Constitution of Pakistan 1973 has guaranteed fundamental rights[1]. Under the constitution some codes deal with the relevant subjects of law. Pakistan Penal Code 1860 governs the crime and their penalties in Pakistan. However, it comprises of many laws which were made during the colonial era some laws of which are unexplained and some are outdated and require to be amended. One of those laws is the right to self-defense which is unexplained and the boundaries of which have not been defined due to which we see that it is the most important but the most unexecuted provision. Unexecuted because of two factors; no threshold for Necessity and Proportionality. All over the world where there is a right of self-defense there is proper criteria defined under the Doctrine of Necessity[2] and the Doctrine of Proportionality[3]. Because in order to prove an action taken in reflex or emergency as valid, it has to be proven that the action fulfilled the requisites of necessity and proportionality but the provisions of self-defense i.e: Section 96-106 PPC clearly lack a defined criteria because of which people do not use the right to self-defense as their defense in their court neither the police registers the case based upon the FIR lodged on the provisions of self-defense. It results in the famous cultural saying:
“In case you resist a robbery at your dwelling either you have to commit 302 or you have to be a victim of 302.”
Obviously if the law of Pakistan gives every citizen the right to bear and possess arms then it has also to be defined that how, when and where those arms can be utilized in a legitimate way. Due to this undefined and ambiguous provision, people hesitate to resist or protect their dignity[4] and their family and the criminals do not hesitate supervening into one’s private space/dwelling because they do know that they won’t be resisted. Another aspect starts after a person takes an action using the right to self-defense. It is clear that the person who used the right cannot register an FIR based upon the right to self-defense so he turns the other way. With the help of local police, an FIR gets registered that robbers have been killed due to the firing of their own companions and that creates a new loophole. The heirs of the deceased robbers go for private complaints before the courts and they hold the police party and the person who used the right to self-defense as responsible for the action. Meaning thereby, an undefined provision of law has gave birth to many complex loops. In our country, majority is unaware of their right to self-defense. If we take a look on United States of America, as per the first ten amendments, every citizen has the right to bear arms and using the righty to self-defense is a common practice among the citizens of USA. They takeout their arms even if they see an in authorized entity entering their space. I am not supporting an open use of arms but if the state has given the citizens with the right to self-defense, then it should also define a criteria for the same. The provisions of self-defense i.e: Section 96-106 should be amended and explanations should be added for the sake of public awareness. Jurists should explain how, when, where and why the right of self-defense could be used as the juristic writings are a source of law[5]. I would say that if it was developed as fundamental right, the state wouldn’t have needed departments like CCD because a sense of hesitation and fear is needed to be developed in the hearts of criminals which is a major lack. Deterrence cannot be developed by using guns and committing extra-judicial murders rather it can be developed when there is a fear of law. An unexplained law is more dangerous than no law at all because it is obvious that without a proper explanation and execution of a particular law, people would go for remedies which are irrelevant and this practice then gives birth to complexities, ambiguities and eventually injustice as I explained above that how using an alternate remedy brings injustice to the person using the right to self-defense, police party and the robbers too. Right to dignity and Right to life[6] are fundamental rights and every citizen has the right to protect his dignity and life but it is clearly disappointing that this right is actually a gun without bullets.
[1] Article 1-25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973
[2] PLD 1994 SC 363
[3] 2025 P L C (C.S.) 1477
[4] Article 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973
[5] Jurisprudence: VD Mahajan
[6] Article 9 of The Constitution of Pakistan 1973
