Respect for woman’s dignity not just a matter of personal morality but constitutional obligation, rules SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) ruled on Tuesday that respect for a woman’s dignity was not merely a matter of personal morality but a constitutional obligation the state expected of everyone in its service.

The declaration came as a two-member bench, headed by Justice Ayesha Malik and including Justice Shahid Waheed, rejected a plea filed by a former employee of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) against his compulsory retirement over the allegation that he had set his wife on fire.

“Off-duty conduct of sufficient gravity may constitute misconduct and acquittal in a criminal case does not undo misconduct independently established in departmental proceedings,” affirmed Justice Shahid Waheed in the nine-page judgement authored by him.

The plea was filed by Jawad Abbasi, who used to work as a cook in the IB, against a Jan 15 decision by the Federal Service Tribunal’s (FST) to uphold his compulsory retirement from service.

He had faced disciplinary proceedings under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020 over allegations that he had set his wife on fire and was ill-mannered and short-tempered. Abbasi was also accused of conduct that was criminal, unprofessional and prejudicial to good order and service discipline. Moreover, his conduct was said to have adversely affected the reputation and discipline of the IB.

The departmental proceedings found the charges established, and by an order dated June 14, 2024, he was penalised with compulsory retirement. His departmental appeal in the case had also been rejected, and his appeal pertaining to his service had been dismissed by the FST.

However, lower court acquitted him in the criminal case in the matter.

Before the SC, his counsel Aftab Alam Yasir argued that the matter at hand was a private and domestic one between the married couple, had no connection with the petitioner’s official duties, and that Abbasi’s conduct outside his workplace and office hours could not constitute misconduct under the Civil Servants Rules.

The counsel pointed out that his client had previously been acquitted by a trial court, further claiming that his wife had attempted suicide. He contended that the rejection of Abbasi’s plea following the departmental inquiry was erroneous.

In his judgement on the matter, Justice Waheed observed that the dignity of a woman, whether as a wife, sister, daughter, mother or a fellow citizen, was a fundamental value protected by the Constitution.

“Respect for that dignity is not merely a matter of personal morality; it is an obligation that the state is entitled to expect from every person in its service,” the judgement said.

It added that the conduct of a civil servant was not judged exclusively by the manner in which he performed his official duties. His character, integrity and conduct in private life may also become relevant where these factors bore upon his suitability to hold a public office, the discipline of the service or public confidence in the institution he served, Justice Waheed emphasised.

A person’s conduct towards those within his own home may, in appropriate circumstances, reveal qualities of character that could not be disregarded merely because the conduct occurred beyond the workplace, the judgement said.

“The walls of a home are not a jurisdictional boundary, and violence does not become private because it is committed behind a closed door,” Justice Waheed stated, adding that “fire does not become a family affair because it was lit indoors”.

“The allegation is not of a quarrel or a harsh word. It is that the petitioner set his wife on fire, an act which, if established, is among the gravest forms of violence one person can inflict upon another,” the judgement said.

It further stated: “It is no incident of married life; it is an assault on life and the dignity of a human being.”

The court also observed that the first information report (FIR) in the case was registered under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which carried the penalty for an attempt to murder, and that burn injuries to the woman independently attracted the provisions on hurt in Chapter XVI (offences affecting the human body) of the PPC.

The legislature had classified such conduct as a public wrong against the state, not a private dispute to be settled between spouses, the judgement said, adding that the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution and the inviolability of the dignity of a person under Article 14 protected a wife within her home as fully as any citizen in a public place.

“The Constitution does not stop at the threshold of a home; it walks in with every woman who lives there,” the judgement said.

Moreover, Article 25(3) permitted special provision for the protection of women, and the legislature had acted upon it through, among other enactments, the Punjab Protection of Women against Violence Act, 2016 and the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2020 for the Islamabad Capital Territory, the court observed.

In addition, Pakistan was a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, under which violence against women was recognised as a form of discrimination that the state must act to eliminate, the judgement said.

“The burning of women in their homes, frequently passed off as a kitchen or stove accident or as attempted suicide, is a grave and recurring social evil in this country,” stated Justice Waheed.

“The plea of suicide is often the final injury inflicted upon a burnt woman; having been robbed of her safety, she is then robbed of the truth, and her suffering is recast as her own doing,” he said in the judgement, adding that a public institution could not remain unconcerned about such an allegation against one of its own employees and that indifference would be a failure of institutional duty, not a mark of respect for privacy.

“Conduct of this gravity bears directly on the petitioner’s suitability for public service. A civil servant found, on proper inquiry, to have used potentially lethal violence against his own spouse displays a want of self-control and a disregard for human life,” the court declared.

It observed that such conduct was “wholly unbecoming” of a government servant and prejudicial to good order and service discipline.

“Where he then seeks to escape responsibility by casting the blame upon the victim, claiming that she set herself alight, he adds deceit to violence. A man who sets his wife on fire and then calls it her suicide has failed twice, first as a husband and then as a witness to the truth; such a man cannot be called a gentleman,” the court ruled.

The judgement said public confidence in the civil service rested on the assurance that those who served the state respected the dignity of those around them and a civil servant who denied that respect to his own wife forfeited the trust on which his office depended.

“Public service is a trust, and the conduct of those who hold it is a matter of public concern, at home as much as at work,” the judgement said. “Respect for women is not a private virtue that a civil servant may practise or neglect as he pleases; it is part of the character [of] the state.”