I was still an Addl Judge of the Lahore High Court when I was entrusted with an enquiry, which related to the incident that had taken place at Rabwah in which some Ahmadis had beaten up the students of the Nishtar Medical College, Multan, travelling by train back to Multan from Peshawar. Some riots had also followed the incident. At any rate, the Head of the Ahmadia Jamaat was also to be called as a witness. And naturally his security was also the responsibility of the High Court. So, the area magistrate and the police were given the task of making all necessary arrangements. The day on which his testimony was to be recorded, I wanted to be sure before starting the proceedings that the security arrangements were in order. So I called the magistrate and the police officer concerned to get an oral report from them. The two promptly appeared before me; but it was the police officer that stepped forward to give me the report while the magistrate moved two steps backward. I was greatly disappointed by their demeanour. The main responsibility being that of the magistrate, he should have come forward. The police was only supposed to assist him. So I called the magistrate forward and asked him to tell me the details of the arrangements. At the same time I asked the police officer, to step back. I also explained the protocol to them. There is something wrong with the mentality which thinks that magistracy is subordinate to police. This needs to be rectified. (In the same context, I have also narrated an incident relating to Toba Tek Singh.). A system can only work effectively if every person involved knows the limitations of his position and also his relative position vis-a-vis the other persons. In the civil services, it is not only wrong but also sometimes criminal to exceed authority. Nobody seems to be bothered when the guardians of law, themselves, break the law. In connection with the enquiry mentioned above, I have a couple of remarks to make. In the first place, one of the purposes of the enquiry was to appease the agitated public by letting them know the truth. But when the enquiry was completed and the Punjab government was given the report, it was not published. Why? Was it not the right of the public to know the truth? The failure of the government to publish the report gave birth to a great misunderstanding. (And this is my second remark). Most people think that it was I that declared the Ahmadis infidels. The terms of reference did not include the question as to whether Ahmadis were Muslims or not. So, I did not have to decide that question. Nor did I actually decide it. This was done by our Parliament. The government should know that it is wrong not to publish the report of an enquiry ordered for the benefit of the public. At the same time it is also interesting to note that there was no demand from the public, either, that the report be published. In my opinion, however, demand or no demand, the government should do its duty. How else will the public know that it is their right to be informed of the result? It is a matter of pity that the governments, which are meant basically to serve the people, do not count them for much. It is, however, true that a vast majority of the people are illiterate and unaware of their rights (for this, too, the government is responsible), but what about the educated public? What service is being rendered to them? If you are a wealthy and influential person, you mean something, otherwise not. Shouldn't we be ashamed of this state of affairs? The writer is a retired judge of the Lahore High Court