ISLAMABAD: Two recent landmark judgements of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) have a lot of material to serve as a guiding principle for the Imran Khan government, which has decided to give Relief to sick inmates, who can’t be treated in jails, prisoners above 65 years of age and adolescent children involved in petty crimes.Both the verdicts were handed down in the cases relating to bail pleas of deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in January and October this year. They stressed that the government failed to fulfill its duty in providing respite to the deserving inmates although it has abundant powers.“This judgement may be taken as an eye-opener for the federal as well as provincial governments to rescue the inmates suffering from serious illness by exercising powers under Section 401 CrPC [Criminal Procedure Code] and to relieve them of their plight,” the ruling said.The two decisions pointed out the elaborate authority available in the existing laws—Pakistan Prisons Rules (PPR) and CrPC.—to the provincial governments to set such inmates free which they should exercise. But sadly they don’t exercise their authority to provide succor to the ailing prisoners, the noted with dismay. It was stated after the cabinet meeting that the data of such inmates is being collected from the provinces.One verdict said that under the present laws the provincial government can, on its own, pass any order regarding the suspension of sentence and where the suspension is conditional the concerned prisoner has to give consent to it. On the other hand, under Section 401(2) CrPC an application can be made by any inmate to the provincial government for suspension of sentence and where such an application is made, the matter is referred to the court which passed the sentence which shall render its opinion and furnish it to the provincial government which then decides the matter. It is surprising that despite a clear provision being present in the law is not agitated commonly, the ruling said.“Every person has the right to life which now has an extended meaning and includes the right to enjoy the amenities of life,” the judgement said adding that the State has responsibility to ensure this fundamental right of every individual even a person who is in incarceration and serving sentence. It is the fundamental obligation of any government to provide medical care for those whom it is punishing by incarceration. Generally, the inmate relies upon the prison authorities to take care of his medical needs; however, if the State fails to do so or nature of ailment is such that cannot be taken care of by the jail authorities, resort can be made in exceptional circumstances seeking for suspension of sentence. The denial on the part of the State in such exceptional circumstances to release any prisoner amounts to infliction of such unnecessary suffering which is not in accordance with the present standards of decency.The verdict said that the Supreme Court has observed that the word life is very significant because it covers every facet of human existence. Life includes all such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with dignity legally and constitutionally. This fundamental right is enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution, and the State is to ensure that the right is guaranteed to all, including the prisoners serving sentence or facing trial. It is not out of place to observe that the state of our prisons is such that in most of them even the basic amenities like toilets, recreation areas and appropriate medical facilities are not available and inmates during the course of serving sentence die at times due to lack of proper care and medical attention.The ruling said that the State urgently needs to look into this aspect and provide best medical care which any person could have availed if he was not incarcerated. It said the rule of law in every civilised society plays the pivotal role in ensuring that every state organ is working according to its obligations and exercise responsibilities as provided in the constitution and the law. The Executive cannot be absolved of its responsibilities as important as ensuring the right to life enshrined in the constitution.The judgement observed that the PPR prescribes procedure for release of prisoners on bail suffering from diseases. Rule 143 says the jail superintendent will refer the case for release of prisoner suffering from serious illness with the consent of the officer in-charge of the prosecution in whose jurisdiction the inmate’s offence was committed if the disease is likely to prove fatal if the prisoner remains in prison; there is reasonable chance of recovery if he is released; the inmate has not done any willful act, since he has been in prison, to produce or aggravate his disease; the medical officer (MO) and the Medical Superintendent of the District Headquarter Hospital (DHQ) recommended the release and certify that the disease is of the nature prescribed; and the prisoner has not more than six months to remain in prison before the expiry of his sentence.It also cited Rule 146 which says the jail superintendent may recommend a prisoner for premature release who owing to old age, infirmity or illness is permanently incapacitated from the commission of further crime of the nature of that for which he has been convicted. The case shall be submitted to government through the Inspector General (IG), Prisons. It shall be accompanied by the MO’s recommendations. The IG will, in all such cases, obtain the medical opinion of the medical board which will be convened by the Director of Health Services.The judgement said a bare perusal of these rules shows that the jail superintendent has the authority to release a prisoner suffering from serious illness. Under Rule 197, where it is necessary to remove a convicted prisoner or an under-trial to hospital outside the prison for operative or other special treatment, the same is permissible under certain conditions.It pointed out that under Section 401 of CrPC, the provincial government/Executive Authority has ample power to suspend the sentence of any prisoner on any ground, whatsoever. The section says when any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the provincial government may at any time without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.Whenever an application is made to the provincial government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, it may require the presiding judge of the court before or by which the conviction confirmed to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reason for such opinion.If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the provincial government, not fulfilled it may cancel the suspension or remission, and thereupon the person in whose favour the sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence. The condition on which a sentence is suspended or remitted may be one to be fulfilled by the person in whose favour the sentence is suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will.
11-25-2019, 09:41 AM
Relief to sick prisoners: Two IHC judgements afford landmark guide
العرض العادي
