Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 4,389 judgments in total from the Islamabad High Court.

• Rameez Iqbal vs The State etc2024 IHC 120, 2025 PCRLJ 748 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-19
  constitutional petitionseizure of vehiclepolice abuse of authoritycivil disputeinterim custodyquashing of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Additional Sessions Judge regarding the interim custody and seizure of a vehicle. The core legal question centered on whether the police could lawfully seize a vehicle under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of allegations of theft or circumstances giving rise to the suspicion of a criminal offense, particularly when a civil dispute regarding the title of the vehicle was already pending between family members. The Islamabad High Court held that the police action in seizing the vehicle under Section 550 Cr.P.C. was illegal, constituted an abuse of authority, and could not be used to settle private civil disputes. The Court laid down the principle that criminal process cannot be invoked to exert pressure in civil matters, and where statutory pre-requisites for seizure under Section 550 Cr.P.C. are absent, such police actions are without lawful authority and liable to be quashed under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the police seize a vehicle under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when it is neither alleged to be stolen nor found under circumstances creating suspicion of an offense?
  • Can criminal proceedings and police powers be utilized to resolve or exert pressure in private civil disputes between parties?
  • Does a High Court have the power under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to declare unlawful police actions and seizure proceedings without legal effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Tahir Mahmood vs Chief Commissioner, Islamabad and another2024 CLC 125 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
• Qaiser vs Iffat Abbasi2024 IHC 162 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-08-01Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Qamar ul Wahab vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 238 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• Parvaiz Akhter Bhatti and others vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 IHC 260 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Authority vs Pakistan Telecommunication2024 IHC 278 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-16Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through Chairman vs Pakistan2024 YLR 929 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-05Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Poultry Association vs Regulator of Trade Organizations and another2024 IHC 60, 2024 CLD 1266 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited vs Full Bench, NIRC and others2024 PLC 253 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-10
  permanent workmancontractual employmentlabor lawreinstatementindustrial relationssham contracttermination of serviceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) reinstating a baggage attendant, originally hired through a contractor, as a permanent employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). The core legal question was whether a worker engaged through a third-party contractor at an establishment for over twelve years could be deemed a permanent employee of the principal employer and entitled to the protections of the West-Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the worker, having served continuously for over nine months in a role of a permanent nature, attained the status of a permanent workman. The Court affirmed that the "control" and "integration" tests determine employment status, not merely the existence of a contract with a third party. It held that outsourcing permanent functions to contractors to circumvent labor laws constitutes a sham. Consequently, the employer’s failure to follow mandatory inquiry procedures under the 1968 Ordinance before termination rendered the dismissal illegal, upholding the reinstatement order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a worker engaged through a third-party contractor be deemed a permanent employee of the principal establishment?
  • Does the nature of work performed, rather than the appointment letter, determine the status of a permanent workman under the West-Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Is an employer required to follow the inquiry procedure under Standing Order 15 of the West-Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, when terminating a contract worker who has attained permanent status?
  • Does the outsourcing of permanent functions to contractors constitute a sham if used to deprive employees of their legal rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited through its Managing2024 IHC 172, 2025 PLD Islamabad 116 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Housing Authority Foundation through Managing Director vs Federation of Pakistan through President and 2 others2024 CLC 1407 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-16Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Engineering Council through its Registrar vs Higher Education2024 IHC 230, 2025 CLC 589 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-19
  Higher Education CommissionPakistan Engineering Councildegree equivalencepromotion criteriaemployment policyB.Sc. EngineeringB-Tech (Honors)statutory authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a notification issued by the Higher Education Commission ("HEC") declaring B.Sc. Engineering and B-Tech (Honors) degrees at par for grade determination and promotion. The core legal question concerned the statutory authority of HEC and the Pakistan Engineering Council ("PEC") regarding the determination of criteria for employment and promotion. The Islamabad High Court held that neither HEC nor PEC possesses the statutory mandate to dictate employment or promotion criteria to employers, as recruitment and promotion policies fall exclusively within the domain of the relevant employer. While HEC may determine academic equivalence and PEC regulates the engineering profession and professional engineering work, neither regulator can mandate interchangeability of degrees for employment purposes. The court laid down the principle that academic equivalence does not imply interchangeability of skills for recruitment, and employers retain full autonomy to determine qualification criteria for jobs and promotions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Higher Education Commission have the statutory authority to dictate qualification criteria for recruitment and promotion to employers?
  • Can the Pakistan Engineering Council determine whether a particular post in public or private employment must be filled by a professional engineer?
  • Does academic equivalence of degrees granted by the Higher Education Commission render those qualifications automatically interchangeable for employment and promotion?
  • Is the determination of criteria for employment and promotion a policy matter falling exclusively within the domain of the employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Broadcasters Association through Executive Director vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Information, Islamabad and others2024 CLC 871 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-05Read full judgment →
• Pakistan B. Tech Honors Engineers Association, Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M_O. Law of Justice and others2024 PLJ Islamabad 117 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan B. Tech Honors Engineers Association through Muhammad2024 CLC 857 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-19Read full judgment →
• Pak-Telecom Mobile Limited through Head of Legal Affairs vs Messrs2024 CLC 1340 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-16Read full judgment →
• Pak Gulf Construction (Private) Limited vs Godwin Austen Johnson2024 IHC 200, 2024 CLD 1451 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• Oracle Systems Pakistan (Private) Limited. vs Pakistan Through The Secretary Revenue & Exofficio Chairman Federal Board Of Revenue, Islamabad, Etc2024 IHC 78, 2024 PTD 105 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-16
  coercive tax recoveryFederal Excise Dutyattachment of bank accountsAppellate Tribunal Inland Revenuestay order violationnatural justiceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Oracle Systems Pakistan (Private) Limited challenging a recovery notice issued under Section 14 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and Rule 60 of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005, through which a substantial sum was forcibly recovered from the petitioner's bank account while its appeal was pending before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue. The core legal questions involved whether the recovery notice violated a subsisting stay order of the High Court, whether prior notice and thirty days are mandatory before initiating recovery under Rule 71 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, and whether coercive tax recovery should be restrained until adjudication by an independent forum. The Islamabad High Court held that the recovery was executed in violation of the Court's stay order, that prior notice and a thirty-day window are mandatory before initiating coercive recovery, and that tax authorities must ordinarily await the decision of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue before resorting to coercive recovery of disputed liability. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the recovery was declared unlawful, and respondents were directed to refund the recovered amount.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the initiation of coercive tax recovery before the adjudication of an appeal by an independent forum such as the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue is lawful?
  • Is it mandatory for tax authorities to serve a prior notice and allow thirty days for payment after the adjudication of government dues before attaching bank accounts under Rule 71 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006?
  • Does the availability of an alternate remedy like a tax refund preclude the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution when property is taken without due process?
  • When does the computation of time for a stay order granted by the High Court pending an administrative appeal legally commence?
  Read full judgment →
• Oil and Gas Development Company Limited vs Ex-parte2024 CLC 988 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-21Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ali and others vs National Highway Authority (NHA) and others.2024 IHC 240 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-29
  regularization of employeesstatutory bodyhuman resource policyvested rightscontractual employeesseniorityNational Highway Authorityservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns execution and writ petitions regarding the regularization of contractual employees within the National Highway Authority (NHA). Following previous litigation where initial regularization attempts were declared void, the Supreme Court directed the NHA to address the issue through its competent authority. The core legal question was whether the NHA's subsequent policy, which created a 'National Highway Special Service Cadre' (NSSC) to regularize these employees without disturbing the seniority of existing regular staff, complied with the law and the Supreme Court's mandate. The Court held that the NHA, as a statutory body, possesses the authority under the National Highway Authority Act, 1991 to frame human resource policies, including the creation of new cadres. The Court found that the NHA's decision to regularize long-serving contractual employees through a scrutinized process, while balancing the rights of existing regular employees via a separate cadre, was a valid policy exercise. The key principle laid down is that while contractual employees have no vested right to regularization, statutory bodies have the discretion to formulate human resource policies to resolve long-standing employment disputes, provided such policies do not violate statutory frameworks or infringe upon the vested rights of others.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statutory body have the authority to regularize contractual employees through a newly created service cadre?
  • Can the executive board of a statutory body override the recruitment procedure prescribed by its own service rules to regularize long-serving contractual employees?
  • Do contractual employees have a vested right to regularization based on the efflux of time?
  • Is a policy decision by a statutory body regarding human resource management subject to judicial interference if it does not violate vested rights?
  Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority vs Messrs Kac-Ucc JV and others2024 CLD 858, 2024 CLC 1514 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority (NHA) vs M/s Sardar Muhammad Ashraf D.2024 IHC 66, 2024 PLD Islamabad 18, 2024 CLD 220 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-03Read full judgment →
• Naseeb Rawan vs The State2024 IHC 32 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlscope of investigationasset forfeituremethamphetamineheroinprohibitory clauseprosecutorial oversight
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of 800 grams of methamphetamine (ice) and 250 grams of heroin under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the huge quantity of narcotics recovered, and the mandatory scope and duties of investigating agencies under the Act of 1997 to trace the entire chain of supply, financiers, and assets derived from illicit drug trade. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was prima facie connected to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause and that sufficient incriminating material existed. Furthermore, the Court laid down key principles mandating that investigations in narcotics cases must not be limited to mere spot recovery from peddlers but must comprehensively investigate the entire chain from cultivator to abuser, trace illicit assets for forfeiture, and ensure rigorous oversight by prosecutors under the Federal Prosecution Service Act, 2023.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused found in possession of commercial quantities of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the scope of investigation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 extend beyond mere spot recovery to tracing the entire supply chain and illicit assets?
  • Can a prosecutor return a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. due to incomplete investigation regarding the source and financing of narcotics under the Federal Prosecution Service Act, 2023?
  • What is the maximum period of physical remand permissible for an accused arrested under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 following the insertion of Section 49A?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ul Zafar Khan vs Returning Officer, Na-47 & another2024 IHC 30, 2024 PLD Islamabad 122 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited vs Additional2024 IHC 58, 2024 PTD 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-25
  tax recoverywrit petitionindependent adjudicationcoercive measurespending appealtax liabilityconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by the petitioner, Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited, seeking to restrain recovery proceedings initiated by tax authorities while its appeal remained pending before the appellate forum. The core legal question was whether recovery proceedings can be initiated against an assessee while their appeal regarding tax liability is still pending adjudication. The Islamabad High Court held that an assessee is entitled to have their disputed tax liabilities adjudicated by an independent forum outside the hierarchy of the respondent department before recovery measures can be enforced. Relying on established jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court's decision in Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan, the Court emphasized the necessity of independent adjudication. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal within sixty days and ordered that no coercive recovery measures be adopted against the petitioner in the interim period.

  Questions settled

  • Can tax recovery proceedings be initiated against an assessee while an appeal regarding the tax liability is pending?
  • Is an assessee entitled to adjudication of disputed tax liabilities by an independent forum outside the hierarchy of the tax department?
  • Does the pendency of an appeal against a tax demand preclude the tax authorities from adopting coercive recovery measures?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Strawberry Sports Management (Private) Limited through its Chief2024 IHC 218, 2025 CLD 15 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-30
  Competition Commission of Pakistanabuse of dominant positionappealable orderright to hearingregulatory discretionnatural justiceconstitutional petitionCompetition Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an inquiry report and related communications issued by the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP), which concluded that no violation of the Competition Act, 2010 had occurred regarding an alleged abuse of dominant position by the Pakistan Hockey Federation. The petitioner contended that the CCP's refusal to initiate regulatory proceedings was an appealable order and that the failure to grant a full hearing violated Article 10A of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the CCP's preliminary opinion under Section 37 of the Competition Act, 2010, regarding whether to initiate regulatory proceedings, does not constitute an appealable order under Section 41 of the Act. The Court further clarified that the CCP is not required to conduct a full adjudicatory hearing at the initial inquiry stage, as its function at that point is regulatory and not quasi-judicial. The principle laid down is that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be implied, and that regulatory bodies are not required to provide formal adjudicatory hearings when forming preliminary opinions on whether to initiate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inquiry report or opinion formed by the Competition Commission of Pakistan under Section 37 of the Competition Act, 2010 constitute an appealable order under Section 41 of the Act?
  • Is the Competition Commission of Pakistan required to conduct a formal adjudicatory hearing before deciding not to initiate regulatory proceedings under Section 30 of the Competition Act, 2010?
  • Can a right of appeal be implied in a statute where it is not explicitly provided?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through its Director (Budget &2024 IHC 280, PTCL 2025 CL. 99 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• M/s Northern Enterprises and another vs Federation of Pakistan and2024 IHC 136 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Kuwait Airways Company vs Full Bench NIRC, Etc.2024 IHC 80, 2024 PLC 30, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 80 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-23
  termination simpliciterback benefitsindustrial relationsexplicit reasonspermanent workmanconstitutional petitionNational Industrial Relations Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by M/s Kuwait Airways Company against an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission reinstating a terminated employee with back benefits. The core legal question was whether the termination of a permanent workman's employment by merely stating that her services were 'no longer required' satisfied the explicit reason requirement under Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that simply stating services are no longer required without further explanation does not constitute an explicit, clear, and valid reason for termination simpliciter under Standing Order 12(3). The key principle laid down is that while an employer has the right to effect a termination simpliciter without holding an inquiry for misconduct, the reasons provided in writing must be truly explicit, sufficient, and valid, and a bare assertion that an employee's services are no longer required falls short of this statutory requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does stating that an employee's services are 'no longer required' satisfy the requirement of giving an explicit reason for termination under Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can a workman be reinstated into service on the ground that no regular inquiry was held when the employer has exercised powers of termination simpliciter under Standing Order 12?
  • What is the scope of inquiry of a Labour Court or High Court when examining the validity of reasons given by an employer for termination simpliciter?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Flying Paper Industries Limited vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 IHC 148, 2024 CLC 1604 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-26Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Safa Golden Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Capital Development Authority And2024 IHC 210, 2025 CLC 698 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-07Read full judgment →
• Murtaza Talpur, Mst. Nuzhat Shaheen Awan vs Leopards Courier Services, M_S Serene Air Private Limited Through Ceo2024 IHC 124 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed vs Ministry Of Science And Technology and another2024 IHC 146, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1284, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 322 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-01
  probation periodautomatic confirmationservice terminationstatutory bodyabolition of postconstitutional jurisdictionregular employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner’s services by the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (NEECA). The core legal questions were whether the petitioner’s appointment was contractual or regular, and whether the failure to issue a termination order before the expiry of the one-year probation period resulted in automatic confirmation. The Court held that the petitioner was a regular employee, as the appointment letter did not justify a contractual basis, and the NEECA Service Regulations did not provide for probation extension. Consequently, the failure to terminate the petitioner by the end of the probation period resulted in automatic confirmation of his service. However, the Court upheld the subsequent abolition of the petitioner's post, noting that the abolition of posts for financial reasons is a policy matter within the authority's prerogative. The termination order was set aside as illegal, and the petitioner was awarded salary and benefits until the date the post was formally abolished via gazette notification. The judgment affirms that in the absence of extension provisions, probation ends upon the expiry of the prescribed term.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to terminate an employee by the end of the probation period result in automatic confirmation when the service regulations do not provide for extension?
  • Can a statutory body abolish a post occupied by a regular employee for financial reasons?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a statutory body for violation of service regulations?
  • Does the designation of an appointment as contractual in an appointment letter override the nature of the post as defined in service regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Rawaiz Khan vs StatePLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1114 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-29
  narcotics traffickingconscious possessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealControl of Narcotics Substances Actfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuspublic transport liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for trafficking 1200 grams of Charas. The narcotics were recovered from the dashboard of a public transport vehicle driven by the appellant, with nineteen passengers onboard. The core legal question was whether the driver could be held liable for possession when the contraband was found in an open area accessible to others, without evidence of exclusive possession or conscious knowledge. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a direct nexus between the appellant and the recovered substance. It emphasized that while a driver is in charge of a vehicle, "conscious possession" is a prerequisite for conviction. Since the contraband was in plain view and accessible to multiple passengers who were never investigated, the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's exclusive or joint possession beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, extending him the benefit of doubt. The judgment reinforces that mere presence or driving does not automatically establish criminal liability for narcotics found in open areas.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics from an open, accessible area of a public transport vehicle automatically establish the conscious possession of the driver?
  • Is the rule of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' an integral part of the criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  • Must the prosecution establish exclusive possession to convict an accused under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, when contraband is found in a vehicle with multiple occupants?
  • Does the failure to investigate other passengers present in a vehicle at the time of narcotics recovery entitle the driver to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasir Ishaq vs Muhammad Dawood and others2024 IHC 158 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Hassan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and others2024 IHC 282, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 555 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-09
  civil servants promotionCentral Selection Boardintelligence agency reportsdue processArticle 10AsupersessionPER quantificationfitness for promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a BS-20 civil servant of the Information Group with an exemplary service record, challenged his supersession for promotion to BS-21 by the Central Selection Board (CSB). The CSB had categorized him as 'Category-C' and awarded him only 10 marks out of 30 for collective judgment due to adverse remarks regarding questionable integrity. These adverse observations were founded solely on unsubstantiated intelligence agency reports introduced during the CSB meeting without prior notice to the petitioner. The High Court addressed the maintainability of the constitutional petition against the bar of Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether unverified intelligence reports can legally form the basis for supersession without adhering to due process. The Court held the petition maintainable because the determination of fitness falls outside the Service Tribunal's exclusive domain and the right to fair consideration is distinct from a right to promotion. The Court set aside the supersession, ruling that relying on unverified intelligence reports without confronting the officer violates Article 10A of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or Section 4 of the Federal Services Tribunal Act 1973 bar the High Court from reviewing the arbitrary assessment of fitness for promotion by the Central Selection Board?
  • Can the Central Selection Board supersede a civil servant on the basis of adverse intelligence agency reports without confronting the officer with the allegations or providing an opportunity of defense under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the Central Selection Board deduct more marks than the maximum allocated for integrity under Schedule IV of the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019 without providing tangible recorded reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen vs Returning Officer Na-46 and another2024 MLD 1976 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs StatePLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1148, 2025 PLD Islamabad 35 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-03
  transfer of offendersforeign convictionsentence adaptationnarcotics controllife imprisonmentjurisdiction of Pakistani courts
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Judge Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, regarding the appellant who was convicted of drug trafficking in Sri Lanka and subsequently transferred to Pakistan under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002 to serve his sentence. The core legal question concerns the scope of powers of Pakistani courts under Section 9(4) of the Ordinance to adapt or modify sentences imposed by foreign courts to make them compatible with municipal laws. The Islamabad High Court held that Pakistani courts do not act as courts of appeal or revision over foreign judgments and cannot alter, reduce, or review the duration of a foreign sentence, nor can they aggravate its nature or duration. The Court laid down the principle that the power of adaptation under Section 9(4) is strictly limited to removing incompatibility between the foreign sentence and Pakistani law without worsening the convict's position, and that determining whether an un-categorized foreign sentence of life imprisonment is rigorous or simple falls within the domain of the Competent Authority under the Ordinance rather than the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Pakistani court act as a court of appeal or revision against a foreign judgment of conviction under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002?
  • What is the scope of a court's power under Section 9(4) of the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002 to adapt a foreign sentence?
  • Whether a trial court in Pakistan can aggravate the nature or duration of a sentence imposed by a foreign court while adapting it under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002?
  • Who is empowered to determine whether an un-categorized sentence of life imprisonment transferred from a foreign state is rigorous or simple?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs National Highway Authority and others2024 IHC 188 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-03
  departmental promotiondeferment of promotionpending disciplinary proceedingsminor penaltywrit of mandamusNational Highway Authorityservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the National Highway Authority (NHA), challenged an office order deferring his promotion to BS-20 due to pending departmental inquiries. The petitioner argued that mere pendency of proceedings is insufficient to defer promotion. The NHA contended that under its Administrative Manual and relevant promotion rules, pending inquiries justify deferment. The Court noted that while a previously initiated disciplinary proceeding had concluded with a minor penalty—which the Court held does not bar promotion—a separate disciplinary proceeding initiated by a charge sheet dated 30.11.2022 remained pending. The Court held that under Clause 2.7(1)(ii) of the NHA Administrative Manual, 2002, the Departmental Promotion Committee is authorized to defer promotion consideration if disciplinary proceedings are pending. Since the proceedings related to the 30.11.2022 charge sheet were ongoing, the Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus to compel promotion consideration. The petition was dismissed, with the Court directing that the pending disciplinary proceedings be concluded expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Does the imposition of a minor penalty constitute a valid legal obstacle for the consideration of an officer for promotion?
  • Can the Departmental Promotion Committee defer an employee's promotion consideration if disciplinary proceedings are pending against them?
  • Is a writ of mandamus appropriate to compel promotion consideration when valid disciplinary proceedings remain pending under the NHA Administrative Manual?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid vs Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and another2024 IHC 144 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem Sajid vs National Accountability Bureau and others2024 IHC 196, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 36 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-01
  writ jurisdictionsuppression of material factsdiscretionary reliefabuse of processshow cause noticeunclean handsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Deputy Director at the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), filed a writ petition challenging multiple show cause notices issued to him regarding potential dismissal from service. During proceedings, it was revealed that the petitioner had previously challenged one of the impugned show cause notices before the High Court of Sindh in a pending constitutional petition, a fact he failed to disclose in the present proceedings. The core legal question was whether the court should exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction in favor of a petitioner who has suppressed material facts regarding prior litigation on the same subject matter. The Court held that the petition must be dismissed. It affirmed that writ jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and is not exercised in favor of a litigant who approaches the court with unclean hands or conceals material facts. The court emphasized that the suppression of prior litigation constitutes an abuse of the process of the court, thereby disentitling the petitioner to any relief, regardless of the underlying merits of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the concealment of prior litigation on the same subject matter disentitle a petitioner from seeking discretionary relief under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Is a writ petition liable to be dismissed if the petitioner fails to disclose the filing of an earlier petition regarding the same impugned show cause notice?
  • Can a court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favor of a litigant who has suppressed material facts from the pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Manal Khalil vs The State and another2024 IHC 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-25
  post-arrest bailrecovery of stolen propertyCCTV footagecall data recordtentative assessmenthousebreaking by nighttheft in dwelling house
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.1089 dated 05.12.2023 registered under Sections 457, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of his subsequent nomination, the availability of incriminating CCTV footage, Call Data Record (CDR) placing him at the scene, and the recovery of stolen cash, US dollars, and jewelry on his pointation. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that tentative assessment of the record revealed reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was involved in a non-bailable offence, particularly given the recovery of stolen property and corroborative electronic evidence. The key principle laid down is that where incriminating evidence such as CCTV footage, CDR confirmation, and recovery of stolen items directly implicates an accused at the tentative assessment stage of bail, the discretionary relief of post-arrest bail is rightly withheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when stolen property is recovered on the pointation of the accused?
  • Does the confirmation of an accused's presence at the crime scene via call data records and CCTV footage constitute reasonable grounds to refuse bail?
  • Is an accused not nominated in the initial F.I.R. but subsequently implicated through supplementary statements and electronic evidence entitled to bail as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq & 141 others, Imtiaz Ahmed & 27 others vs Federation of Pakistan & another2024 IHC 268 · Islamabad High Court
  PTCL employeesterms and conditions of servicemaster and servantcivil servantspay scale revisionwrit petition maintainabilitystatutory protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two consolidated writ petitions filed by employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), seeking parity with civil servants regarding pay scales, pensions, and allowances, as well as challenging a notification introducing a new salary structure. The core legal question revolves around whether PTCL employees are entitled to statutory pay revisions applicable to civil servants, whether terms and conditions of their service were unlawfully varied, and whether writ petitions are maintainable for enforcing contractual obligations and non-statutory rules under the principle of master and servant. The Islamabad High Court dismissed both petitions, holding that PTCL employees are governed by the principle of master and servant, have lost their status as civil servants, and cannot claim ipso facto application of government pay revisions. Furthermore, the court held that contractual obligations under a Share Purchase Agreement or optional salary structures do not violate statutory protections under the relevant telecommunication laws and cannot be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether PTCL employees are entitled to the automatic extension of basic pay scale revisions and allowances announced for civil servants by the Federal Government?
  • Whether writ petitions are maintainable for the enforcement of contractual obligations arising out of a Share Purchase Agreement in a corporate entity governed by master and servant principles?
  • Whether the introduction of an optional new salary structure by PTCL amounts to a violation of statutory protections under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act 1996?
  • Whether employees of the former T&T department retain their status as civil servants after the promulgation of the PTC Act 1991 and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act 1996?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Wahid vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad & Another2024 IHC 3, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 556 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-11
  legitimate expectationforeign postingwrit jurisdictionservice mattersadministrative discretionmerit-based appointmentpolicy guidelines
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged the allocation of a foreign posting station by the Selection Board, contending that despite his higher merit ranking, he was denied his preferred station in violation of the 'Policy Guidelines for Selection, Appointment and Posting of Trade and Investment Officers (BS-18 to BS-21) in Pakistan's Trade Missions Abroad dated 03.07.2023.' The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, arguing the matter concerned terms and conditions of service. The Court held that the petition was maintainable, as appointments to foreign missions pursuant to specific policy guidelines do not constitute 'terms and conditions of service' under the Civil Servants Act 1973. On merits, the Court found that the Board’s deviation from the merit-based preference policy without recording cogent reasons in the minutes was arbitrary and violated the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Consequently, the Court set aside the allocation and directed the authorities to act strictly in accordance with the established policy guidelines.

  Questions settled

  • Is a challenge to the allocation of foreign postings for civil servants barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the allocation of foreign postings under specific policy guidelines constitute a term and condition of service under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Can an administrative authority deviate from a merit-based preference policy for foreign postings without recording cogent reasons?
  • Does the doctrine of legitimate expectation apply to the allocation of foreign postings based on established policy guidelines?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inshad Khan, etc vs Prime Minister Secretariat & others2024 IHC 264 · Islamabad High Court
  regularization of servicecontract employeesproject employeesconstitutional jurisdictionEarthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authoritymaintainability of writ petitionstatus quocontempt of court
  Summary & questions settled

  Multiple writ petitions and connected contempt applications were filed by contractual employees of the Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) challenging the Authority's refusal to regularize their services and seeking permanent status based on government regularization policies and precedent. The primary legal questions were whether contract employees hired for a disaster-management authority are entitled to regularization of their services and whether a writ petition is maintainable to enforce contractual employment terms. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the writ petitions and contempt applications, holding that ERRA is a time-bound, project-based entity without statutory provisions for permanent employment. The Court ruled that project employees cannot claim regularization unless their project is converted from development to non-development, which is a policy matter beyond constitutional review. The Court reaffirmed the principle that contractual employees lack a vested legal right to regularization or continuation of service beyond the contract period, and their remedy for alleged breach lies in a civil suit for damages rather than invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can contractual employees of a project-based statutory authority claim regularization in the absence of statutory provisions conferring permanent status?
  • Whether project employees can seek conversion of their project from development to non-development phase through a constitutional petition?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable to enforce the continuation or regularization of employment governed purely by contract?
  • Does an interim status quo restraining adverse action entitle contractual employees to remain in service after the expiry or termination of their contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-17
  emigration fraudbenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRcriminal appealacquittallack of recoverycontradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision arise from a judgment of the Special Judge Central, Islamabad, convicting the appellant under sections 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution alleged that the appellant took money from the complainant for a visa to Italy but provided a Malaysian visa instead, failing to fulfill the promise. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, considering an unexplained five-year delay in lodging the FIR, prior closure of the inquiry by the Federal Investigation Agency, lack of independent corroboration for financial transactions, and absence of material recoveries like the passport or visa. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges due to major evidentiary gaps, contradictions, and an unproven money trail, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt. The court laid down the principle that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution case warrants the accused's acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of five years in lodging an FIR affects the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Can an accused be convicted under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 without the recovery of the disputed passport, visa, or cash?
  • Is the prosecution bound to establish a clear money trail and produce independent witnesses for financial transactions?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle the accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haseeb vs State and anotherPLJ 2024 Cr.C. 805, 2024 PCRLJ 1462 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-27
  post-arrest bailcybercrimeprevention of electronic crimesprohibitory clausedissemination of objectionable picturesbail discretionheinous crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused in a case registered under Sections 21 and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, involving the alleged unauthorized recording and dissemination of sexually explicit pictures of the complainant to her family members. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, particularly given the contention that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for further inquiry. The Court emphasized that the mere fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause does not create an automatic right to bail; rather, the court retains discretion based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that in cases involving heinous crimes and where sufficient incriminating evidence, such as technical analysis reports, exists, leniency is not warranted, especially when the trial is in progress.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant an accused an automatic right to bail?
  • Can bail be granted in a criminal case where the trial is currently in progress?
  • Is the court required to grant bail in non-bailable offences that do not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Qureshi vs Muhammad Ayub and another2024 CLC 1838 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ejaz vs Ministry of Interior and another2024 IHC 14 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-04
  passport control listfundamental right to travelgovernment servicedisciplinary proceedingswrit jurisdictionadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an ex-employee of the President's Secretariat, filed this writ petition challenging the refusal of the Directorate General of Immigration and Passports to issue him a passport. The petitioner, dismissed from service for unauthorized absence, sought to return to Pakistan from abroad. The respondent argued that the petitioner's name was placed on the Passport Control List (PCL) based on the President's Secretariat's recommendation, citing Rule 21(d) of the Passports Rules, 2021, which allows for such restrictions on delinquent government servants. The core legal question was whether the state could restrict an individual's fundamental right to travel by withholding a passport based solely on departmental misconduct after disciplinary proceedings had already concluded. The Court held that the restriction was unlawful and disproportionate. It ruled that while Rule 21(d) permits recommendations against issuing passports to delinquent employees, such administrative actions cannot override the fundamental right to travel under Article 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, especially when no criminal liability or outstanding dues exist. The Court declared the non-issuance of the passport without lawful authority and directed the authorities to process the application.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department restrict an ex-employee's fundamental right to travel by requesting the non-issuance of a passport?
  • Does Rule 21(d) of the Passports Rules 2021 authorize the indefinite denial of a passport to a former government servant based on past misconduct?
  • Is the denial of a passport to a dismissed government servant disproportionate when no criminal case or financial liability exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayyaz Bin Tariq vs The State & another2024 IHC 122 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-09
  Prevention of Electronic Crimes Actjoint trialjurisdiction of Special Judgede facto doctrinesame transactioncriminal investigationbail petitionsPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the jurisdiction of Special Judges appointed under the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, to try offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA), and the legality of joint trials for offences under PECA and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC). The core legal questions addressed are whether the Special Judge (Central) is competent to try PECA offences, whether the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) can investigate PECA and PPC offences jointly, and whether joint trials of these offences are permissible. The Court held that the Special Judge (Central) lacks jurisdiction to try PECA offences because they are not included in the Schedule of the Act of 1958. Conversely, it affirmed that authorized agencies may investigate PECA and PPC offences committed in the same transaction, and designated ordinary criminal courts can conduct joint trials for such offences. The Court laid down the principle that the Federal Government must designate presiding officers of ordinary criminal courts under PECA. It applied the de facto doctrine to protect past, closed transactions while setting aside pending bail orders due to the jurisdictional defect.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Special Judge appointed under the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, competent to try offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016?
  • Can offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, be investigated and tried jointly?
  • Does the de facto doctrine protect orders passed by a court that lacked jurisdiction to try the offences in question?
  • Is the Federal Investigation Agency authorized to investigate offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, alongside offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Dar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Affairs, Islamabad and 06 others2024 IHC 16, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 123, 2024 YLR 1250 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Liaqat Ali Khan and another2024 CLC 638 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar and 6 others vs Collector Acquisition, Islamabad and another2024 PLJ Islamabad 344 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Saba Gul etc vs StatePLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1091 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-11
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtsentencing guidelinesadverse inferencebest evidence rulemandatory minimum sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution proved the recovery of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given discrepancies regarding the mode of recovery and the failure to produce the clothing from which the drugs were allegedly seized. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, as the failure to seize and produce the appellants' shalwars—the alleged site of concealment—constituted the withholding of best evidence, warranting an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment emphasized that in narcotics cases, the prosecution must strictly adhere to procedural transparency, including the documentation of recovery proceedings via video evidence and proper chain of custody records. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the urgent need for legislative sentencing guidelines in Pakistan to mitigate the cliff effect of mandatory minimum sentences and ensure proportionality in judicial outcomes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to seize and produce the clothing from which narcotics were allegedly recovered warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution?
  • Can a conviction be sustained in a narcotics case where there are material discrepancies between the recovery memo and the evidence presented in court?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce video evidence of recovery proceedings to ensure transparency in narcotics cases?
  • Does the absence of sentencing guidelines for narcotics offenses lead to disproportionate or arbitrary sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazo Bibi and another vs The State and another2024 MLD 120 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-22
  Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997narcotics recoverycharasopiumdriver responsibilitypolice witnessesSection 103 CrPC exclusionchemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2021 filed against the decision of the Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances), Islamabad, which convicted the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 following the recovery of 42 kilograms of charas and 13.2 kilograms of opium from a vehicle. The core legal questions evaluated included whether the non-association of private witnesses invalidates the search under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whether the driver on the driving seat is presumed to have control and knowledge of contraband hidden in the vehicle, and whether minor discrepancies in police testimony defeat the prosecution case. The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions. The Court held that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 excludes Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, police officers are competent witnesses, and the driver of a vehicle is in charge and presumed responsible for transported narcotics.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-joining of private recovery witnesses invalidate a search and seizure under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the driver operating a vehicle presumed to be in legal control and possession of narcotics hidden within it?
  • Are minor discrepancies in the testimony of official police witnesses sufficient to shatter the credibility of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Bibi etc. vs Arbab Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. through its Chairman2024 IHC 56, 2024 CLC 529 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bushra Imran Khan vs Chief Commissioner, Islamabad and others2024 IHC 72, 2024 PLD Islamabad 319 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-08Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Abbas vs Suzuki Motors Company Ltd & another2024 IHC 28, 2025 PLD Islamabad 14, 2025 CLD 111 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-31
  consumer protectionunfair trade practicefuture goodspurposive interpretationconsumer complaintnon-delivery of goodsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of a consumer complaint regarding the non-delivery of booked vehicles. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant qualified as a "consumer" under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, whether non-delivery of goods constitutes an "unfair trade practice," and whether the Consumer Court erred by applying definitions from the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 to restrict the scope of the consumer law. The Court held that the appellant was a consumer and that the failure to deliver goods after payment constitutes an unfair trade practice. It ruled that the Consumer Court improperly borrowed definitions from the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, emphasizing that statutory definitions are confined to their respective enactments. The Court further clarified that compensation under Section 9(3) of the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 is independent of criminal conviction. The key principle laid down is that consumer protection legislation is social welfare law requiring a liberal, purposive interpretation to protect consumers from exploitation, and that such statutes must be construed to achieve their stated objectives rather than through restrictive, technical readings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-delivery of booked goods by a trader constitute an unfair trade practice under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  • Can definitions from the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 be imported to interpret the scope of 'consumer' under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  • Is the power of the Consumer Court to award compensation under Section 9(3) of the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 conditional upon the conviction of the respondent?
  • Does a person who has paid for goods but has not yet received delivery qualify as a 'consumer' under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Shafeeq and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 128 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-24Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Saeed Mughal vs Mian Mohammad Latif and others2024 IHC 226, 2025 MLD 804 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ramzan Khokhar vs Mohammad Riaz and others2024 IHC 100, 2024 CLC 1881, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 309 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ishfaq vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2024 IHC 138 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ministry of Interior Employees Cooperative Housing Society vs Capital2024 IHC 198, 2025 CLC 75 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs, Sgec-Amc JV through Authorized Officer vs National Highway2024 CLD 301 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Telenor Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad and others2024 PTD 619 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Telecommunication Company limited and others vs Universal Service Fund, Islamabad through Chief Executive Officer and others2024 CLD 1426, 2024 CLC 2002 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muhammad Ramzan & Company vs Federation of Pakistan2024 CLC 1394 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kac-RMS (Joint Venture) through authorized representative vs National Highway Authority through Chairman and others2024 PLD Islamabad 213 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Amal Steel through duly Authorized Attorney vs Anti-Dumping2024 CLC 1002 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-19Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Malik Abdul Rehman through his legal heirs2024 IHC 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-14Read full judgment →
• Masood Alam Niazi vs Secretary Ministry of Industries and Production2024 PLC (C.S) 10 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-06
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantnon-statutory rulesservice disputeUtility Stores Corporationmaintainabilityconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions were filed by employees of the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (USCP) seeking reinstatement following their acquittal by the High Court of Sindh, which set aside their previous convictions by an Accountability Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to adjudicate service disputes of USCP employees, specifically whether the USCP's service rules constitute statutory rules. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable. The ratio decidendi is that the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Service Rules, 1981 are non-statutory, having been created by the Board of Directors rather than the Federal Government. Consequently, the relationship between the USCP and its employees is governed by the principle of 'master and servant.' Therefore, in the absence of statutory rules, the High Court cannot invoke its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to resolve individual service grievances, and the petitioners must seek remedies in a court of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Service Rules, 1981 considered statutory rules?
  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to adjudicate service disputes of employees of the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan?
  • Is the relationship between the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan and its employees governed by the principle of master and servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mamoon-Ur-Rasheed vs Hamid Khan and another2024 PLD Islamabad 378 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-12Read full judgment →
• Malik Tariq Ayub vs The State through S.H.O., P.S. Shalimar, Islamabad and 3 others2024 YLR 355 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-08
  enhancement of sentenceqatl-e-amdmitigating circumstancesjudicial discretioncriminal revisionsentencing procedurecapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition seeks the enhancement of a life imprisonment sentence awarded to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 by the Trial Court for offences including qatl-e-amd. The core legal question is whether the Trial Court erred in awarding life imprisonment instead of the death penalty for an offence under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without explicitly recording the mitigating circumstances justifying the departure from the normal sentence of death. The Court held that while Section 302(b) grants discretion to award either death or life imprisonment, this discretion is not absolute or arbitrary. It must be exercised judiciously, and the Court is mandatorily required under Section 367(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to provide specific reasons and identify the mitigating circumstances when opting for the lesser sentence. Because the Trial Court failed to articulate these reasons in its judgment, the Court found the sentencing process procedurally defective and issued notice to the respondents to address the potential enhancement of the sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the discretion to award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty for qatl-e-amd under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, absolute?
  • Does Section 367(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, mandate that a court must record reasons when awarding a sentence other than death in a capital case?
  • Can a trial court award a lesser sentence of life imprisonment without specifying the mitigating circumstances in the judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Akhlaq and another vs Honourable Full Bench, National2024 IHC 114 · Islamabad High Court
  grievance noticeindustrial relationsemployer-employee relationshipdepartmental appealstatutory complianceNIRCservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which dismissed the petitioners' grievance petitions on the ground that they failed to serve a proper grievance notice under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The petitioners, employees of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL), had submitted 'appeals' to the Managing Director regarding pay scale revisions instead of formal grievance notices. The core legal question was whether such departmental appeals could be legally construed as a valid grievance notice under Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Khushal Khan v. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, held that a departmental appeal is not a substitute for a grievance notice. The ratio established is that Section 33(1) mandates a grievance notice be addressed specifically to the 'employer' (the appointing authority) within the statutory timeframe. Because the petitioners' appeals were not addressed as required by law, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the NIRC and dismissed the petition, affirming that a grievance notice is a distinct, mandatory procedural requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental appeal be treated as a valid grievance notice under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Is the service of a grievance notice on the employer a mandatory pre-requisite for filing a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 require a grievance notice to be served upon the appointing authority specifically?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Shahab-Ud-Din vs Judge Family Court, Islamabad (West) and another2024 YLR 2854 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-19Read full judgment →
• Majeed ur Rehman vs Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination through its2024 IHC · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Maj. (R) Matloob Ahmed Baig vs Oil and Gas Development Company2024 IHC 108, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 894 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-03
  maintainabilitywrit petitionmaster and servantstatutory rulesservice rulesdepartmental appealremoval from service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Senior Security Officer appointed after the conversion of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL), impugned the order dismissing his departmental appeal against the major penalty of removal from service. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable for an employee whose terms and conditions of service are governed by non-statutory rules. The Islamabad High Court held that since the petitioner was appointed after the promulgation of the Oil and Gas Development Corporation (Re-Organization) Ordinance, 2001, his service terms were governed by the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited Employees' Service Rules, 2002, which lack statutory status as they were framed by the Board of Directors. Consequently, the relationship between the parties is governed by the principle of master and servant, rendering the constitutional petition not maintainable. The key principle laid down is that employees of government-owned companies whose service rules are non-statutory cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for individual service grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable by an employee whose service terms are governed by non-statutory rules?
  • Do the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited Employees' Service Rules, 2002 possess statutory status?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of OGDCL appointed after the promulgation of the Oil and Gas Development Corporation (Re-Organization) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Are the terms and conditions of OGDCL employees appointed prior to the 2001 Ordinance protected under Section 5 of the said Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Maemona Azhar etc. vs Capital Development Authority through its2024 IHC 90, 2024 CLC 1299 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-17Read full judgment →
• M.B. Javed Awan and another vs Muhammad Tahir Nizami and others2024 IHC 236 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• M. Rafique vs FIA through its Director General, Islamabad and others2024 IHC 174 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-07Read full judgment →
• Luqman Zafar, Advocate vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice and 7 others2024 IHC 178 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-31
  separation of powersindependence of judiciaryexecutive magistracyaccess to justiceconstitutional petitionIslamabad Capital Territoryjudicial reviewfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the exercise of judicial powers by Executive Magistrates within the Islamabad Capital Territory, arguing it violates the constitutional mandate for the separation of the judiciary from the executive. The core legal question was whether the conferment of judicial authority upon executive officers, who remain under the administrative control of the Executive rather than the High Court, is consistent with the Constitution. The Court held that such exercise of judicial power is unconstitutional as it contravenes Articles 175(3), 202, and 203 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the right to 'access to justice' is a fundamental right that cannot be guaranteed without an independent judiciary. Consequently, the Court directed the Federal Government to immediately issue the notification required to enforce the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001. Pending this, Executive Magistrates are restrained from passing final judgments. The key principle laid down is that judicial power must be exercised by forums subject to the High Court's exclusive administrative and supervisory control to ensure independence and impartiality.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exercise of judicial powers by Executive Magistrates in the Islamabad Capital Territory violate the constitutional mandate for the separation of the judiciary?
  • Is the right to access to justice under the Constitution contingent upon the existence of an independent judiciary separate from the executive?
  • Can the Federal Government indefinitely delay the enforcement of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 by failing to issue the required notification?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to restrain Executive Magistrates from exercising judicial powers if such exercise contravenes the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Live Securities Limited vs Muhammad Salim Khan2024 IHC 206 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• Link Dot Net Telecom Limited vs Pakistan Telecommunication Authority2024 IHC 246 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• Khush Bakht Mirza vs The State & others2024 IHC 26, 2024 PCRLJ 1409 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-14
  quashment of FIRsecond FIRsame transactionconstitutional petitionabuse of processinvestigating officerpolice rulesproclaimed offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses petitions seeking the quashment of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against the petitioners. The core legal questions involved whether an accused person can register a second FIR against the complainant to refute allegations in a pending case, whether a second FIR can be registered in respect of offences committed in the same transaction or occurrence, and the duties of an investigating officer upon discovering prior registered FIRs. The Court converted criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 into constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Holding that the registration of subsequent FIRs regarding the same transaction is illegal and a gross misuse of authority aimed at subverting the legal process, the Court quashed the impugned FIRs and laid down principles prohibiting multiple FIRs for a single occurrence, directing inquiries against delinquent police officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the allegations in one FIR can be refuted through registration of another FIR by the accused person against the complainant?
  • Whether a second FIR can be registered in respect of offences committed in one transaction or the same occurrence?
  • What is the duty of the Investigating Officer if he is informed by the accused person that other FIRs have already been registered in respect of offences committed in one transaction or the same occurrence wherein investigations are in progress?
  • Can a petition filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be converted into a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamal Kumar vs The State and Another2024 PCRLJ 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-02
  protective baildiscretionary reliefsecond protective bailaccess to justicebail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal matter wherein the petitioner approached the Islamabad High Court seeking a second protective bail in respect of an FIR registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Quetta. The core legal question before the court concerned the maintainability and grant of a second protective bail when the petitioner had previously failed to avail the earlier protective bail within the stipulated time without a plausible justification. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that protective bail is an extraordinary, discretionary relief aimed at facilitating access to justice, and where an applicant flouts previous court orders and delays approaching the competent forum without sufficient cause, the court is under no compulsion to extend further protection. The court laid down the principle that the grant of protective bail is strictly tied to the petitioner's bona fide conduct and satisfaction of the judicial conscience.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second protective bail can be granted when the petitioner failed to avail an earlier protective bail without a plausible justification?
  • Is the grant of protective bail a matter of right or a discretionary relief based on the petitioner's conduct?
  • What are the legal implications of flouting a previous protective bail order passed by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Javaid Iqbal Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 150 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-18Read full judgment →
• Irfan Nawaz Memon vs The State and others2024 IHC 20, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 126, 2024 IHC 46, 2024 MLD 1603 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs The State, etc, Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 IHC 112, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 230, 2024 PLD Islamabad 87 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-27
  post-arrest bailofficial secretscypher disclosurequashing of FIRconstitutional immunitystate securityprime minister oathclassified documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses a petition seeking post-arrest bail and a constitutional petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under sections 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a former Prime Minister, along with others, wrongfully communicated and twisted the contents of a classified diplomatic cypher for political gains in a manner prejudicial to state security. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 to civilians, the interpretation of wrongful communication and retention under section 5, the validity of cognizance taken upon a complaint under section 13, and whether constitutional immunity under Article 248 applied to political speeches. The court held that the Official Secrets Act applies to all citizens, that the ingredients of section 5 are disjunctive and prima facie attracted, that the complaint was validly authorized by the Federal Government, and that political public gatherings do not enjoy immunity under Article 248. Consequently, the High Court dismissed both the bail application and the petition for quashing the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 are exclusively applicable to the Armed Forces or extend to all citizens including civilians holding public office?
  • Does the public disclosure of a classified diplomatic cypher during a political gathering attract penal consequences under section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923?
  • Does the constitutional immunity provided under Article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 protect a Prime Minister from criminal prosecution for statements made during political engagements?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable for the quashing of an FIR when an alternate remedy under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is available before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State through Attorney General Office, Islamabad & Another2024 IHC 54 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-26
  criminal revisionframing of chargeSection 241-A Cr.P.C.judicial biasfair trialOfficial Secrets Actpresumption of regularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order framing charges against the petitioner under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, alleging procedural irregularities and judicial bias. The petitioner contended that the mandatory seven-day interval between the supply of documents under Section 241-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the framing of the charge was not observed, and that certain documents were withheld. The core legal question was whether the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements for document supply and whether its conduct demonstrated bias. The Court held that the record established the documents were supplied on an earlier date, and the petitioner’s refusal to acknowledge receipt did not invalidate the proceedings or stall the trial. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial court's observations regarding the pace of proceedings did not constitute bias or prejudice. The judgment affirms that judicial records are presumed correct under Article 129 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that trial courts retain discretion to manage proceedings to prevent unnecessary delays while ensuring the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused's refusal to sign an order sheet acknowledging receipt of documents stall the statutory timeline for framing a charge?
  • Can judicial observations regarding the pace of a trial be construed as bias requiring the transfer of the case?
  • Is there a presumption of correctness attached to judicial records and proceedings under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the right to receive documents under Section 241-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, include an absolute right to every document not part of the police report?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State and another2024 IHC 96 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-13
  transfer of criminal appealcriminal proceduresuspension of sentenceappellate proceedingsexpeditious disposaladministrative transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 seeking the transfer of his criminal appeal from the Additional Sessions Judge back to the Sessions Judge or to the High Court, following an earlier transfer order made by the Chief Justice on a reference under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to re-transfer the appeal given that the statutory prerequisites of unfairness, bias, or expediency were not established against the transferee judge. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner failed to show that the transferee court would not act impartially or that the interest of justice required another transfer. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the prayer for re-transfer but disposed of the petition with strict timelines directing the transferee court to decide the sentence suspension applications within ten days and the main appeals within thirty days.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal appeal can be transferred under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 without establishing lack of impartiality or prejudice in the transferee court?
  • Can an administrative transfer order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court be challenged through a petition under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What are the essential prerequisites for the transfer of a criminal case or appeal under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2024 IHC 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
• Ikram-us-Saqlain Haider & 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Communication & 2 others2024 IHC 272 · Islamabad High Court
  writ petitionjurisdiction of High Courtcivil servantFederal Service Tribunalregular promotionacting charge basisterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed before the Islamabad High Court seeking directions for the regular promotion of the petitioners, who are employees of the National Highway Authority, to the post of General Manager (BPS-19) from the date of their acting charge appointment. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain service-related matters of National Highway Authority employees, or if such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The court held that employees of the National Highway Authority are deemed civil servants under Section 13(3) of the National Highway Authority Act, 1991, and therefore, matters relating to their terms and conditions of service, including promotions, are exclusively barred from the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, with the Federal Service Tribunal being the proper forum. The petition was accordingly dismissed as non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the National Highway Authority are deemed civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue directions regarding the regular promotion of National Highway Authority employees?
  • Whether an acting charge appointment confers a vested right for regular promotion?
  • Does the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution preclude National Highway Authority employees from agitating service matters before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikram Ullah Khan vs Allama Iqbal Open University through its Vice2024 IHC 270 · Islamabad High Court
  writ petitionmaster and servantservice termspromotion quotadirect recruitmentnon-statutory rulesuniversity employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an advertisement published by the Allama Iqbal Open University inviting direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer (BPS-16), which the petitioner argued violated statutory quotas and deprived him of promotion. The core legal questions involved whether the university's recruitment and promotion rules are statutory in nature and whether the challenged advertisement violated the prescribed 50:50 quota and seniority-cum-fitness principles. The court held that the university's rules and service terms are non-statutory, governing the relationship of master and servant, and that the university had correctly maintained the promotion and direct recruitment roster without violating any statutory provisions. The key principle laid down is that employees governed by non-statutory rules of the Allama Iqbal Open University cannot invoke constitutional writ jurisdiction for service matters, as their remedy does not lie under constitutional petitions or service tribunals due to the master-servant framework.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service rules of the Allama Iqbal Open University are statutory in nature?
  • Can an employee governed by non-statutory service rules invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether the post of Assistant Engineer in the Allama Iqbal Open University was filled in accordance with the prescribed 50:50 quota ratio?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali Haideri vs State and others2024 PLJ Islamabad 236, 2024 YLR 1963 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-05Read full judgment →
• Hyderabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Hcci) through duly2024 CLD 1004, 2024 PLD Islamabad 350, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 256 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-22Read full judgment →
• Higher Education Commission vs Dr. Nousheen Iram, and others2024 IHC 118, 2025 PLD Islamabad 41 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali vs The State2024 IHC 10 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-18
  post-arrest bailnarcoticschemical examiner reportspeedy trialfurther inquiryprohibitory clausefundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by an accused charged under Section 9(1)(6)(c) of the Control of the Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for the alleged possession of 1310 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, yet the chemical examiner's report remained pending and the trial had not commenced. The court held that the petitioner should be released on bail. The ratio established is that the absence of a forensic laboratory report to verify the nature of the alleged contraband renders the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and the state's failure to provide funding for chemical examinations cannot justify the indefinite incarceration of an accused, particularly when the investigation is complete and no tampering with evidence is likely.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a chemical examiner's report regarding the nature of recovered contraband render a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the right to a speedy trial a fundamental right that entitles an accused to bail when the trial is delayed due to administrative failures?
  • Can an accused be granted bail in a narcotics case falling within the prohibitory clause if the forensic report is pending and the investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Khan through his Authorized Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan2024 IHC 44, 2024 YLR 59 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-02Read full judgment →
• Hamayun Ashraf Awan vs Bilal Faisal Amin and others2024 PCRLJ 1746 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-07
  constitutional petitionwrit of certiorariSection 182 PPCacquittal under Section 249-AQalandraconcurrent findingslocus standi of private person
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the concurrent findings of the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge acquitting Respondent No. 1 under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in proceedings initiated via a Qalandra under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal questions concerned the maintainability of a constitutional writ petition against an order of acquittal under Section 249-A, the locus standi of a private party to pursue Section 182 proceedings, and the permissible scope of certiorari in cases with concurrent factual findings. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that a writ petition is not maintainable against an acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The Court held that under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, cognizance for an offence under Section 182 PPC requires a complaint by the concerned public servant, not a private individual. Furthermore, the High Court exercises supervisory rather than appellate jurisdiction under Article 199 and will not disturb concurrent findings of fact absent jurisdictional error, illegality, or violation of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional writ petition under Article 199 maintainable against an order of acquittal passed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a private person have the locus standi to pursue a Qalandra under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in view of Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Hajvairy Associates (Pvt.) Limited vs M/s Power Construction Corporation2024 IHC 184, 2024 CLD 1507 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →