Hear child's voice,SC tells family courts
The apex court has ruled that all courts, particularly family courts and judges of the district judiciary must hear and respect the voice of the child in every custody and guardianship matter.
"This is not an aspirational goal but a binding obligation under the CRC [UN Convention on the Rights of the Child]," said a 12-page written order on a review petition filed by a father in a children custody case.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Article 3 mandates that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning them.
Article 12 of the CRC guarantees every child the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them, with due weight given in accordance with their age and maturity.
The court noted that earlier proceedings regrettably failed to provide the children an opportunity to be heard, an omission which, it said, undermines both domestic constitutional protections and our international commitments.
"Given the central importance of a child's voice in custody determinations, we found it imperative to re-examine the case to ensure that these rights are not only acknowledged but meaningfully upheld.
"To rectify this oversight and to ensure that the children's welfare and perspectives were given due consideration, this court deemed it necessary to interact directly with both children involved.
"The interaction enabled the bench to make an independent assessment of their emotional well-being, level of comfort, and expressed preference," the judgment added.
The verdict issued by a division bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi noted that courts, especially family courts, have a moral and legal responsibility to see, hear, and protect every child not as a passive subject of proceedings, but as a rights-bearing individual whose dignity must be safeguarded at every stage of the judicial process.
It also noted that in matters involving children, such as custody, guardianship, and family disputes, the courts must recognize that a strictly adversarial approach often exacerbates conflict, delays resolution, and undermines the child's sense of stability and security.
In contrast, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), particularly mediation, offers a more collaborative, efficient, and child-sensitive mechanism for resolving such disputes. While the CRC does not explicitly reference the term ADR, its spirit and structure clearly support its use.
"In General Comment No. 12 (2009), the UN Committee on the CRC explicitly encourages States to develop mechanisms that ensure meaningful child participation in family law proceedings, including through non-judicial and informal processes such as mediation.
"Such processes must be voluntary, child-friendly, and facilitated by professionals trained to respect the evolving capacities of the child and prioritize their best interests.
"Properly designed ADR mechanisms reduce the psychological burden on children, promote parental cooperation, and lead to faster, more sustainable outcomes that support the child's long-term welfare."
It said family courts and guardianship tribunals must prioritize mediation as a first recourse, particularly where parties demonstrate a willingness to engage in good faith.
"Adjudication should be pursued only when mediation fails or is deemed unsuitable due to concerns of safety, coercion, or imbalance of power.
"This approach not only aligns with our international obligations under the CRC but also reinforces the constitutional commitment to protect the dignity, welfare, and future of every child," it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Express Tribune
Punishment must be proportionate: SC
The Supreme Court has ruled that proportionality must be applied with discipline, care and sensitivity to context, especially in cases involving fundamental rights and human dignity. In a service matter involving a sub-inspector, the apex court stressed that the principle of proportionality offers a structured framework for judicial review of administrative actions. The four-page judgment, authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, explained that the principle of proportionality provides a structured framework for judicial review of administrative actions. "Developed across various constitutional jurisdictions, it involves a four-step test: (i) the measure must pursue a legitimate aim; (ii) be suitable to achieve that aim; (iii) be necessary, in that no less restrictive alternative exists; and (iv) strike a fair balance between the measure's impact on individual rights and the public interest." This court has recently introduced and adopted this four-stage test to assess the legality and fairness of administrative and disciplinary decisions. Such a framework ensures that any interference with rights is justified, necessary, and lawful," reads the four-page order. The judgment was passed in a service matter where the Punjab Service Tribunal had partially allowed the appeal of a sub-inspector and modified the penalty from a two-stage to a one-stage reduction in pay through an order dated February 2, 2016. According to the tribunal, while an investigation had been conducted, the prosecution "failed to produce even a shred of evidence" to substantiate the allegations. A division bench of the apex court, led by Justice Shah, heard the sub-inspector's appeal against the tribunal's ruling. The order noted that despite these clear findings, the tribunal opted only to reduce the penalty rather than exonerate the petitioner. "It appears that the Tribunal relied, albeit implicitly, on the principle of proportionality, finding the original penalty disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. However, this application was both legally flawed and logically inconsistent with its own conclusion when no misconduct was established. The Tribunal failed to properly exercise its discretion under Section 5 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, which empowers it to confirm, set aside, vary, or modify impugned orders. While the Tribunal has authority to vary the punishment in appropriate cases, such discretion must be exercised judiciously grounded in the record, legal standards, and principles of fairness," the order stated. The court noted that judicial interference in disciplinary penalties is only warranted when the punishment is "arbitrary, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations". "Once the Tribunal found that the allegations were wholly unsubstantiated, the only lawful outcome was to exonerate the petitioner." The judgment further elaborated that proportionality fosters a stable and systematic method for constitutional adjudication.
Express Tribune
29-05-2025
- Express Tribune
Children's voices missing from Pakistan's child rights policy: experts
Listen to article In Pakistan, children's voices are often absent from the policymaking process on child rights, with decisions typically shaped by experts, policymakers, and activists. This adult-centric approach, experts warn, fails to reflect the lived experiences and needs of children, undermining both the relevance and effectiveness of policies intended to protect them. 'When policies are designed solely from an adult perspective, they often don't align with children's age, interests, and needs,' said a child rights expert. 'This results in low engagement and weak implementation.' However, promising signs of change are emerging. A notable example is 16-year-old Abihah Batool, a student from Lahore and an active member of a child forum. She recently represented Pakistan at the United Nations' Annual Child Rights Convention in Geneva, where she advocated for a comprehensive social protection programme for children. She has also met with the Punjab Minister for Human Rights, the Chairperson of the Child Protection and Welfare Bureau, and a member of the National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) to present a charter of demands developed by children. 'From schools to national consultations and even global platforms, children in Pakistan have shown they can speak with insight, sincerity, and moral courage—if only they are given the chance,' said Abihah. She emphasized that social stigma, institutional weaknesses, and tokenistic inclusion continue to obstruct meaningful child participation. Ayesha Raza Khan, Chairperson of the National Commission on the Rights of the Child (NCRC), shared that Pakistan is leading the way in the South Asian region by including two children as members of the commission. 'We've also established a Child Advisory Panel with representation from across the country,' she noted. 'It is crucial that when we talk about child protection and rights, we start by listening to children themselves. Their perspectives must be taken seriously.' She pointed to a recent Supreme Court case on child custody as a landmark, where, for the first time, the court sought the children's preferences about which parent they wished to live with after separation. Iftikhar Mubarak, Executive Director of Search for Justice, highlighted Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guarantees every child the right to express their views on matters affecting them and to have those views taken seriously. 'This means creating safe, inclusive, and effective platforms where children can speak on critical issues such as education, violence, environmental change, gender equality, and mental health.' Despite these developments, child protection institutions across Pakistan— including in Punjab—remain dominated by adult professionals, with little or no representation of children themselves. Experts argue that this exclusion not only hinders children's development in confidence, leadership, and civic responsibility but also conceals serious issues like sexual abuse and domestic violence. "When children are excluded from shaping the policies that impact them, they feel alienated from society, which can lead to long-term inequality," experts warn. They urge policymakers to ensure meaningful inclusion of children as a foundational principle for building effective, inclusive, and sustainable child protection frameworks.
Business Recorder
29-05-2025
- Business Recorder
Disputes involving kids: Mediation offers a mutually beneficial solution: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that in matters involving children, such as custody, guardianship, and family disputes, the courts must recognise that a strictly adversarial approach often exacerbates conflict, delays resolution, and undermines the child's sense of stability and security. 'In contrast, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), particularly mediation, offers a more collaborative, efficient, and child-sensitive mechanism for resolving such dispute. While the CRC does not explicitly reference the term ADR, its spirit and structure clearly support its use,' said a two-judge bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi's verdict in children custody case. The bench gave children custody to their mother. The bench directed that all courts, particularly Family Courts and judges of the District Judiciary that 'the voice of the child must be heard and respected in every custody and guardianship matter'. The 12-page judgment, authored by Justice Mansoor, said that properly designed ADR mechanisms reduce the psychological burden on children, promote parental cooperation, and lead to faster, more sustainable outcomes that support the child's long-term welfare. Accordingly, Family Courts and Guardianship Tribunals must prioritise mediation as a first recourse, particularly where parties demonstrate a willingness to engage in good faith. Adjudication should be pursued only when mediation fails or is deemed unsuitable due to concerns of safety, coercion, or imbalance of power. It said that the principles enshrined in Articles 3 and 12 of the CRC, the primacy of the child's best interests and the right to be heard find clear constitutional resonance in Articles 9, 14, 25 and 34 of the Constitution. Article 9 guarantees the right to life, which includes the right to a healthy, secure, and meaningful life. Article 14 protects the inherent dignity of every person, including children. Article 25 enshrines equality before the law and nondiscrimination, and Article 34 obligates the State to ensure the protection of motherhood and childhood. It noted that collectively, these provisions establish a strong constitutional foundation for child justice and child-centered adjudication, aligning Pakistan's constitutional values with its international obligations under the CRC and other international instruments it has ratified16. The Constitution further reinforces these obligations. Article 25(3) empowers the State to enact special provisions for the protection of children, including measures that may favorably differentiate them from adults. The judgment underscored that courts are bound to approach all matters involving children through the lens of a dedicated child-centered and child justice framework, a judicial philosophy grounded in both legal and moral obligations to safeguard, nurture, and empower children within the justice system. The concept of child justice is broad and inclusive. It encompasses not only children in conflict with the law, who require rehabilitative and restorative processes rather than punitive sanctions, but also children in contact with the law, including those involved in custody and guardianship disputes and other civil proceedings who must be treated with dignity, heard, protected, and empowered throughout judicial proceedings. As custodians of justice, courts bear a heightened responsibility to prioritise the best interests of the child in all decisions affecting them. This principle, central to international child rights jurisprudence, demands that the judiciary transcend procedural formalism and engage substantively with each child's unique vulnerabilities, developmental needs, and future potential. Such an approach requires judicial sensitivity, active participation of children in proceedings (where appropriate), and the creation of child-sensitive courtroom environments that respect their dignity and ensure their voices are not only heard but meaningfully considered. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
