14. Inviolability of dignity of man, etc.

14. (1) The dignity of man and, subject to law, the privacy of home, shall be inviolable.

(2) No person shall be subjected to torture for the purpose of extracting evidence.

———-

— Right to dignity — Right to fair trial — Scope — One of the most compelling human values recognized as a fundamental principle is the right of human dignity which actually constitutes the basis of all fundamental rights and encapsulates the right to fair trial, justice and equality — When this fundamental principle is declared as a fundamental right its significance increases as it signifies the manner in which rights, norms, state practices and the law should be implemented and prescribes the limits — The State’s duty to secure human dignity is the lynchpin as it forms the bedrock upon which all fundamental rights stand —  Fundamental right to dignity acts as a compass that orients people and state functionaries in all their actions — Consequently, as a fundamental right it becomes a matter of judicial interpretation to determine whether executive decisions or legislative enactment have encroached upon these rights — It places a positive obligation on the State and requires it at all times that it protects and enforce the rights of the people so as to maintain their dignity — The right to dignity lends real meaning to human rights as it is inherent in every right protected by international human rights law — Therefore, when the right to fair trial and due process is invoked, so is the right to dignity which right under the Constitution is inviolable — Article 10A of the Constitution fortifies this right to fair trial and due process which is an essential requirement of human dignity. [2023 SCLR 31 = 2023 SCMR 1732]

— Right to dignity — Right to fair trial — Scope — The right to fair trial and due process are also important requirements of the rule of law — It ensures that the individual’s right to life, liberty and freedom prevails and that everyone enjoys the protection of law such that undue interference by the State is prevented — The Constitution mandates the protection and enforcement of Article 10A of the Constitution which in turn guarantees that the principles of fairness in the process and procedure will be followed for all parties so that they can establish their case — This right safeguards the dignity of a person even if prosecuted for a crime or facing a dispute before a court — In fact, the right to fair trial is sine qua non for the right to human dignity which must be preserved — Hence, the ultimate objective is to ensure fairness in the process and proceedings and fairness itself being an evolving concept cannot be confined to any definition or frozen at any moment, with certain fundamentals which operate as constants — The independence of the decision maker and their impartiality is one such constant — A reasoned judgment before a judicial forum is another constant without which the right to fair trial would become meaningless — The right of an independent forum of appeal is another relevant constant which ensures fair trial. [2023 SCLR 31 = 2023 SCMR 1732]

— Inviolability of dignity of man — Right to privacy — Guarding Mobile Phone Privacy: Unveiling Rights in the Digital Age — Scope — Human inclinations have no limits, it expands to religion, Sufism, ideology, politics, art, culture, customs, traditions, literature, music, Poetry, history, business, sports etc., anything can appeal to an individual in whose pursuit it explores books, knowledge vents like public libraries, websites on Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, correspondence with scholars etc., and such exploration of physiological knowledge is not prohibited under the law — Reason flies beyond comprehension, institutionalized processes and worldly scheme of avenues; it struggles, unless it is settled to an acquiesced concept of understanding — Until then if any information which the person wants to keep secret in his cell phone cannot be extracted except with his consent or as the law directs because privacy of home is subject to law as reflected from Article 14; therefore, if his limits or collection of information are against the law of land, then he can well be restricted through the process of law — As a fundamental constitutional right, the right to privacy is meant to take precedence over any other inconsistent provisions of domestic law — Article 8 of the Constitution provides that “any law, or any custom or usage having the force of law, in so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred under the Constitution, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.” — Article 8(5), furthermore, states that “the rights conferred by this Chapter shall not be suspended except as expressly provided by the Constitution.” [2024 CCJ 1 = 2024 PCrLJ 1 = 2023 LHC 4087]

— Inviolability of dignity of man — Right to privacy — Guarding Mobile Phone Privacy: Unveiling Rights in the Digital Age — Balancing Justice and Privacy: Court-Mandated Mobile Data Retrieval in Criminal Investigations — Scope — When any mobile phone is recovered from a suspect, and any data retrieval whereof from said phone is essential for criminal investigation, it could only be obtained with the permission of concerned Court with strict regard to privacy rights guaranteed under the Constitution. [2024 CCJ 1 = 2024 PCrLJ 1 = 2023 LHC 4087]

— Inviolability of dignity of man — Right to privacy — Guarding Mobile Phone Privacy: Unveiling Rights in the Digital Age — Balancing Justice and Privacy: Court-Mandated Mobile Data Retrieval in Criminal Investigations — Scope — For any property recovered on search of an arrested person an appropriate order can only be made by Magistrate concerned — This situation requires that Police officer if wanted to use such mobile/cell phone can request the Magistrate for its analysis in support of allegation in the FIR, and Magistrate after hearing the accused can pass order for examination and extraction of such information which is relevant to the case only, keeping strict regard to Article 14 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. [2024 CCJ 1 = 2024 PCrLJ 1 = 2023 LHC 4087]

— Inviolability of dignity of man — Right to privacy — Guarding Mobile Phone Privacy — Use of mobile data as evidence amounts to self-incrimination — Scope — Extracting data from a phone colours the testimony, in such case, as revealing the contents of one’s own mind which amounts to self-incrimination — Therefore, civil rights advocates say that the government can’t force anybody to tell them phone’s password — However, information collected from cell phone of an accused if reveals something the government already knew, and the government can prove that prior knowledge, then no question of self-incrimination arises. [2024 CCJ 1 = 2024 PCrLJ 1 = 2023 LHC 4087]