When the Punjab Assembly moved to scrap Section 55(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, a clause that allowed police to arrest anyone who had “no ostensible means of subsistence,” it did more than tinker with a statute. It offered a rare acknowledgement that many of Pakistan’s legal foundations were designed to discipline colonised subjects rather than serve citizens. This particular provision blurs the line between poverty and criminality. Colonial administrators wrote it to control large populations through fear and suspicion, and today it still haunts the most vulnerable.
In 2021, Lahore police used Section 55(1)(b) to seize two people, one of them a performing?arts teacher, simply because they could not convince an officer that they were gainfully employed. The law defines neither “ostensible means” nor a “satisfactory account”, due to which police discretion becomes a weapon, the poor are punished for being poor, and the rich are free to wander. Such injustices have roots in the same logic that allowed the authorities to wreak havoc on women’s lives under the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR). Similarly, Section 124?A of the Pakistan Penal Code, though struck down by the Lahore High Court in 2023, criminalised “disaffection” toward the government and carried a possible life sentence.
The pattern is clear – the poor, the dissenting and the marginalised bear the brunt of colonial legacies. Removing one clause will not heal decades of legal violence, and a systematic, time?bound review of all colonial?era laws is imperative. Rights advocates recommend replacing vague standards of arrest with objective criteria, documenting police actions and creating independent oversight. The Punjab Assembly’s own committee has urged that public safety commissions be finally constituted and that police be subjected to democratic scrutiny.
Decolonisation cannot end with symbolic amendments. It requires confronting the mindset–the assumption that citizens must be managed, not served. Pakistan’s independence was premised on self?rule and dignity, yet laws from 1898 and 1894 still define who may walk in a park, protest, or keep a roof over their heads.
A legal system that treats the poor as citizens rather than suspects and views criticism as a catalyst rather than treason will not weaken Pakistan. It will strengthen the bond between rulers and ruled, ensuring that when the next law is repealed, the question will not be why it took so long but why any society would cling to rules written by colonisers. *