Can Parents Be Punished for Their Child’s Crime? A Constitutional Analysis of Section 3(5) of the Kite Flying Act, 2026
One of the oldest principles of criminal jurisprudence is that the criminal liability is personal. Criminal punishment follows personal guilt and not family relationship. A father is not answerable for the crime of his son, and no child bears responsibility for the wrongdoing of a parent. This principle is embedded in Article 3 of Pakistan’s Constitution, reflected in Islamic jurisprudence, and consistently reaffirmed by the Superior Courts of Pakistan. Against this settled legal background, Section 3(5) of the Punjab Kite Flying Act, 2026 raises a difficult constitutional question: can the State recover a criminal fine from parents for an offence committed solely by their child?
Against this legal and constitutional backdrop, the Punjab Legislature enacted the Kite Flying Act, 2026 to address the grave public safety risks associated with kite flying. The legislative objective is both legitimate and necessary. However, a careful reading of Section 3 reveals a provision that appears to conflict with the settled principle of individual criminal responsibility recognized by the Constitution and consistently affirmed by Superior Courts of Pakistan.
Section 3(5) of the Kite Flying Act, 2026: the provision under scrutiny
At first reading, the statutory scheme of Section 3 Kite Flying Act, 2026 operate on orthodox and constitutionally sound lines to settled principles of that criminal liability attaches to the person who commits the prohibited act. Sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 3 identify the offender, prescribe the applicable punishment, and, in the cases pertaining to the juvenile offenders, direct that proceedings be conducted under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The position changes, however, with sub-section (5). It provides that where a juvenile offender is unable to pay the fine imposed under sub-section (4), the amount shall be recoverable from the child’s parents or guardian. In the event of default, the fine is recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
The constitutional question is therefore straightforward: can the financial consequences of a criminal conviction be imposed upon a person who neither committed the offence nor has been found criminally liable for it? It is this question that lies at the heart of the present discussion.
In substance, sub-section (5) of Section 3 transfers the financial consequences of a criminal conviction from the juvenile offender to a parent or guardian, irrespective of whether that parent or guardian participated in, encouraged, facilitated, or even had knowledge of the commission of the offence. The juvenile alone commits the prohibited act, is prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced. Yet where the juvenile lacks the means to satisfy the criminal fine, the statutory obligation shifts to another person solely because of the parental or guardianship relationship.
Article 3 of the Constitution and the Limits of Legislative Power
Article 3 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 obliges the State to eliminate all forms of exploitation. Although the Article is expressed in broad terms, it embodies the constitutional commitment that legal burdens should not be imposed arbitrarily or upon persons who bear no responsibility for the conduct giving rise to those burdens. In interpreting Article 3, the Lahore High Court has recognized that an individual is answerable only for his or her own acts and cannot ordinarily be made liable for the wrongdoing of another.
Viewed against this constitutional principle, Section 3(5) raises a significant question. Where a juvenile offender is unable to pay the fine imposed upon conviction, the provision transfers the financial burden of that criminal sentence to the parents or guardian, irrespective of whether they participated in, encouraged, facilitated, or even had knowledge of the offence. Their liability arises not from any proven wrongdoing, but solely from their relationship with the offender.
The Islamic Jurisprudence Ignored by the Legislature
The same principle is reflected in the Farewell Sermon of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that no person bears the burden of another’s offence (for details see article in link below). Although parents may have responsibilities towards their children, criminal liability cannot arise solely from the relationship of parenthood.
Section 3(5) may be defended as a recovery mechanism rather than punishment. However, the amount sought to be recovered remains a criminal fine imposed after conviction. Requiring a parent or guardian to pay a fine for an offence they did not commit raises a serious question regarding the principle of personal criminal responsibility.
Need of Legislative Correction — Conclusion
Kite Flying Act, 2026 addresses a genuine public safety concern, and the State has a legitimate interest in preventing deaths and injuries caused by dangerous kite-flying materials. However, Section 3(5) of Kite Flying Act, 2026 raises a fundamental question by shifting the financial burden of a criminal fine from a convicted juvenile offender to a parent or guardian who has not been found responsible for the offence. A legal system committed to fairness must ensure that punishment remains attached to the personal responsibility. If juvenile fines require an effective enforcement mechanism, the Legislature may consider alternatives that achieve public safety objectives without imposing a penal burden upon those who have committed no offence. The sub-section (5) of Kite Flying Act, 2026 is a legislative error which contradicts the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. The law must protect society, but it must also preserve the principle that every person answers only for his or her own acts.
Khalid Zafar
Also Read: No One Can Be Punished for Another Crime A Constitutional and Jurisdictional Analysis
