2018-12-05

Tags:

2018 PLD 54 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MIAN ASIA
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance

Identity—Unknown parentage—Petitioner was a transgender (eunuch ) and authorities declined to renew his computerized National Identity Card on the ground that his parentage was not known and he referred to the name of his guru—Validity—Gender identity was one of the most fundamental aspects of life which referred to person’s intrinsic sense of being male, female or transgender—Every one was entitled to enjoy all human rights without discrimination on the basis of gender identity and recognition every where as a person before law—High Court observed that mindset of the society needed change and to realize that a person of diverse gender identity should also enjoy legal capacity in all aspects of life—Transgenders/eunuch s were as respectable and dignified citizens of Pakistan as any other person and they were also entitled for all Fundamental Rights including right of education, property and right of life which included quality of life and livelihood—Transgenders could not be deprived of their rights including right to obtain Computerised National Identity Card or citizenship for mere reason that they were transgenders/eunuch s and did not know whereabouts of their parents without any fault of their own—Public functionaries and policy makers were desired to be more sensitive towards restoring dignity of transgender community rather adding to their existing plight—High Court directed that copy of present judgment along with copy of policy be forwarded to all concerned including the Federal as well as Provincial Secretary Law, to circular the judgment widely within Pakistan so as to ensure that maximum members of transgenders community be benefited; Chairman PEMRA shall also ensure that clause 2 of the policy for launching awareness compaign be implemented through all modes of communication—Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2013 PLD 188 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Dr. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKI
Side Opponent : S.S.P. (OPERATIONS) RAWALPINDI

Arts. 9, 23, 25A, 51(2) & 184(3)—Constitutional petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution against molestation and humiliation of eunuch s and restoration of their fundamental rights—Fundamental rights of eunuch s—Scope—Present petition was instituted for the enforcement of fundamental rights of eunuch s, guaranteed under the Constitution including security of life and property, as they were more vulnerable amongst citizens—Rights of eunuch s were fully protected under the Constitution including the right to inherit property—eunuch s were not to be deprived from their legitimate right to movable and immovable property, their right to get education and their right of franchise—Participation jobs of eunuch s in all walks of life had to be ensured and they should not be intervened either by their relatives or by any other functionary—eunuch s enjoyed the same rights under the Constitution and were entitled to be respected by all segments of the society and they should be treated equally with other citizens—Supreme Court observed that in the past eunuch s were not treated at par with other citizens but now with the cooperation of the Federal and Provincial Governments and other organizations, eunuch s were being respected as citizens of the country—Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

2013 SCMR 187 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Dr. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKI
Side Opponent : SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (OPERATION), RAWALPINDI

Arts. 9, 14, 24(1), 25 & 184(3)—Constitutional petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution against molestation and humiliation of eunuch s and restoration of their fundamental rights—Fundamental rights of eunuch s— Scope— Duty of Federal and Provincial Governments—Scope—Fundamental rights of eunuch s were to be fully protected in terms of Art.184(3) of the Constitution—eunuch s in their own right were citizens of Pakistan and subject to the Constitution and their rights, obligations, including right to life and dignity were equally protected—No discrimination for any reason was possible against eunuch s as far as their rights and obligations were concerned—Federal and Provincial Governments were equally responsible for recognizing rights of eunuch s and Government functionaries, both at Federal and Provincial levels, were bound to provide them protection of life and property and secure their dignity.

2008 PLD 603 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HAYAT alias LIAQUAT
Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302, 201 & 34—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.40—Appreciation of evidence—Accused/applicant allegedly along with co-accused at midnight had cut male organ along with both the testicles of deceased with sharp-edged weapon; deceased had died due to the said operation; thereafter accused with, the help of two co-accused, who were not named in the charge sheet, had allegedly buried the dead body in a vacant plot—Trial Court had charged the accused persons, for committing the offence punishable under S.302, 201 & 34, P.P.C.—Validity—Death of deceased was in unnatural way; dead body as well as male organ and testicles of the deceased were recovered; question as to who committed murder of the deceased was a mystery; offence statedly had not been committed intentionally and deceased had volunteered for the said operation; it was common in the community of eunuch s to do such operations and they also have expertise in conducting such operations; accused/appellant while present in the court had given all information regarding culture, living behaviour and custom of the eunuch s; accused though had insistently denied having committed the offence, had voluntarily assisted the court in giving information about culture of eunuch s and practice of such operation being conducted by guru; accused had stated that he was not the guru and as such not involved in conducting the operation—Record had revealed that present was the case of no evidence against the present accused; not a single witness had implicated him with the commission of alleged offence; piece of evidence used against the accused was pointation of place of commission of crime and recovery of dead body, male organ and testicles—Article 41, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was attracted as said piece of evidence which was already in the knowledge of police party and general public prior to the pointation of the present accused, could not be used against him and the case was that of no evidence against the present accused—High Court, in circumstances, allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused, his sentence and conviction was set aside and directed to be released forthwith