Pakistan Journal of Criminal Justice

Education or Formality? From Policy to Practice in Prison Education Programmes in Punjab, Pakistan

Daud Aslam — 2026-10-05

Education in prison occupies an underexamined position within correctional policy. Although prisoners are deprived of liberty, imprisonment does not ordinarily extinguish their entitlement to education. Contemporary international standards increasingly recognise prison education as part of the broader right to education and encourage correctional institutions to provide meaningful access to academic, vocational, technical, cultural and other forms of learning. Yet formal educational provisions do not necessarily demonstrate that prisoners have meaningful access to education in practice. The distinction between policy commitment and institutional implementation is the central concern of this study.The article examines the implementation of prison education programmes in Punjab, Pakistan, by analysing the relationship between the governing legal framework, departmental policies, institutional arrangements and educational practices reported within individual prisons. A qualitative documentary multiple-case study design was employed, combining legal analysis with a comparative review of provincial and prison-level documentary sources. The documentary analysis examined the Prisons Act, 1894, the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, relevant Punjab prison policies, departmental information, prison-level documentation and evidence concerning educational provision. The study conceptualised implementation as a process extending from legal entitlement and institutional capacity to access, delivery, participation, completion and recognition.Analysis of the existing legal and administrative framework indicates that education is formally embedded within Punjab's prison system. Punjab Prisons reports formal education, adult literacy, technical and vocational courses, language education, Quranic education, computer courses and opportunities extending to higher academic levels. Prison-level information, however, shows considerable variation in the nature and scope of this provision. The existence of educational programmes should not be treated as sufficient evidence of effective implementation. Prison education must instead be assessed through a policy-to-practice framework that can identify where institutional, administrative, infrastructural and resource constraints interrupt the implementation process. The article shifts attention from the formal availability of prison education to the institutional processes through which policy becomes, or fails to become, an experienced reality for prisoners in Punjab.

Who Answers for the Conviction Gap? External Oversight of Gender-Based Violence Case Handling in Pakistan

Maryam Fatima Fakhar — 2026-10-01

Though Pakistan has adopted various legal measures for improving the handling of gender-based violence (GBV) cases, the statistics of convictions remain worryingly low, and available institutional information suggests inefficiencies within the process from reporting of a case to its adjudication. The question raised by this paper is “Whom should one hold accountable in case the case of GBV falls through on account of non-reporting, wrong classification, improper investigation, forensic failure, poor prosecution, witness intimidation, or inexplicable delay?” Through doctrinal and socio-legal analysis of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021, the National Commission for Human Rights Act 2012, the Police Order 2002 regime, and witness protection legislations at federal and provincial levels, as well as through examining the Canadian experience of third-party review of sexual assault investigations, this paper explores the issue in light of available empirical data on case attrition in Pakistan. The paper concludes that the accountability system in Pakistan is not absent; however, it is fragmented and uneven, and not based on the lifecycle of a GBV case. It further indicates that the headline conviction percentages, as well as the national rape conviction rate of 0.5% produced by the Sustainable Social Development Organization (SSDO) for 2024, cannot be interpreted as cohort-specific conviction rates, and that the reported statistics include unreconciled totals. The paper suggests, on a conditional and pilot-tested basis, the establishment of a statutory and independent GBV Case Review and Accountability Commission (GBV-CRAC) with provincial review committees, standardized stage-specific information, complaint mechanisms that are safe for the survivors and referrals to existing bodies of discipline, prosecution, human rights and courts. The proposed institution shall not adjudicate on guilt, influence court judgments or replace police investigations. It argues that external review should function as a preventive and procedural accountability mechanism, which has been conceived with provisions of due process, privacy, institutional independence and federal/provincial jurisdiction, and that its implementation should follow institutional mapping, file audit and evaluation

Thin Accountability, Perverted Discretion, and Systemic Failure: Applying Bovens, Raz, Fuller, and Democratic Policing Theory to the Police of Punjab, Pakistan

Muhammad Noor Ul Hassan — 2026-10-02

The system for police accountability in Punjab includes constitutional guarantees, the oversight of statutory mechanisms established by the Police Order 2002, disciplinary action procedures, recourse to judicial remedies, and the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act 2022. Nevertheless, court rulings and human rights reports have continued to report illegal detention, refusal to register complaints, and instances of custodial torture. This article seeks to explain why the system of safeguards in Punjab does not effectively guarantee police accountability. It uses Bovens’s definition of accountability as the relationship between an actor and a forum, Raz’s rule of law principle on the discretion of crime prevention organizations, Fuller’s principle of congruence, and democratic policing approach in Bayley’s tradition. Three interrelated but distinct issues are differentiated: failure to operationalize statutory oversight institutions, illegal/incongruent exercise of powers available, and the systemic incentive structure that enables this state of affairs. The core argument in this paper is qualified: the problem is primarily operational but not solely operational. Legal examination is further needed in relation to the Police Order itself, the history of the amendments made to it, the issues of procedure in respect of prosecuting offenders, and the relationship between the Torture Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this context, doctrinal analysis and documentary analysis, utilizing the cases provided, are employed in making reform suggestions.

Stakeholder Perceptions of Forensic Infrastructure and Evidentiary Practice in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan: An Exploratory Socio-Legal Study

Mehwish Saqib Khalil — 2026-10-04

Background: The evidentiary value of forensic evidence depends on validated methods, an intact chain of custody, adequate infrastructure and consistent procedures. Objective: To explore how professionals positioned along the evidence pathway in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Pakistan, perceive forensic infrastructure, the uniformity of forensic protocols and the evidentiary weight given to forensic evidence. Methods: An exploratory cross-sectional survey of 50 purposively sampled respondents (10 each of investigation officers, forensic medicine experts, medical students, lawyers and judges) was combined with doctrinal analysis of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forensic Science Agency Act 2020 and leading case law. Between-group differences were examined using Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact tests. Results: Disagreement that KP's forensic infrastructure meets modern standards (90%) and that standardized protocols are uniformly followed across the province (80%) was high in every group, with no significant between-group differences. Perceptions of evidentiary weight, however, differed sharply by group (p < 0.001): 37 of 40 non-judicial respondents disagreed that forensic evidence receives adequate weight compared with ocular testimony, against 3 of 10 judges, half of whom were neutral. Conclusions: Perceived infrastructural and procedural weakness appears to be shared across professions, whereas the question of evidentiary weight divides those who produce and handle forensic evidence from those who evaluate it in court. These exploratory findings cannot be generalized beyond the sampled respondents, but they support evaluating reforms that address the whole pathway from crime scene to court rather than laboratory expansion alone.