April 8, 2026
By Iqra Manzoor
LAHORE
A high-level committee of the Punjab Assembly has declared that a controversial colonial-era legal provision effectively criminalises poverty and must be abolished, raising serious concerns about its compatibility with constitutional rights and modern democratic values.
The Committee on Legal Reforms and Subordinate Legislation met at the Punjab Assembly Secretariat under the chairmanship of Speaker Punjab Assembly Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan to review recent amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab, 1997, along with broader issues related to outdated criminal laws and police accountability.
Section 55(1)(b) under scrutiny
A key focus of the meeting was Section 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 — particularly clause 55(1)(b), which allows police to arrest individuals without a warrant on the grounds that they have “no ostensible means of subsistence.”
The committee strongly criticised the provision, terming it a colonial relic that penalises poverty rather than criminal conduct. Members noted that such a law is inconsistent with fundamental constitutional guarantees, including the rights to liberty, dignity, equality, and freedom of movement. They emphasised that poverty, homelessness, or lack of resources cannot, in themselves, justify police action against any citizen.
Advocate Supreme Court and senior law associate at AGHS, Shabbir Hussain spoke to Voicepk on the matter.
“Section 55(1)(b) effectively criminalizes poverty by allowing arrests solely for having ‘no ostensible means of subsistence’, giving law enforcement agencies excessive discretionary powers. The committee’s recommendation to abolish this provision is logical, as it would protect fundamental rights and reduce the risk of arbitrary arrests.
Historically, the law has excessively affected the poor, homeless, and marginalized, often resulting in harassment, unwarranted detention, and exploitation.”
Committee members highlight ground realities
Uzma Kardar, an MPA and a member of the Committee on Legal Reforms and Subordinate Legislation, also spoke to Voicepk, highlighting how the law has impacted vulnerable communities.
“The committee members really emphasized on the abolishment of this section because many innocent people were being nabbed by the police without proper investigation,” she said. “This was in conflict with the fundamental rights of the people especially those who are marginalized and belonging to desi households and did not have money or awareness of the laws and legal frameworks.”
Kardar added, “This section gave police the power to arrest any person who they think is ‘suspicious’. This gave police a license to just grab anybody. Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan also stressed on the need for this reform. Through this reform, we are trying to rationalize and ensure the fundamental rights of the people.”
Proposed legal reforms and safeguards
A detailed reform proposal presented during the session recommended the complete removal of clause 55(1)(b), along with related provisions, to prevent misuse of authority.
The committee also reviewed Section 55(1)(c), which empowers police officers to make arrests based on suspicion. It proposed replacing vague criteria such as a suspect’s “repute” with more objective standards, including prior convictions within a defined period and reasonable evidence of intent to commit a crime.
“The provision clashes with constitutional guarantees of liberty, dignity, and equality, as it targets socio-economic status rather than actual wrongdoing or criminal behavior,” explained Shabbir Hussain, adding that reforms are necessary to prevent arbitrary arrests and ensure accountability. “Safeguards could include clearly defined criteria for arrest, proper documentation, evidence-based procedures, and mechanisms to hold authorities accountable.”
Debate on other colonial-era laws
Members pointed out that courts in the past have raised concerns over such provisions, terming arbitrary arrests under these clauses as an abuse of power. Comparative legal examples were also discussed, noting that similar vagrancy laws have already been repealed or struck down in several countries, including India.
Hussain provided a broader legal context.
“The CrPC contains several colonial-era provisions aimed more at controlling the population than ensuring fair justice. Sections 144 (restricting assembly and movement), 107–110 (requiring bonds for suspicious behavior), 151 (preventive arrests), and 54/55 (arrests of vagabonds or suspected persons), along with the sedition law, reflect a colonial mindset designed to suppress opposition and maintain authority, often leading to harassment rather than effective crime prevention. These provisions grant authorities wide discretion and can undermine fundamental rights such as due process, personal liberty, and freedom of expression.”
Responding to whether the committee plans to review other such provisions, Uzma Kardar said, “We do not plan that yet, because when it comes to Section 144, it deals with the security and sometimes, the government needs to enforce it to ensure the safety of the people and their property. But when it comes to sedition laws, they have that element on which they can be reviewed and the committee might review them if they think they are in conflict with the fundamental rights of the citizens.”
LHC strikes down sedition law as unconstitutional
In a landmark 2023 ruling, Justice Shahid Karim of the Lahore High Court declared the colonial-era sedition law unconstitutional, stating that it violates constitutional protections for free speech. Introduced in 1860, the law had long been criticised for enabling governments to target political opponents, journalists, and activists under vague charges of “disaffection” against the state. Rights advocates welcomed the decision as a step toward safeguarding dissent, while also calling for a broader review of similar colonial-era provisions still in force.
Implementation challenges
Regarding Section 55 specifically, Kardar said that the matter was in the pipeline and the Speaker had already given the direction to the police and the home department to give a detailed report.
“In the next meeting, they will present their findings and the committee will take it to the next step.”
The committee also highlighted gaps in the implementation of existing laws, particularly delays in framing rules, and stressed the need for binding timelines to ensure legislation is effectively operationalised.
It further took up the issue of police accountability, calling for the immediate establishment of the Provincial Public Safety and Police Complaints Commission, as envisaged under the Police Order, 2002, and directed authorities to remove legal and administrative hurdles in setting up similar bodies at the district level.
Need for accountability and rights-based policing
“Replacing vague terms like ‘repute’ with clear, measurable standards is crucial for transparency. It limits discretionary abuse, strengthens accountability, and better protects the rights of citizens. Efforts to reform colonial-era laws indicate a shift toward a rights-based legal system. However, resistance within government institutions, prevailing social attitudes, and gaps in implementation may limit their overall impact,” Hussain added.
Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan stated that while police autonomy is important, it must be accompanied by strong democratic oversight to ensure transparency and public trust.
The committee also directed Punjab Police to provide complete data on arrests, actions, and cases registered under Section 55 to facilitate a comprehensive review of its application.
The committee concluded that without meaningful legal reform and robust accountability mechanisms, the goals of good governance, rule of law, and public confidence in institutions cannot be achieved.