' This petition involves criminal misc. Proceedings under section 491, Cr. P.C., initiated to seek directions from this Court, requiring that 196 detenus, allegedly, detained at the brick-kiln of the respondents Haji Muhammad Bux Chandio and Chaudhry Bashir, be brought before the Court and on satisfaction that such persons are being held in unlawful custody, without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner, may be extricated and, forthwith, set at liberty.
The petition, which is moved by one of the relatives of several alleged detenus, out of the total number of 196 persons, as aforesaid, proceeds in the background that such persons are made to work at the referred brick-kiln (Bhatta) as bonded or forced labour, without their free will and under guards, equipped with fire-arms and other deadly weapons. It is said that such persons stand totally deprived of outside contact even on occasion of bereavements of their kith and kin some of whom are outside the fold. Their situation is said to have worsened after a large number of Bhatta workexs were set at liberty by this Court, whereupon the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, allegedly, lost all patience, redoubled the guards and banned all sorts of movements of those held by them and ordered confinement, strictly, within the premises of the said Bhatta. They arc, currently, under threats of imminent death if they attempted to escape. Women and minor children, male and female, are included in this hapless lot of people. It is further said that there are no advances of "Peshgis" against such detenus and yet the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 deduct considerable amounts on that pretext. In short, the alleged detenus are stated to be working under virtual slavery.
2. This petition, which was filed on 30-8-1989, was initially subjected to an order of pre-admission notice. Subsequently, there have been moves and countermoves for bringing on record material by way of affidavits and even depositions to show, on the one hand, that a case for intervention of this Court was made out and, on the other, that no state of detention whatever existed.
3. On the record of this case arc also found to have been placed copies of a detailed order rendered by me in the similar case of Meer Safdar All v. Ali Mardan, passed on 21-3-1989, in Criminal Misc. Application No, 84 of 1989 (1989 P Cr. L J 2459), of orders in Amanat Ali v. Haji Saifullah and others (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No, 114 of 1989), authored, on 4-6-1989, by my learned brother Abdul Rahim Kazi, J., to similar effect and of orders in Ranjha v. Muhammad Siddique Nizamani and another (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No, 153 of 1989), passed, on 31- 7-1989, to like effect, by my learned brother Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J.
4. In these circumstances and recording relevant facts on 18-1-1990, it appearing to me that a prima facia case under section 491, Cr. P. C., was made out, I admitted this petition to regular hearing. No further notices to the respondents were found necessary as the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, on preadmission notices, were being represented by Mr. Muhammad Ismail Hamirani and the State through Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.-G. As per the same order respondents Nos.1 and 2 were required to submit affidavits indicating the persons shown in the petition to be actually working with them, if any, and also to undertake to produce such persons, if they so wished, in the Court, for verification of their being free to move and go about, as they pleased. Date of hearing was fixed on 22-1-1990 but till then issuance of rule nisi was deferred.
5. In response some 148 persons, men, women and children, have appeared in Court today, according to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on their own volition but the former say that they were detained at the brick-kiln of respondents, Haji Muhammad Bux Chandio and Chaudhry Bashir Ahmed. A list of such persons, on direction, has been prepared in Court by the Reader of the Court and is signed by him. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Hamirani, representing the respondents Nos.1 and 2, says that the latter have no objection whatsoever to these persons going wherever they would and working wheresoever they might and so far as any monetary dues and claims of the respondents thereto are concerned, the respondents would only pursue such lawful remedies as may be permissible to them and none other or others. This, however, does not dispose of the controversy.
The alleged dctenus are vocal in protesting that they shall be made to revert to so-called captivity even after they have been released following upon the orders of the Court. I cannot see as to how that can happen without involving contumacious disregard of orders. Plainly, once the alleged detenus have been set at liberty they cannot be taken back in what may, arguably, tantamount to captivity nor should there be a question of their being retaken in any form of unlawful custody or even subjected to what may constitute unlawful restraint. These persons, men, women and children, have, apparently, come from a distant place in Badin and without getting enmeshed in avoidable controversies their freedom has to be ensured in this Court. There is, as reflected above, an elaborate order of this Court reported as Safdar All v. All Mardan 1989 P Cr. L J 2459 and I cannot see as to how a different view in this matter can be taken. Furthermore, such order has been followed, as observed earlier, by at least two other learned Judges of this Court.
6. There has been much debate in the past for taking stock of all kinds of prevalences of the character alleged in these proceedings. Legislative, judicial and executive cognizance, at all levels, has been publicly pleaded. The malady is by no means peculiar to Bhatta workers and, in varying degrees, other fields of activity share in this ignominy. Judicial forums can act only when moved.
The Supreme Court and the High Courts are on record having stepped in whenever the emerging situations so warranted. Much, however, remains to be done at the executive and legislative levels.
Till then, it will be for the Courts alone to implement the existing law as best as can be done. This, inter alia, may be done either under Article 199 of the Constitution or even in terms of section 491 Cr.P.C. Which latter provision itself is broad enough to include all illegal or improper detentions, public and private, and carries a mandate for ensuring treatment in accordance with law, making no distinction in constitutional, subconstitutional and even universally recognized, applicable, rules of international law.
' Constitution of Pakistan declares slavery to be non-existent and forbidden and no law can permit or facilitate its introduction into Pakistan in any form. Similarly, the Constitution forbids all forms of forced labour or traffic in human beings. Likewise, no child below the age of fourteen years shall be engaged in any factory or mine or any other hazardous employment. The Constitution also makes the dignity of man to be inviolable. Further, all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. The State is required to secure the well being of the people and to provide for all citizens, within the available resources of the country, facilities for work and adequate livelihood, with reasonable rest and leisure. The right to free movement throughout Pakistan, the right not to be deprived of life or liberty and the right to be protected against unlawful detention or custody are, all, rights granted and guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan; Articles 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 25 and 30 of the Constitution. Much of this, if not more, is also assured in the United Nations Charter. Such rights have to be jealously guarded by all concerned let alone the Courts. It needs hardly be pointed out that men are born free, have a right to remain free and such freedom cannot be trifled with.
' It may be advantageous also to glance at what was said in similar circumstances In re: Safdar Ali ibid. It was said that bonded or forced labour was termed as unlawful compulsory labour under section 374, P.P.C. And made punishable as such. Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement fell within the purview of sections 342, etc. P.P.C. And were equally culpable. Other laws transgressed in such matters may be cited ad infinitum. I have no hesitation in reiterating these principles here, but, to balance the situation, would venture to reproduce below an excerpt, occasioned on a similar assertion as that of Mr. Hamirani, from the case of Safdar Ali ibid: "Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Leghari, however, states that if such course is permitted similar victimisations elsewhere in the country would go on undeterred and that Human and Fundamental rights, which are what is involved here, shall continue to be trampled under those, who for selfsame reasons, are disposed to destroying the very basis of human existence. It seems to me that this is not a case in which any lenient view of the situation can be taken. However, at the same time, no more need be done than that which is in consonance with justice and fairplay."
7. As against the forebodings of the detenus, Mr. Hamirani, on his part, expresses apprehension that, solely, to put the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the wrong, the alleged detenus, set at liberty and at large, may start resorting to telegrams, insidious correspondence and even applications, falsely, alleging violations of orders and against that eventuality the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 required to be safeguarded. These, much like the dread of the dentenus, are unnecessary and premature fears and nothing more need be said on the subject than that any false or motivated incursions shall be dealt with according to the standard norms in judicial proceedings.
8. I would, at this stage, therefore, prefer to close the controversy by observing that all those who have forebodings of any character for what the future holds can do no better than to wait, watch and hold their peace and, as the axiom goes, attempt at crossing the bridge only when they come to it and not before.
9. Acting on the referred law and the principles flowing therefrom, nothing deters this Court from, formally, setting all those persons at liberty as are indicated and reflected in the list prepared and signed by the Reader and made part of these proceedings. It is so ordered. Mr. Abdul Rehman Shaikh and the alleged detenus respectively, specifically and vocally, stated in Court that no other person from the list of the alleged detenus in the main petition is any longer at the brick-kiln and, therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application has served its purpose fully in so far as the alleged detenus are concerned. With the words of caution administered earlier on, this petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.