedy must be made available\r\nunder the domestic law and enforceable in a domestic court even if the\r\nviolation of the rights is committed by the State functionaries. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eArticles\r\n199 and Article 184(3) of the 1973 Constitution deal with the protection of\r\nfundamental rights; before proceeding further let\u0027s see the Constitutional provisions\r\nfirst: \u003ci\u003e(only relevant portions):\u003c/i\u003e \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;Article\r\n199. Jurisdiction of High Court. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e(1)\r\nSubject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other\r\nadequate remedy is provided by law,- \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e(a).. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e(b)  \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e(c)\r\non the application of any aggrieved person, make an order giving such\r\ndirections to any person or authority, including any Government exercising any\r\npower or performing any function in, or in relation to, any territory within\r\nthe jurisdiction of that Court as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any\r\nof the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II.\u0026quot; \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;184. Original Jurisdiction of\r\nSupreme Court. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e(1)   \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e(2)   \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e(3)\r\nWithout prejudice to the provisions of Article 199, the Supreme Court shall, if\r\nit considers that .\u0026quot; \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThough there is no specific provision\r\nregarding enforcing right to compensation for victims of unlawful arrest or\r\ndetention even then the superior courts enjoy very wide Constitutional powers\r\nto protect the fundamental rights as the courts can issue any order and give\r\nany direction which is appropriate for the enforcement of any of the\r\nfundamental rights. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhether absence of domestic legal or\r\nConstitutional provision for award of monetary compensation would stultify the\r\nbroad and wide powers of High Courts or the Supreme Court to protect the\r\nfundamental rights or there is a need to search legal basis for awarding such\r\ncompensation? Such issues have been faced by many other countries and superior\r\njudiciary has addressed them in quite elaborate manner, reference may be made\r\nto some of them as under: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Privy Council (PC) in a case\u003csup\u003e21\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nwhere a barrister, was committed to seven days imprisonment without fulfilling\r\nthe due process of law, in contravention of section 1 of the Constitution of\r\nTrinidad and Tobago,\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e was held to be entitled to monetary\r\ncompensation from the State under section 6 of the Constitution of Trinidad and\r\nTobago (parametric to the Article 199 of the 1973 Constitution) which does not\r\nprovide for any pecuniary compensation. PC held that claim of compensation was\r\na claim in public law for deprivation of liberty alone which was distinguished\r\nfrom personal claim for damages in tort in the following words: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;Finally,\r\ntheir Lordships would say something about the measure of monetary compensation\r\nrecoverable under Section 6 where the contravention of the claimant\u0027s\r\nconstitutional rights consists of deprivation of liberty otherwise than by due\r\nprocess of law. The claim is not a claim in private law for damages for the\r\ntort of false imprisonment, under which the damages recoverable are at large\r\nand would include damages for loss of reputation. It is a claim in public law\r\nfor compensation for deprivation of liberty alone.\u0026quot; \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn another case\u003csup\u003e23\u003c/sup\u003e where\r\nGovernment of Guyana constructed road on a land owned by private landowners\r\nwithout due payments for the land; the PC accepted the claim of landowners\r\nregarding compensation for the land as well as claim of payment of damages for\r\nviolation of their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Article 8 of the Constitution\r\nof Guyana and directed the High Court to redress the same by passing an\r\nappropriate order for compensation or damages which should be complied with by\r\nthe Government of Guyana. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn New Zealand the SC in a case\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nwhere police executed a search warrant and continued to search despite knowing\r\nthat it was the wrong address and therefore the search was illegal (per Section\r\n21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, 1990) rejected the State claim of\r\nsovereign immunity. The State pleaded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to\r\nany remedy other than a declaration of non-compliance with the Bill of Rights.\r\nThe SC held that a mere declaration of violation without due compensation would\r\nbe \u0027toothless\u0027 and therefore awarded damages. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe SC of Nepal in a case\u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e allowed\r\nmonetary compensation to the victims and their families as an interim relief by\r\napplying the principles enshrined in the Convention against Enforced\r\nDisappearance despite the fact that Nepal had not ratified the same. It was\r\nheld that as it was not objectionable both in law and practice therefore there\r\nwas no problem in implementing the principles laid down in Convention for the\r\nsake of respecting and promoting the life, dignity and freedom of Nepal\u0027s\r\ncitizens and provisions of the International Covenant on Enforced Disappearance\r\nwere declared as essential element of the Nepal\u0027s legal system. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAs pointed out earlier that India signed\r\nthe International Covenant with some reservations regarding Article 9.5 of the\r\nCovenant and its conflict with the Article 22 of the Indian Constitution even\r\nthen substantial progress, though a bit slow and gradual, has been shown by the\r\nsuperior judiciary. The issue was first visited by the Indian Apex Court in the\r\ncase of denial of free legal assistance to an accused\u003csup\u003e26\u003c/sup\u003e where the\r\ncourt observed that it was not helpless to grant relief to the person who has\r\nsuffered such deprivation and the court felt a need to forge new tools and\r\ndevise new remedies for the purpose of vindicating the most precious of the\r\nprecious fundamental right to life and personal liberty. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eSubsequently there came a series of cases\u003csup\u003e27\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nwhere illegal detention of mentally sick convicts, even beyond the terms of\r\ntheir sentences and despite their recovery from mental ailment was questioned\r\nby human rights activists. The Supreme Court of India admitted the seriousness\r\nof the issue but left the question of compensation for illegal detention open\r\nand did not decide it conclusively. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Supreme Court of India in the case\r\nRudul Sah\u003csup\u003e28\u003c/sup\u003e took a leap forward by recognizing the concept of\r\ncompensation given in Article 9.5 of the International Covenant despite the\r\nIndian reservations while ratifying the Covenant. The Indian Apex Court opined\r\nthat Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the right to life and\r\nliberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of the court is\r\nlimited to passing orders of release from illegal detention. The court held as\r\nunder: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;One\r\nof the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented\r\nis to mulct the violators in the payment of monetary compensation. The right to\r\ncompensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities\r\nwhich act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection\r\nthe powers of the State as a shield. Respect for the rights of individuals is\r\nthe true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done\r\nby its officers to their rights. In the circumstances of the instant case the\r\nrefusal to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be\r\ndoing mere lip-service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State\r\nGovernment has so grossly violated\u0026quot;. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn another judgment\u003csup\u003e29\u003c/sup\u003e the SC\r\nof India held that it was not helpless and it had wide powers given by Article\r\n32,\u003csup\u003e30\u003c/sup\u003e which itself is a fundamental right, and imposes a\r\nConstitutional obligation on it to forge such new tools, which may be necessary\r\nfor doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in\r\nthe Constitution. The Apex Court held that the Indian Constitution enables the\r\naward of monetary compensation in cases where there is no other mode of redress\r\navailable. The Indian Apex Court also referred to Article 142 of the Indian\r\nConstitution\u003csup\u003e31\u003c/sup\u003e as an enabling provision in this behalf. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eLooking back to the\r\nissue in Pakistan\u0027s perspective question may arise in the mind of the reader\r\nthat whether Constitutional provisions in Pakistan are in any way less broader\r\nor restrictive in their approach as compared to the Indian parametric provisions?\r\nLet\u0027s address that question first. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThere is no limitation in regard to the\r\nkind of proceeding envisaged in the Article 199 of the 1973 Constitution\u003csup\u003e32\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nexcept that it should not be ousted or controlled by any other provisions of\r\nthe Constitution itself and the High Court should be satisfied that no other\r\nadequate remedy is provided by law. Once any petitioner clears these two bars,\r\nwhich he usually does, then High Court can make an order or give such\r\ndirections as may be \u0027appropriate for the enforcement of any of the fundamental\r\nrights\u0027 and this requirement of appropriateness is to be judged by the court\r\nitself and not by others. The Constitution-makers deliberately did not lay down\r\nany particular form of proceeding for enforcement of a fundamental right. They\r\ndid not stipulate that such proceedings should conform to any rigid pattern or\r\nstraitjacket formula. Reference can also be made to Article 37 (d) of the 1973\r\nConstitution which also places a responsibility upon the each organ and\r\nauthority of the State to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice. It\r\nappears that in a country where there is so much of poverty, ignorance,\r\nilliteracy, deprivation and exploitation, any insistence on a rigid formula of\r\nproceedings for enforcement of a fundamental right, would become self-defeating\r\nand it would place enforcement of fundamental rights beyond the reach of common\r\nman. The entire remedy for enforcement of fundamental rights which the\r\nConstitution-makers regarded as so precious and invaluable that it could not be\r\nabridged would become mere illusionary so far as the large masses of the people\r\nof this country are concerned. In a modern progressive democratic country\r\nfollowing the old doctrine of relegating the aggrieved persons to the remedies\r\navailable in civil law which are costly and time consuming will undermine\r\nlegitimate expectations from the judiciary. The courts have the obligation to\r\nsatisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law\r\nare for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. The purpose of\r\npublic law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen\r\nthat they live under a legal system, which aims to protect their interests and\r\npreserve their rights. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eLike the wide powers of the High Court\r\nunder Article 199, the Supreme Court also enjoys broad powers as per Article\r\n184(3). The Supreme Court has the same powers as the High Court enjoys when a\r\nquestion of enforcement of any of the fundamental rights is involved. The only\r\ncondition for invoking Constitutional jurisdiction applicable to the Supreme\r\nCourt is the existence of \u0027public importance\u0027, unlike the absence of\r\navailability of alternate or adequate remedy by law as applicable to the High\r\nCourts. Thus the Supreme Court of Pakistan enjoys very wide powers in case of\r\nany issue of public importance when a question of enforcement of any of the\r\nfundamental rights is involved. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eArticle 187 of the 1973 Constitution is\r\nsimilarly worded\u003csup\u003e33\u003c/sup\u003e, wide and equally potent to the comparable Indian\r\nConstitutional provision.\u003csup\u003e34\u003c/sup\u003e Thus there is no Constitutional bar in\r\nthe development of compensatory jurisprudence in Pakistan and courts in\r\nPakistan enjoy broad and wide powers and can issue any appropriate order for\r\nthe enforcement of the fundamental rights. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIt is also worth mentioning that the\r\ncourts are self-governing in expanding or shrinking the scope or sphere of\r\ncompensatory jurisprudence so it is a blessing in disguise that there is no\r\nexpress legal command to make it mandatory for the courts to award compensation.\r\nThus everything is left at the discretion of the courts which have to determine\r\nthe \u0027appropriateness of case\u0027 and the \u0027appropriateness of relief\u0027. In the\r\nIndian jurisdiction courts have restricted themselves\u003csup\u003e35\u003c/sup\u003e to award\r\ncompensatory relief only when infringement of the fundamental rights is gross\r\nand patent, that is, incontrovertible and ex-facie glaring. Usually courts only\r\ngrant this discretionary relief when such infringement is on a large scale\r\naffecting the fundamental rights of a large number of persons but in cases\r\nwhere action of authorities appear to be grossly unjust or unduly harsh or\r\noppressive on account of poverty or disability or socially or economically\r\ndisadvantaged position of an individual, courts can be seen coming forward to rescue\r\nthe person or persons affected by such infringement. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Indian SC has held that right to\r\napproach the Apex Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right.\u003csup\u003e36\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nConstitutional position in Pakistan is not different rather more pronounced as\r\nclause (2) of the Article 199 clearly stipulates that the right to move a High\r\nCourt for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by the\r\nConstitution shall not be abridged, Article 10A further adds to it as it\r\nguarantees that for the determination of civil rights and obligations or in any\r\ncriminal charge the person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.\r\nKeeping in view the case law on the subject of broad interpretation of\r\nfundamental rights there is no doubt in my mind as to why compensatory\r\njurisprudence can\u0027t be developed in Pakistan and right to approach the High\r\nCourt under Article 199 is not regarded as fundamental right in itself and be\r\ninterpreted as broadly as the fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter 1 of the\r\nPart II of the Constitution. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhether concept of \u0027State immunity\u0027 or\r\n\u0027sovereign immunity\u0027 will be an obstacle in the way to enforce right to\r\ncompensation? As already pointed out above that claim of such immunity was not\r\naccepted by the Superior Courts of New Zealand\u003csup\u003e37\u003c/sup\u003e and Ireland, which\r\nalso have written Constitutions and there is no express provision regarding\r\ncompensation. The plea of sovereign immunity was rejected by the Apex Court of\r\nIreland even in tortuous claim and damages/compensation was awarded [Re: Byrne v.\r\nIreland (1972) IR 241]. The State was declared to be a juristic person who\r\nwould be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its servants committed in\r\nthe course of employment. The plaintiff, therefore, succeeded in her action for\r\ndamages for injuries sustained when she fell into a trench dug on the authority\r\nof the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn India a judgment by Madras High Court\r\nin the Thangarajan case,\u003csup\u003e38\u003c/sup\u003e appears to lay the foundation of\r\nrejection of the claim of sovereign immunity. A poor young boy was hit by a\r\nmilitary lorry belonging to the Defence Department of the Union of India\r\ntherefore principle of State immunity was pleaded which was rejected by the\r\nHigh Court in the following words: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;It\r\nis cruel to tell the injured boy who has suffered grievous injuries and was in\r\nhospital for over six months incurring considerable expenditure and been\r\npermanently incapacitated that he is not entitled to any relief as he had the\r\nprivilege of being knocked down by a lorry which was driven in exercise of\r\nsovereign functions of the State. Considering the circumstances of this case,\r\nwe would strongly recommend to the Union Government to make an ex gratia\r\npayment of Rs. 10,000, to the appellant herein.\u0026quot; \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Indian Supreme Court also constantly\r\nrejected the claim of sovereign immunity and reference may be made to cases\r\nsuch as \u003ci\u003e\u003cu\u003eRudul Sah v. State of Bihar\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/i\u003e (1983 AIR 1086), \u003ci\u003e\u003cu\u003eSebastian\r\nM. Hongray v. Union of India\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/i\u003e (1984 AIR 571), \u003ci\u003e\u003cu\u003eBhim Singh, MLA v.\r\nState of J\u0026amp;K and others\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/i\u003e (AIR 1986 SC 494), \u003ci\u003e\u003cu\u003eSaheli, A Women\u0027s\r\nResources v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/i\u003e (1990 AIR 513), \u003ci\u003e\u003cu\u003eSmt.\r\nNilabati Behera alias Lalit v. State of Orissa and others \u003c/u\u003e\u003c/i\u003e(1993 AIR\r\n1960) and \u003ci\u003e\u003cu\u003eConsumer Education and Research v. Union of India and others\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\r\n(1995 AIR 922). An extract from the case of \u003ci\u003e\u003cu\u003eNilabati Behera\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/i\u003e cited\r\nsupra will explain as to why plea of sovereign immunity is not approved by the\r\ncourts: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;It\r\nmay be mentioned straight away that award of compensation in a proceeding under\r\nArticle 32 by this Court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the\r\nConstitution is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for\r\ncontravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign\r\nimmunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in\r\nprivate law in an action based on tort.... it is sufficient to say that the\r\ndecision of this Court in Kasturi Lal\u003csup\u003e39\u003c/sup\u003e upholding the State\u0027s plea\r\nof sovereign immunity for tortious acts of its servants is confined to the\r\nsphere of liability in tort, which is distinct from the State\u0027s liability for\r\ncontravention of fundamental rights to which the doctrine of sovereign immunity\r\nhas no application in the constitutional scheme, and is no defence to the\r\nconstitutional remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution which\r\nenables award of compensation for contravention of fundamental rights, when the\r\nonly practicable mode of enforcement of the fundamental rights can be the award\r\nof compensation.\u0026quot; \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAnother reason given by the Indian Apex\r\nCourt in the case of Consumer Education and Research (cited supra) was that the\r\nConstitutional remedy was a practical and inexpensive mode of redress therefore\r\nplea of sovereign immunity may be rejected. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIt is also worth highlighting that this\r\nkind of relief would not bring a new wave of judicial activism as the courts\r\nare self-governing in expanding or shrinking the scope and sphere of\r\ncompensatory jurisprudence. It is at the discretion of the courts to determine\r\nthe appropriateness of case or the relief. In the Indian jurisdiction, courts\r\nhave restricted themselves\u003csup\u003e40\u003c/sup\u003e to award compensatory relief only when\r\ninfringement of the fundamental rights is gross and patent, that is,\r\nincontrovertible and ex facie glaring. Usually courts only grant this\r\ndiscretionary relief when such infringement is on a large scale affecting the\r\nfundamental rights of a large number of persons. But none can stop the courts\r\nto take action and award compensation in solitary cases where action of\r\nauthorities appear grossly unjust or unduly harsh or oppressive on account of\r\npoverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position of an\r\nindividual person. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cb\u003eWhat is happening in Pakistan? \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAs already pointed out that Pakistan\r\nsigned and ratified the International Covenant without any reservations on\r\nArticle 9 (including 9.5) requiring compensation to the victims of such human\r\nrights abuses therefore there are no formidable obstacles in implementing the\r\nInternational Covenant. Complying with its international obligations, Pakistan\r\nestablished a National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) through the Act XVI\r\nof 2012 in accordance with the Paris Principles. In its preamble, the Act\r\nprovides its raison d\u0027 tre as follows: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;WHEREAS\r\nit is expedient to provide for the creation of National Commission for Human\r\nRights, for the purpose of promotion and protection of Human Rights as provided\r\nin the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and various international\r\ninstruments to which Pakistan is state party or shall become a state\r\nparty.\u0026quot; \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe NCHR is a guardian to protect and promote\r\nhuman rights guaranteed in the Constitution and in the international human\r\nrights treaties. It shall always speak for the safety of the citizens being its\r\nprimary duty.\u003csup\u003e41\u003c/sup\u003e \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThus commitment of the State for\r\nprotection of fundamental rights is visibly there. The 1973 Constitution as\r\nexplained in the opening paragraphs widely covers the fundamental rights and\r\nthe superior courts have adopted very expensive meanings of various aspects of\r\nfundamental rights especially rights related to life, dignity, honor, health,\r\neducation and freedoms, powers of the superior courts in Pakistan are broad and\r\nunrestricted; therefore there is legitimate expectation that position of\r\nprotection of fundamental rights will improve and compensatory jurisprudence\r\nwill evolve in near future. It has also been pointed out earlier that the\r\nSupreme Court of Pakistan has also approved the principle that absence of\r\ndomestic legislation regarding any international covenant would not prevent\r\ncourts in awarding the remedies provided therein while exercising the\r\nConstitutional jurisdiction; reference in this regard is made to the below\r\nmentioned extract from the judgment of the Apex Court in \u003ci\u003e\u003cu\u003eHuman Rights\r\nCase\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/i\u003e No.29388-K of 2013:\u003csup\u003e42\u003c/sup\u003e \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;It\r\nis pertinent to note that Pakistan has also not ratified this Convention. The\r\nSupreme Court of Nepal applied the principles of the 2006 Convention in light\r\nof the right to life guaranteed in the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007. Our\r\nConstitution at Article 9 lays down the right to life which has received an\r\nexpansive interpretation from this Court. Moreover, Article 10 provides direct\r\nprotection from enforced disappearances. Thus the crime against humanity of\r\nenforced disappearances is clearly violative of the Constitution of Pakistan.\r\nTherefore, this Court can also apply the principles enshrined in 2006\r\nConvention in order to achieve the ends of justice.\u0026quot; \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAwarding of cost in a matter of habeas\r\ncorpus is not a new concept and is permissible under section 491, Cr.P.C. and\r\nthere are innumerable decisions on the subject\u003csup\u003e43\u003c/sup\u003e and there are\r\njudgments which decided that compensation may be more than the one provided in\r\nthat section and it may be exemplary. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eHigh Courts on more than one occasion\r\nhave allowed compensation under Constitutional jurisdiction. In the case of\r\nMuhammad Ibrahim,\u003csup\u003e44\u003c/sup\u003e the Lahore High Court observed that when the\r\ndignity of a person is violated in breach of law, then it becomes duty of the\r\ncourt to render help and protect the same as far as possible and guided by the\r\nConstitutional provisions, the High Court awarded monetary compensation. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe High Court of Sindh had an in-depth\r\nanalysis of the issue of compensation in the Constitutional jurisdiction in\r\nanother case reported as Mazharuddin v. the State.\u003csup\u003e45\u003c/sup\u003e The honorable\r\ncourt after considering provisions of Cr.P.C., Article 199 of the 1973\r\nConstitution and cases pertaining to Pakistani, Indian, Sri Lankan and English\r\njurisdiction held that whenever a court finds unlawful and mala fide detention\r\nof a citizen it can, apart from directing his release, pass any suitable order\r\nincluding an order for payment of such amount that it may consider appropriate\r\nby way of compensation. Effects need and justification of awarding compensation\r\nwere also explained by declaring that compensation was not only for distress\r\nand humiliation on account of deprivation of liberty but also to serve as\r\ndeterrent for those who misuse public power and invade the liberties of\r\ncitizens in flagrant disregard of the law. The judgment also clarifies that\r\njurisdiction to grant relief under Article 199(l)(b)(1) or Article 199(1)(c) is\r\nnot hedged by the limitation of English precedents or provisions of\r\nsub-constitutional legislation. The court also held that an order merely\r\ndirecting the release of a person from custody upon finding his detention\r\nillegal and condoning the violation of his most cherished fundamental rights of\r\nliberty and dignity in defiance of the requirements of law and the Constitution\r\nmay not be the appropriate relief to which such person may be entitled to and\r\nmonitory compensation may be awarded under Constitutional jurisdiction as a\r\npublic law duty distinguished from the private law right of a citizen to claim\r\ndamages in tort. The court also held that the liability to pay such\r\ncompensation would devolve jointly and severally upon the State as well as the\r\npublic officials responsible for illegally depriving a citizen of his liberty.\r\nThe State Government however, would be entitled to recover the amount from such\r\nofficials for having caused wrongful loss to the Government through misuse of\r\npowers under the relevant Service Rules applicable to such official instead of\r\nburdening the taxpayer money. The honorable court went on to say that\r\ncompensatory costs of litigation may also be awarded and the official\r\nresponsible for illegal action be made personally burdened with the liability\r\nto pay exemplary or punitive costs in terms of the law declared by the\r\nhonorable Supreme Court. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe aforementioned judgment\r\ncomprehensively covered all the aspects of compensatory jurisprudence even then\r\na review of cases on the subject shows that proper redressal cases are few and\r\nfar between and they are mostly related to the high handedness of lower police\r\nofficials without hammering out the actual flaws in the system. Highhandedness\r\nof other law enforcing agencies involved in enforced disappearances,\r\nextra-judicial killings, custodial deaths and fake encounters have mostly\r\nremained immune baring a few exceptions. Similarly cases of human rights abuses\r\nlike violation of privacy, domestic servants violence and other similar kinds\r\nof violation of fundamental rights where affluent section of the society or\r\npowerful agencies are involved end up in so-called \u0027compromise\u0027 where everybody\r\nknows how the compromise has been reached. Cases are therefore withdrawn due to\r\ncoercion or intimidation and courts remain silent spectator. When courts award\r\nsentences then come the Presidential pardon to rescue. In nutshell such\r\nviolations go either unpunished or the relief is usually mere eyewash. Supreme\r\nCourt has been striving in many cases of missing persons and some progress has\r\nbeen made but still it is far less than the expectations of the people of\r\nPakistan especially those who are under privileged and who consider that courts\r\nare their real and ultimate saviors. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn the recent past the Islamabad High\r\nCourt has set an example when it came forward to rescue the family of a person\r\nof enforced disappearance allegedly by the security agencies.\u003csup\u003e46\u003c/sup\u003e It\r\nis a rare occasion when top management of police and local administration has\r\nbeen held responsible and ordered to pay compensation for want of proper action\r\nof their departments in investigating the enforced disappearance and proper\r\nredressal of the grievances of the victim\u0027s family. The opinion of the Court\r\nwas expressed as under: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;In\r\na nut shell the State has undoubtedly failed in its duty and obligations\r\ntowards the petitioner and her three young daughters. The officials responsible\r\nto protect the citizens as appointed agents of the State are jointly and\r\nseverally accountable to the petitioner and her three young daughters. The\r\nState of Pakistan as an Islamic welfare state has, therefore, made itself\r\nliable to compensate the petitioner and her three young daughters for the\r\nestablished acts and omissions, conduct and degrading attitude of the public\r\nfunctionaries which has caused unimaginable anguish and suffering to the\r\npetitioner and her three daughters, thus gravely violating the fundamental\r\nrights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. The Chief Commissioner and\r\nthe Inspector General of Police, being the highest office holders in the\r\nhierarchy of administration of the Islamabad Capital Territory, are responsible\r\nfor the failure of their subordinates and for the criminal justice system\r\nfailing to respond to the complaint of the petitioner, because the buck stops\r\nat the top. The non-cooperative, insensitive and humiliating attitude of the\r\nagents of the State has exposed each one of them to be proceeded against\u0026quot;.\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cb\u003eConclusion \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe compensatory jurisprudence which is\r\npart of the Article 9.5 of the International Covenant and practiced and upheld\r\nby the superior judiciary of different countries by invoking powers under the\r\nConstitutional jurisdiction has gained tremendous importance in recent times.\r\nThe Concept is not alien to our own jurisprudence rather it is endorsed by the\r\nsuperior judiciary but even then it is used sparingly and selectively.\r\nIncreased incidents of forced disappearances, custodial violence and killings,\r\nhighhandedness of law enforcement agencies and other human rights violation\r\nespecially related to life, honor and dignity of men have also necessitated an\r\nequally quick and befitting response from the judiciary. Though award of\r\ncompensation under Constitutional jurisdiction can be found in the case law but\r\nthis is not consistently been demanded or granted by the courts as a deterring\r\nfactor. More positive and proactive response by the superior courts may lead to\r\nreduction in human rights violation as every such award of compensation would\r\nhighlight the issue more and more and make the State apparatus more answerable\r\nto the electorate and the vibrant media. It may help in reducing multiplicity\r\nof litigation and lead to speedy justice to victims of the infringement of\r\nright to life and personal liberty. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cb\u003eWeb References: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.2in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e1.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eThe Constitution of Islamic Republic of\r\nPakistan, 1973 \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttp://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.2in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e2.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eThe Constitution of India, 1949 \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttps://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india/constitution-india-full-text\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.2in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eThe Constitution of Ireland, 1937 \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttps://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ireland-2012.pdf\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.2in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e4.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eThe Constitution of The Republic of Trinidad\r\nand Tobago \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttps://www.oas.org/juridico/english/mesicic3_tto_constitution.pdf\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.2in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eThe Constitution of the Co-operative\r\nRepublic of Guyana Act \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003ehttps://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/mesicic2_guy_constitution.pdf\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e6.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eThe Supreme Court of Ireland- Important\r\njudgments \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttp://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/pagecurrent/9FA0AA8E8D261FC48025765C0042F6B3?opendocument\u0026amp;l=en\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e7.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003ePakistan Film Database \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttps://pakmag.net/film/db/details.php?pid=1076\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e8.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eEuropean Convention on Human Rights \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttps://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e9.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eInternational Covenant on Civil and\r\nPolitical Rights \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttps://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr.pdf\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e10.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eNew Zealand Bill of Rights Act, 1990 \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttp://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e11.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eTRIAL International- Switzerland based NGO \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttps://trialinternational.org/latest-post/enforced-disappearance-of-rajendra-prasad-dhakal-in-january-1999/\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e12.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe National Commission for Human Rights Act,\r\n2012 \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttp://www.senate.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1358919417_548.pdf\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e13.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nUnending Saga of Enforced Disappearances- Preliminary Report by NCHR Pakistan \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttp://www.senate.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1358919417_548.pdf\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e14.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eArticle\r\n32 and the Remedy of Compensation \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eBy\r\nJustice G. Yethirajulu BSc, MA, LL. M, Ph.D Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttps://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com_content\u0026amp;itemid=5\u0026amp;do_pdf=1\u0026amp;id=272\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e15.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eCompensation\r\non Breach of Fundamental Rights \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eBy\r\nParmindra Dadhich Ph.D. Scholar, Mody University of Science and Technology,\r\nRajasthan \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttp://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/F92CA75D-18C1-4A74-9533-53C5CFF297FA.pdf\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"