PLD 2011 SUPREME COURT 17

1. Case Title & Citation 

Bibi Fatima (Applicant) v. State (Human Rights Case No. 1356-P), PLD 2011 SC 17 (Pak.).  This case is reported in the Pakistan Law Digest 2011 at page 17, decided by the Supreme Court  of Pakistan. It is a seminal judgment that demonstrates the proactive use of Article 184(3) of the  Constitution to protect fundamental rights and ensure administrative accountability in human  rights violations. 

2. Court Name & Bench 

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan. 

Bench: Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Ghulam Rabbani, and Justice Khalil ur-Rehman Ramday. 

Type: Division Bench. 

The Bench was led by the then Chief Justice, known for his judicial activism and expansive  interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to human rights. The Court’s Human Rights  Cell treated the complaint as a Human Rights Case (No. 1356-P of 2009) and exercised suo motu  jurisdiction under Article 184(3). 

3. DATE OF JUDGMENT 

The judgment was delivered on 8 October 2010.  

4. PARTIES INVOLVED 

Petitioner: Mst. Bibi Fatima.  

Respondent: The State of Pakistan, represented through law enforcement agencies, including the  Balochistan Police, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), and the Ministry of Interior. 5. FACTS OF THE CASE 

The brief facts of the case are that Mst Fatim’s daughter, who was minor got abducted from her  custody by minor’s father, Abdullah Zehri. Legal actions, like filing complaints, and approaching  various government officers like Prime Minister Officer but no response has been shown by any law enforcement agency. Bibi Fatima left the country on temporary basis after getting disappointed  with the authorities but later on she came back to Pakistan to continue her struggle of pursuing  justice. Her complaint was finally permitted by the Prime Minister’s Office to the Supreme Court’s  Human Rights Cell, which registered it as Human Rights Case No. 1356-P of 2009. The case thus  fell under the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution,  empowering the Supreme Court to act in matters of public importance relating to enforcement of  fundamental rights. 

After the proceedings was held, it was brought into fact that no operative investigation has been  conducted by local police, despite the registration of an FIR under sections 335/34 of the Pakistan  Penal Code (PPC). In result of that, the Court issued directions to the Ministry of Interior and the  Ministry of Foreign Affairs to coordinate with Interpol for Abdullah’s arrest and the child’s  recovery. Following continued judicial intervention, Abdullah was found and deported from Iran,  though the recovery of the minor initially remained pending. Finally, after continuous efforts  between the FIA, Balochistan Police, and Interpol, the child was recovered from Iran and handed  over to her mother at the Taftan border in October 2010. The child was then brought before the  Supreme Court, which supervised her formal restoration to maternal custody. 

6. Issues Raised 

1. Whether the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 4, 9, and 14 of the Constitution were  violated due to failure of Pakistani law enforcement agencies did not act quickly and efficiently  on complaint? 
2. Whether the Supreme Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 184(3), could direct executive  and investigative authorities to recover an abducted child from a foreign jurisdiction?  3. What duties rest upon police and investigative institutions under constitutional and statutory law  to protect women and minors from abduction and ensure timely enforcement of justice?

        7. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 

Petitioner’s Submissions 

• In person, the petitioner said that the local police had disregarded her daughter’s kidnapping  despite her repeated appeals to political and administrative authorities, which amounted to  a denial of justice and a violation of her constitutional rights. 
• She argued that, as a foreign national married to a Pakistani, she was entitled to equal  protection of the law and fundamental rights regardless of nationality, citing Articles 4, 9,  and 14 of the Constitution, which together guarantee security of person, protection of  dignity, and enforcement of due process of law. 

Respondent’s Submissions 

• While acknowledging the investigation’s delays, the Deputy Attorney General and FIA  officials said that bilateral involvement through Interpol was necessary due to the  complexity of coordinating with Iranian authorities. 
• The respondents stressed that the Balochistan Police and the FIA moved quickly when the  Supreme Court intervened, resulting in Abdullah’s extradition and the minor’s eventual  recovery. 
• They argued that the government was restricted by international procedural rules for  extradition and repatriation rather than being careless. 

8. Judgment  

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry of the Supreme Court issued an order directing the  return of Bibi Mariam, a minor, to her mother, Mst. Bibi Fatima. To avoid being forcibly removed  from Pakistan, the Court ordered the petitioner to submit her and her daughter’s passports with the  Court Registrar. The Court ordered that commendations be entered into the service files of FIA  and police officials, expressing gratitude for their efforts. At the same time, it mandated that  Abdullah Zehri’s alleged PPC violations be tried separately in compliance with the law. The Court  further noted that this case demonstrated systematic law enforcement carelessness and ruled that  police and administrative officials have a need to take immediate action in all abduction instances,  without waiting for orders from higher courts. The judgment highlighted that the protection of  human rights is not imperfect to judicial orders but is an ongoing constitutional obligation of all  state organs. 

9. Ratio Decidendi 

The Court’s justification centered on Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which gives it the authority  to get involved in matters of public concern including the protection of basic rights. It concluded  that the right to life (Article 9), the right to dignity (Article 14), and the right to personal security (Article 4) were all directly impacted by the kidnapping of a child and the State’s inability to  provide an appropriate remedy. 

Chief Justice Chaudhry reaffirmed that all state institutions have a constitutional obligation to  administer justice, not just the court. Law enforcement must act diligently and equitably after a  criminal case is filed. The Court emphasized its precedent in Mst. Tahira Jabeen v. State (S.M.  Case No. 19 of 2009) and other previous rulings. 

In the post-2007 judicial restoration era, when the Supreme Court broadened its human rights  docket, the ruling also demonstrated the Court’s activist stance. The ruling underlined that when  executive agencies fail to carry out their statutory responsibilities, the judiciary acts as the ultimate  protector of people’ rights within Pakistan’s constitutional framework. 

The Court expanded the interpretive scope of Articles 9 and 14 beyond physical safety to include  effective and timely state protection by integrating domestic constitutional principles with  international human rights norms and citing Pakistan’s international obligations regarding the  protection of women and children. 

10. CONCLUSION 

The ruling in PLD 2011 SC 17 continues to be a pillar of Pakistani legal precedent for the  protection of women and children by means of judicial enforcement of fundamental rights. It  underlined the Supreme Court’s responsibility to uphold human dignity and to oversee law  enforcement when it comes to human rights issues.  

In addition to securing justice for the petitioner, the Court’s intervention made executive agencies  aware of their constitutional responsibilities. The case made clear how crucial it is for institutions  to be responsive, efficient, and respectful of the law. Additionally, it emphasized Pakistan’s  collaboration with international law enforcement through Interpol in situations involving cross border kidnappings.  

All things considered, the case represents the judiciary’s dedication to upholding human rights and  empowering those in need. 

11. Critical Observations 

The Bibi Fatima case stands as a profound reflection of Pakistan’s evolving human rights  jurisprudence and judicial activism. While it showcases the Supreme Court’s responsiveness to  individual suffering, it simultaneously underscores institutional deficiencies within law  enforcement and administrative frameworks.

1. Judicial Activism and Institutional Accountability 

The Court’s use of suo motu power under Article 184(3) is indicative of Pakistan’s growing judicial  activism. While praiseworthy for its humanitarian results, it also indicates that systemic justice is  still dependent on judicial intervention rather than independent administrative action. Therefore,  in order to guarantee proactive rather than reactive protection of basic rights, the ruling asks for  reform within enforcement systems. 

2. Gender and Vulnerability 

The case also demonstrates the increased risk that women, particularly foreign nationals, face when  trying to obtain justice. The Court’s compassionate approach focused on interpreting Articles 9  and 14 in a gender-sensitive manner, reiterating that the right to dignity encompasses social and  administrative acknowledgement of women’s equality before the law. 

3. Cross-Border Legal Cooperation 

Pakistan’s willingness to participate in international procedures for the enforcement of domestic  judicial orders was indicated by the Court’s dependence on Interpol cooperation. This highlights  the importance of bilateral collaboration in cross-border child abduction cases and the global  character of human rights enforcement. 

4. Broader Human Rights Implications 

The Court incorporated procedural justice into the definition of fundamental rights by reading  “security of person” and “dignity of man” broadly. As a result, it turned carelessness into a  constitutional infraction and connected administrative effectiveness to constitutional compliance.  This doctrinal development broadens the application of Article 9 and may have an impact on  subsequent state inaction instances. 

5. Need for Systemic Reform 

Although the ruling brought about individual justice, it also revealed pervasive bureaucratic  slowness. It is not sustainable to rely on the Supreme Court for redress. In order to stop similar  abuses, the case highlights the need for police reforms, interagency coordination structures, and  accountability procedures at the provincial level. 

In summary, PLD 2011 SC 17 is both a victory of judicial concern and a analysis of administrative inadequacy. It proves how constitutional courts can operationalize rights in practice but also  reveals that lasting justice requires vigorous institutions beyond judicial direction.

Bluebook Reference(S): 

1. Bibi Fatima (Applicant) v. State (Human Rights Case No. 1356-P), PLD 2011 SC 17 (Pak.).
2. Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973), arts. 4, 9, 14, 184(3).
3. Mst. Tahira Jabeen v. State, S.M. Case No. 19 of 2009 (unreported). 
4. Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), ss. 335, 34. 
5. Interpol Cooperation Frameworks, Federal Investigation Agency, Govt. of Pakistan (2009  Reports).