SHC orders forming body to review appointment, accountability mechanism for justices of peace

The Sindh High Court has taken exception to lack of standardised operation procedures for appointment and oversight of justice of peace and directed the home secretary to constitute a high-level committee to review the appointment process, scope of authority and accountability mechanism for justice of peace.

The direction came on a petition by a woman, Falak, who sought protection against registration of a case against her spouse in an underage marriage case. During the hearing, a division bench of the SHC headed by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar observed that no standard operating procedures (SOPs) existed for the appointment and oversight of justices of peace by the home department.

The high court observed that this regulatory gap created a room for potential misuse of authority, necessitating an immediate policy review. The SHC directed the home secretary to constitute a high-level committee to thoroughly review the appointment process, scope of authority and accountability mechanisms for justices of peace. The bench observed that the committee shall review the current criteria for appointing the justices of peace and propose necessary reforms to enhance transparency, accountability and prevent any misuse of authority.

The bench ruled that the committee shall identify instances where justices of peace exceeded their legal authority and recommend appropriate disciplinary measures and in cases of misconduct, consider revoking their powers. The committee shall also develop clear and comprehensive SOPs for the appointment, training and oversight of justices of peace, ensuring alignment with constitutional and legal mandates.

The SHC observed that the committee would include senior police officials, not below the rank of deputy inspector general (DIG), to ensure a comprehensive and impartial review. It directed the home secretary to submit a detailed report with findings and recommendations within two months, ensuring full compliance with the directives of the court.

Regarding the petitioner, who had been ordered to stay at a shelter home till the determination of her age through the ossification test to determine whether there had been a violation of the Sindh Child Marriage Restraint Act, 2016, the high court observed that the medical board had failed to conduct the ossification test.

The SHC observed that the petitioner could not be unlawfully detained against her will, as she had lawfully entered into a marital union.

The high court modified the previous order to uphold her fundamental rights and set the petitioner at her liberty to reside with her husband and continue her marital life within the boundaries set by Shariah.

The SHC observed that the case had been registered against the spouse of the petitioner under kidnapping charges however it was imperative to consider the statements and evidence presented before the court that the petitioner, who appeared on multiple occasions, had unequivocally denied the allegations, asserting that they were false and baseless.

The high court observed that the star witness in the case had provided testimony that directly contradicted the claims made in the FIR, further undermining its credibility.

The SHC quashed the criminal proceedings against the spouse of the petitioner with regard to her kidnapping but clarified that this order did not preclude the investigation officer or the complainant from pursuing legal remedies under the Sindh Child Marriage Restraint Act, 2016, should any actionable violation of the law be substantiated through proper investigation and due process. The high court observed that the appropriate legal forums remained available for addressing any legitimate concerns within the framework of the child protection laws.

The spouse of the petitioner asserted that he was fully capable of providing financial and emotional support to the petitioner and undertook that the petitioner would be allowed to continue her education as per her wishes and would not face any restrictions on visiting her parents.

The high court directed the spouse of the petitioner to furnish a personal recognizance (PR) bond in the sum of one million rupees with the Nazir of the court to ensure compliance with the stated assurances.