Vishaal Ahmad Shakir vs Federation of Pakistan 2025

Court:

Lahore High Court

Date of Hearing:

29.08.2025 & 10.09.2025

Case Title and Full Citation:

Vishaal Ahmad Shakir vs Federation of Pakistan, etc. 2025 LHC 5858

Judge:

Justice Ali Zia Bajwa

Background and Facts:

This case came up through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) about how Defendants in detention were being exposed to the media. The petitioner pointed out that law enforcement agencies, including the Police, FIA, and Excise & Taxation Department, were allowing interviews and recording confessions of these individuals, which made them feel ashamed and infringed their dignity and rights. Reports of PEMRA and PTA showed that the authorities were aware of this problem. The Advocate General and Prosecutor General of Punjab admitted that such media exposure affects fair trials and can harm prosecutions. The petitioner asked the court to step in to stop these “media trials” and protect the constitutional rights of those in detention.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether allowing media interviews or recording confessions of under-custody accused infringe their basic rights, including dignity, privacy, and protection against self-incrimination.
2. Whether such media exposure amounts to a “media trial” that can affect the fairness of a trial by creating a preconceived notion.
3. How to balance the freedom of expression of the media (Article 19) with the rights of an accused under Articles 10-A (fair trial), 13 (self-incrimination), and 14 (dignity).
4. Whether law enforcement authorities can be held accountable for permitting media access to accused persons in custody.
5. What directions or regulations should be issued to ensure the media and authorities respect constitutional protections and prevent public humiliation of accused persons.

Arguments Presented:

Petitioner’s Arguments: The petitioner argued that allowing the media to interview or record confessions of under-custody accused humiliates them, violates their dignity and privacy, and infringes on their right to a fair trial. Such exposure creates a “media trial,” shaping public opinion about guilt before the court decides, which undermines the integrity of the justice system.

Respondents’ / State’s Position: The Advocate General and Prosecutor General of Punjab acknowledged that media exposure can affect prosecutions and compromise fairness. They emphasized that while media reporting is important, it must not interfere with ongoing investigations or prejudice the rights of accused persons.

Judgement and Reasoning:

The Lahore High Court, through Justice Ali Zia Bajwa, allowed the petition and held that media exposure of under-custody accused, including confessional statements, is a serious violation of their fundamental rights. The court highlighted that even in detention, an accused person does not lose their right to dignity, privacy, or a fair trial, and that publicizing their statements or humiliating them for media attention counts as a “media trial” which can prejudice judicial proceedings. While acknowledging the media’s right to freedom of expression under Article 19, the court ruled that this right is not absolute and must surrender when it conflicts with higher constitutional guarantees such as Articles 10-A (fair trial), 13 (protection against self-incrimination), and 14 (dignity). The court noted that such media practices harm both the accused and the integrity of the criminal justice system and held law enforcement authorities accountable for ensuring no media access that violates these rights. Clear directions were issued banning media interviews of under-custody accused, holding officers liable for violations, and emphasizing the need for regulatory SOPs to prevent public humiliation and protect the core principles of justice.

Ratio Decendi:

The core legal principle established by the court is that under detention, accused persons retain possession of their fundamental rights, including dignity, privacy, protection against self-incrimination, and the right to a fair trial, which cannot be undermined by media exposure. Any interviews, confessions, or public humiliation for media purposes constitute a “media trial”, prejudicing judicial proceedings and undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system. While the media has the right to freedom of expression under Article 19, this right is not absolute and must surrender when it conflicts with higher constitutional rights under Articles 10-A, 13, and 14. Law enforcement authorities are constitutionally obliged to protect these rights, and failure to do so can result in making them accused of wrongdoing.

Key Takeaways and Significance:

This judgment fortifies the protection of fundamental rights for under-custody accused, making it clear that dignity, privacy, and fair trial rights cannot be sacrificed for media coverage. It places a constitutional responsibility on law enforcement to prevent public exposure of accused persons and holds them accountable for any violations. The ruling also sets limits on media freedom, making it clear that reporting must not interfere with judicial processes or create prejudiced public opinion. Overall, it strengthens the integrity of the criminal justice system and ensures that constitutional safeguards take precedence over sensational reporting.

The court’s decision underscores that the rights of under-custody accused (dignity, privacy, protection against self-incrimination, and a fair trial) are important and cannot be violated by media’s freedom. It makes clear the limits of media reporting in criminal cases and stress upon the accountability of law enforcement in protecting these rights. By doing so, the judgment strengthens both individual constitutional protections and the overall credibility and integrity of the criminal justice system.