The perils of diluting constitutional safeguards

EDITORIAL: The recent judgment by a five-member Supreme Court bench on the admissibility of forensic experts’ reports in narcotics cases raises important questions about the balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of fundamental rights. While the majority four-to-one opinion held that merely identifying internationally recognised tests constitutes sufficient compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Rules, 2001, the dissenting note by Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan merits careful consideration for highlighting the dangers inherent in diluting procedural safeguards.

His observations acquire particular significance in the context of Pakistan’s criminal justice system, where allegations of fabricated cases and abuse of authority are not uncommon. His concern that narcotics laws have frequently been used to falsely implicate political opponents or individuals perceived as adversaries of influential persons reflects a troubling reality that needs to be rectified. Considering that convictions under our narcotics laws can result in lengthy imprisonment, substantial fines and lasting social stigma, legal safeguards are not mere technicalities but essential protections against miscarriages of justice. The principle repeatedly affirmed by superior courts – as pointed out by justice Malik – that ‘the harsher the punishment, the stricter the standard of proof’ applies to the present context because the consequences of an erroneous conviction are so grave.

The requirement that government analysts provide full testing protocols serves a vital purpose. It enables courts, defence counsels and independent experts to scrutinise the methods and procedures underlying forensic conclusions. Scientific evidence derives its credibility not simply from the qualifications of the analyst but from the transparency and verifiability of the process. If reports are reduced to little more than a list of tests performed, meaningful scrutiny becomes difficult, undermining public confidence in both the evidence and the fairness of the proceedings.

Justice Shahzad’s reliance on Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution is therefore particularly compelling. The right to be treated in accordance with law and the right to a fair trial are not abstract principles; they are practical guarantees against arbitrary state action. Hence, procedural requirements contained in legislation and related rules should not be viewed as obstacles to justice but as safeguards through which justice is secured. Indeed, law enforcement agencies face significant challenges in combating drug trafficking, a serious threat to public health and social stability. But efficiency cannot be allowed to override due process.

Justice Malik Shahzad’s dissenting note thus comes as a reminder that the criminal justice system must remain vigilant against the risk of wrongful convictions. The legitimacy of criminal prosecutions depends not only on ensuring that the guilty are punished but also on protecting the innocent from the misuse of state power. In cases where liberty, reputation, and even life prospects are at stake, strict compliance with evidentiary safeguards is a moral and constitutional imperative.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026