In a landmark judgment titled Vishal Ahmed Shakir v. Federation of Pakistan, the Honourable Mr Justice Ali Zia Bajwa of the Lahore High Court has categorically prohibited the electronic media and vloggers from conducting interviews of individuals in police custody. The Court held that such practices violate the fundamental rights of the accused, particularly the right to human dignity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The judgment observed that these so-called interviews not only infringe upon the constitutional guarantees afforded to every citizen but also undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system. Media personnel, through premature commentary, often usurp the role of the judiciary, pronouncing guilt in the court of public opinion.
The Court further held that law enforcement agencies have a duty to prevent such violations and cannot remain passive in the face of this media malpractice. The petitioner, Mr Vishal Ahmed Shakir—a young legal practitioner and associate of criminal law expert and academic Mian Ali Haider—is himself a content creator, producing educational material on various criminal law topics. He filed this public interest petition under Article 199 of the Constitution in 2023, seeking judicial intervention to halt media trials of accused persons.
At the heart of this judgment lies a reaffirmation of the principle that human dignity, as guaranteed under Article 14, is inviolable. The term “inviolable” holds particular constitutional significance in Chapter I of Part II, which deals with Fundamental Rights. It is important to distinguish between absolute and non-absolute fundamental rights: absolute rights admit of no exceptions, not even by legislative enactment. Article 14 is one such absolute right, meaning no law can be framed to permit the degradation of human dignity—this prohibition extends even to the treatment of the deceased. In this regard, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that public executions, such as hangings, violate the dignity of the human person and are thus constitutionally impermissible.
The notion of inviolability implies that no organ of the state executive, legislature, or judiciary may curtail this right under any circumstance. Moreover, the right to dignity is intimately linked with other fundamental rights, notably Article 10A (right to a fair trial and due process), Article 9 (right to life), and Article 4 (right to be treated in accordance with law). Article 10A, inserted through the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment in 2010, formalised the guarantee of a fair trial in both civil and criminal matters. While superior courts have historically upheld principles of fair trial and due process, their explicit inclusion in the Constitution as enforceable rights now renders any infringement a direct violation of fundamental law. Article 14, like Article 10A, is absolute and thus inviolable by any legislative or executive action.
The Court clarified that taking interviews of accused persons in custody, whether at police stations or even during physical searches at checkpoints, constitutes a violation of their dignity and is, therefore, unconstitutional
The Court clarified that the dignity of an individual is not forfeited upon arrest. The constitutional rights of the accused remain intact while in custody. Coercive confessions and public parading of accused individuals serve not the cause of justice but of persecution. The ruling underscores the harmful consequences of media trials, which can compromise the fairness of proceedings, erode public trust in the criminal justice system, and prematurely label individuals as guilty, often irreparably damaging their reputations. Sensationalist and speculative reporting undermines the sanctity of the legal process and contributes to a culture of presumption rather than presumption of innocence.
Furthermore, the Court held that state authorities, including law enforcement agencies, are constitutionally obligated to prevent such violations. Legal action must be taken against any person or authority found to have infringed upon the rights of an accused. The Supreme Court has also issued guidelines for the media, including Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for interviews involving accused persons, aimed at preserving the fundamental rights of both the accused and the investigators.
Importantly, the judgment emphasised that freedom of the press under Article 19 must be exercised responsibly and cannot be used as a licence to trample upon the fundamental rights of others. The Court clarified that taking interviews of accused persons in custody, whether at police stations or even during physical searches at checkpoints, constitutes a violation of their dignity and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
In conclusion, the ruling reiterates that all persons within the jurisdiction of Pakistan, whether citizens or otherwise, are entitled to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Some of these rights, such as the right to human dignity (Article 14) and the right to a fair trial (Article 10A), are absolute and cannot be curtailed under any circumstances. The right to life under Article 9 serves as the cornerstone of all other rights because, without this right, all other rights are meaningless. However, the rights to dignity and due process are equally sacrosanct and must be upheld to ensure the rule of law and the preservation of justice in society.