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.

• Hafiz Muhammad Bilal and others vs Auqaf Department through Chief2024 IHC 212, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 404 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-30
  provincial quotafundamental rightshereditary employmentequal opportunityconstitutional interpretationservice rulesIslamabad Capital Territory
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an advertisement for the post of Khateeb in Islamabad, contesting the prescribed age limit, the allocation of provincial quotas, and the absence of a quota for children of former Khateebs. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the age criteria, the constitutionality of provincial quotas, and the existence of a right to hereditary employment. The Court held that the age criteria were legally valid under the Islamabad Capital Territory Auqaf Employees Service Rules, 1998. Regarding quotas, the Court ruled that the allocation of provincial quotas for posts within the Islamabad Capital Territory is unconstitutional as it violates Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which guarantees equal opportunity and prohibits discrimination based on residence or place of birth, subject only to limited residency requirements under Article 27(2). Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim for hereditary employment, affirming that public sector jobs cannot be reserved for kin of former employees, as such practices violate fundamental rights to equality and merit-based competition under Articles 9, 18, 25, and 27 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Are provincial or regional quotas for federal or Islamabad Capital Territory posts constitutional under Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can public sector employment be reserved for the children of former employees based on legitimate expectation or hereditary rights?
  • Does the imposition of a maximum age limit for government recruitment violate fundamental rights if prescribed under valid statutory rules?
  • To what extent can a provincial authority prescribe residency requirements for government posts under Article 27(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Federal Revenue Alliance Employees Union through President vs Federal2024 PLC 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-22
  trade union registrationcivil servantsadministration of the stateworkmenintra-court appealemployer right of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal is directed against an order of the learned Judge-in-Chambers who allowed a writ petition filed by the Federal Board of Revenue (F.B.R.) against the registration of the appellant employees' union under the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) regulations. The core legal questions involved whether F.B.R. employees, being civil servants or persons in the administration of the State, are barred from forming a trade union under the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 and the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and whether an employer has a right of appeal against the registration of a trade union under the relevant laws. The court held that under the former Industrial Relations Act, 2008, workers in the administration of the State other than Railway and Pakistan Post workers were barred, rendering the 2010 registration unsustainable at that time. However, under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, the deletion of specific departmental restrictions allows workmen in the administration of the State to form trade unions, provided they do not fall within the definition of employer. The court dismissed the appeal while clarifying that the union may apply afresh for registration under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer has a right of appeal against an order of the Chairman N.I.R.C. directing the registration of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Do the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 apply to workmen employed in the administration of the State?
  • Are employees of the Federal Board of Revenue barred from forming and registering a trade union?
  • Does the definition of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 include persons who are workers or workmen?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Noman Sabir vs Haji Abdul Khaliq Awan and 2 others2024 PCr. LJ 2072 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-22
  Illegal Dispossession Actabatement of proceedingsrestoration of possessiondeath of accusedproclaimed offendertrial in absentiaproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under Section 435 read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad (East), which dismissed an application for the abatement of entire proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, following the death of one accused and the proclamation of others as offenders. The core legal question was whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 abates entirely upon the death of an accused or the absconsion of others, particularly regarding property possession and restoration. The Islamabad High Court held that while penal proceedings abate against a deceased accused, the complaint survives to the extent of controlling or occupying property without lawful authority under Section 3 and the restoration of possession under Sections 7 and 8 to the lawful owner or occupier, or any person claiming through the accused. The court laid down that the nature of the cause of action determines the survivability of proceedings in immovable property disputes, and the special in-built mechanisms of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 override general abatement rules where property restoration is sought.

  Questions settled

  • Does a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 completely abate upon the death of one of the accused persons?
  • Can proceedings for the restoration of property continue against a person claiming through the accused under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding abatement applicable to special proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a trial court record evidence in the absence of absconding accused persons who have been declared proclaimed offenders?
  Read full judgment →
• Fawad Ahmed vs National Accountability Bureau and 02 others.2024 IHC 50, 2024 MLD 1207 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-01
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureaumisuse of authorityfurther inquirystatutory exemptiondocumentary evidenceliberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed before the Islamabad High Court under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 9(b) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999, arising out of a NAB inquiry regarding the alleged misuse of authority and financial irregularities in the approval of a dual carriageway project. The core legal question centered on whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the accused committed the alleged offences, and whether the project's approval by competent bodies exempted the transaction under statutory amendments. The court held that since the project was duly approved by the CDWP and ECNEC, the matter fell within the exclusionary provisions of Section 4(2)(b) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999, and that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that liberty should not be curtailed as punishment where the evidence is documentary, already in the prosecution's possession, and the case calls for tentative assessment in favor of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether decisions of bodies like CDWP and ECNEC exclude the application of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 absent monetary gain to the public office holder?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the case against the accused is based on documentary evidence already secured by the prosecution?
  • Is bail to be withheld as a punishment when there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence?
  • Does the absence of official co-accused in a NAB inquiry entitle the principal accused to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 1222 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-16
  maintainabilityconstitutional petitionnon-statutory rulesNADRA employeesdismissal from servicedepartmental appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a batch of writ petitions filed by employees of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) who challenged their dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan are maintainable by NADRA employees whose terms and conditions are governed by non-statutory service regulations. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions as not maintainable, holding that the NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002 and the rules adopted thereunder are non-statutory in nature, meaning employees cannot enforce them through constitutional writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the disciplinary action taken under non-statutory service rules?
  • Are the NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002 statutory or non-statutory in nature?
  • Does the mere adoption of government statutory rules by reference lend a statutory cover to the internal service rules of an authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Faryal Saleem and others vs Nayatel (Pvt) Ltd.2024 IHC 7, 2024 PLD Islamabad 246 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-14Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Manzoor Chaudhary vs Fauzia Viqar and 4 others2024 CLC 678 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Salman Akbar Malik vs Federal Government Employees Housing2024 PLJ Islamabad 47, 2024 YLR 2685 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Saiqa Yousaf vs The State and others2024 IHC 132, 2024 PCRLJ 1852 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-20
  medical negligencequashing of FIRexpert medical opinioncriminal liabilityIslamabad Healthcare Regulation Act 2018Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act 2022professional misconductinherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition sought the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 322/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging medical negligence by healthcare professionals. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings for medical negligence could be initiated directly by the police without prior expert medical evaluation. The Court held that allegations of medical negligence, involving complex technical assessments, cannot be determined by police investigation alone. It emphasized that the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018 and the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022 provide specific regulatory frameworks for addressing such grievances. The Court ruled that before any criminal prosecution can proceed, the investigating agency must obtain an expert opinion from the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority or the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR, noting the lack of such expert verification. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings for medical negligence are not maintainable without a prior expert report confirming the alleged negligence, and special regulatory statutes must be exhausted before invoking criminal jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings for medical negligence be initiated without a prior expert medical report?
  • Is the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority the competent forum to investigate allegations of medical negligence in Islamabad?
  • Does the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022 require disciplinary proceedings to precede criminal prosecution for professional negligence?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR in the absence of expert medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Saif Ur Rehman vs Pakistan and others2024 IHC 244 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-02
  disciplinary proceedingscivil servantdelegation of powersmaintainability of writ petitionservice tribunalappointing authorityconstitutional bar
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged an inquiry order initiated against him by the Additional Secretary of the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination, arguing that only the Secretary, as the designated appointing authority, possessed the legal competence to issue such an order. The core legal question was whether the Additional Secretary lacked the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings when the Secretary was available, and whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It observed that the Secretariat Instructions, issued under the Rules of Business, 1973, explicitly empower the Secretary to delegate administrative powers, including disciplinary matters for specific grade officers, to subordinates. Consequently, the office order delegating these powers to the Additional Secretary was valid. The Court affirmed that challenges regarding the terms and conditions of service must be adjudicated by the Service Tribunal, not the High Court, due to the constitutional bar established by Article 212.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Secretary delegate disciplinary powers to an Additional Secretary under the Secretariat Instructions?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an inquiry order issued by an Additional Secretary when the petitioner is a civil servant?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from entertaining service matters?
  • Is the delegation of administrative powers by a Secretary to an Additional Secretary permissible under the Rules of Business, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Shafique Arshad vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 134, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1152, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 72 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-25
  re-employment after retirementcivil servantpublic interestcontract appointmentwrit of quo warrantopromotion blockjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed by a Professor of Cardiology at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) challenged the re-appointment of respondent No.3 on a contract basis as Professor of Cardiology and Head of the Department following his retirement, arguing it violated Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and blocked promotion prospects. The core legal question was whether the re-employment of a retired civil servant satisfied the mandatory statutory requirements of public interest and necessity, and whether the decision-making process was judicially reviewable. The Islamabad High Court held that re-employment after superannuation is an exception permissible only upon strict proof of absolute necessity in the public interest, non-availability of qualified replacements, and adherence to established policy guidelines. The court found that no material or reasons were brought on record to justify the necessity of the re-appointment, which unacceptably blocked the promotion of eligible serving professors. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the notification for re-appointment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the re-employment of a retired civil servant under Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 requires proof of absolute necessity in the public interest?
  • Does a senior serving professor have the locus standi to challenge the contractual re-appointment of a retired colleague that blocks promotion prospects?
  • Is the decision-making process of the appointing authority regarding the re-employment of a retired government servant subject to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Hamid Ali vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 254, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 706 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-16
  Performance Evaluation Reportservice laweligibility criteriawrit jurisdictionadministrative discretionTrade and Investment Officersservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a BS-20 government officer, challenged the selection process for Trade and Investment Officers (TIOs) after being excluded for failing to meet the eligibility criteria requiring a minimum average of "very good" Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) for the preceding five years. The core legal question concerned the validity of the petitioner's PER for a specific period in 2020, which was initially deemed irregular due to the presence of two different reporting officers. The Court held that irregularities in PERs, such as those covering periods of less than three months without proper evaluation, are subject to correction and do not possess absolute sanctity. Consequently, the Court upheld the subsequent evaluation which resulted in an "average" grading, rendering the petitioner ineligible. The judgment establishes that a countersigning officer possesses the discretion under the Guide to Performance Evaluation to evaluate reports when an officer works under multiple reporting officers, and that the High Court’s jurisdiction is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding the merits of adverse remarks in service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court interfere with the merits of adverse remarks in a Performance Evaluation Report given the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a countersigning officer have the discretion to accept or reject evaluation reports when an officer has worked under multiple reporting officers for less than three months?
  • Can an irregularity in a Performance Evaluation Report be questioned and rectified during a competitive selection process?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farhat Ullah Bakhsh vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace_Asj-III (East), Islamabad and others2024 IHC 130, 2025 PLD Islamabad 106, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 87 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-01Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farah Sohail vs Dr. Fouzia Humayun and others2024 IHC 106, 2024 CLC 1753 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-21Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdur Rashid vs Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 180, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 268 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-20
  DRAPservice regulationsstatutory rulesirrevocable optionestoppelcivil servantsultra viresdelegated legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions filed by employees of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) challenging the validity of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Employees Service Regulations, 2015, and the constitution of a Departmental Promotion Board. The core legal question was whether the 2015 Regulations were ultra vires the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012, due to the absence of statutory rules framed under Section 23, and whether the petitioners, who had opted to remain civil servants, could challenge their irrevocable options years later. The Court held that the petitioners were estopped from challenging their voluntarily exercised irrevocable options after significant delay. While the 2015 Regulations were found to be subordinate legislation, the Court emphasized that where the Act mandates "rules" requiring Federal Government approval, regulations cannot substitute them. Consequently, the Court upheld the impugned promotion process but directed the Federal Government and DRAP to frame the necessary statutory rules regarding service conditions, recruitment criteria, and Director appointments within two months to ensure compliance with the Act's clear legislative intent.

  Questions settled

  • Can employees who have exercised an irrevocable option to remain civil servants challenge that option after a significant delay?
  • Does the failure to frame statutory rules under Section 23 of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 render regulations made under Section 24 ultra vires?
  • Can the High Court direct the Federal Government to frame statutory rules as mandated by a parent statute?
  • Is the appointment of Directors in DRAP valid if made without the recommendation of the Policy Board?
  Read full judgment →
• Doctor Nauman Hamid Niaz vs Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others2024 IHC 224, 2025 PLD Islamabad 24 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-21Read full judgment →
• Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation, Federal Board_f18d3a0d2024 PTD 1049 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-05Read full judgment →
• CRTG Matracon JV vs Federal Employees Benevolent Fund & Group2024 IHC 42, 2024 CLD 1346 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone Corporative Tax Office, Islamabad vs Messrs T.F. Pipes Limited Company Limited2024 PTD 129 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal Division) Legal Taxpayers Unit, Islamabad vs Messrs Khudadad Heights, Islamabad2024 PTD 309, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 173 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
• CM Pak Limited vs The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority2024 IHC 276, 2025 CLC 750 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-20Read full judgment →
• Circlenet Communication Pakistan (Private) Limited and others vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through General Manager2024 CLD 829, 2024 CLC 1478 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Islamabad Electric Supply2024 PLJ Islamabad 169 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
• China Mobile Pakistan Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 166, 2025 PLD Islamabad 130 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-08-21Read full judgment →
• Ch. Fawad Ahmed vs Election Commission of Pakistan and another, Federation of Pakistan and another2024 IHC 160 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• C.M. Pak. Limited through duly authorized Attorney vs Pakistan2024 CLC 928, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 180 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
• Bushra Imran Khan vs The State and another2024 IHC 202, 2025 PCRLJ 15 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-23
  post-arrest bailToshakhanastate giftscriminal breach of trustfurther inquiryretrospective effectOffice MemorandumFIA case
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Bushra Imran Khan, sought post-arrest bail in an FIA case registered under Sections 109 and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, concerning the alleged retention and undervaluation of a Bvlgari jewellery set received as a state gift from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The core legal question revolved around whether the non-deposit of the gift under the Cabinet Division's Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2018—where the receipt was duly reported but the item was not deposited—attracted penal consequences, and whether a case for further inquiry was made out. The Islamabad High Court held that the applicable O.M. of 2018 did not penalize the mere non-deposit of a reported gift (unlike a subsequent 2023 O.M.), thus bringing the matter within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court laid down the principle that penal provisions in administrative policy documents like Office Memorandums cannot be applied retrospectively, and that where the evidentiary foundation for criminal liability is tentative and the investigation is complete with no risk of tampering, a woman petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-deposit of a state gift reported to the Cabinet Division entails penal consequences under the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2018?
  • Does an Office Memorandum issued by the Cabinet Division in 2023 have retrospective application to acts committed in 2021?
  • Whether suspension of a conviction by an appellate court wipes out the conviction for the purpose of considering post-arrest bail in a subsequent case?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete, trial has not commenced, and the case falls under the ambit of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Bushra Imran Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior and Secretary Ministry of Defence & others2024 IHC 64 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
• Bushra Bibi, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State etc.2024 IHC 5 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-31
  summoning of accusedprima facie caseiddat periodmarriage during iddatprivate complaintquashing of proceedingsmens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a writ petition and a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the orders of the lower courts whereby the petitioners were summoned in a private criminal complaint for contracting marriage during the Iddat period, allegedly constituting offences under Section 496 and Section 496B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality of summoning accused persons, the determination of mens rea, the computation of the Iddat period, and compliance with mandatory procedural requirements. The Islamabad High Court held that at the stage of issuing process, a trial court is only required to see if a prima facie case exists and is not to conduct a minutely detailed appraisal of evidence or merits. The Court ruled that no procedural illegality tainted the summons under Section 496 Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the summons under Section 496B Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was set aside due to non-compliance with the procedure under Section 203C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the threshold for issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a lighter burden requiring a prima facie view, and detailed factual defenses or merits ought to be raised before the trial court during trial or via an appropriate acquittal application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is required to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence and merits at the stage of issuing summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the issuance of process or summons by a trial court in a private complaint case infringe the fundamental rights of an accused person?
  • What is the minimum period of Iddat recognized under Islamic law and judicial precedents for the purpose of determining the validity of a marriage contracted after divorce?
  • Can a criminal complaint be interfered with by the High Court under constitutional or revisional jurisdiction when the trial court has already framed a charge and the matter is at the stage of recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Blue Zone International (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive and 27 others2024 CLD 909, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 247 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ullah vs The State & another2024 IHC 250, 2025 PCRLJ 994 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-27
  prohibitory clausegrant of bailborderline casenarcotics investigationphysical remandmaximum punishmentforfeiture of assets
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference was constituted before the Islamabad High Court to resolve critical legal questions regarding the interpretation of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and its application under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The Court addressed whether 'punishable' refers to the minimum or maximum prescribed sentence when determining whether an offence falls under the prohibitory clause, and whether a 'borderline case' based on quantity can justify bail on further inquiry. The High Court held that 'punishable' under Section 497(1) strictly refers to the maximum punishment provided for an offence; if the maximum sentence is ten years or more, the prohibitory clause is attracted. Consequently, adopting 'borderline cases' in narcotics matters at the bail stage improperly anticipates conviction lengths. Furthermore, under Section 49A of the Act, investigating agencies have a mandatory duty, not mere discretion, to conduct thorough investigations up to ninety days, tracing the complete supply chain and illicit assets for forfeiture.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'punishable' in Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 refer to the minimum or the maximum sentence prescribed for an offence?
  • Does a borderline quantity of narcotics justify granting bail under the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it mandatory for investigating agencies under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 to trace the full supply chain and financial assets derived from drug trafficking?
  Read full judgment →
• Bangal Khan, Muhammad Murad vs The State2024 IHC 102, 2024 PCRLJ 1241 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-04
  narcotics controlunauthorized investigationconscious knowledgevehicle confiscationdue processCIA investigationacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction and the confiscation of their vehicle in a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal questions concerned the legality of the investigation conducted by CIA officials without proper authorization, the sufficiency of evidence regarding the accused's 'conscious knowledge' of narcotics hidden in a secret vehicle cavity, and the validity of the vehicle's confiscation without notice to the owner. The Islamabad High Court held that the investigation was fundamentally flawed because the CIA officials lacked the requisite legal authorization to search and investigate, and the prosecution failed to establish the accused's conscious knowledge of the contraband. Furthermore, the court found that the confiscation of the vehicle was unlawful as the trial court failed to verify ownership or prove the owner's complicity as required by law. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant and ordered the release of the vehicle, emphasizing that procedural lapses in investigation and the failure to adhere to statutory requirements for search and confiscation vitiate the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investigation conducted by CIA officials without specific authorization vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the accused's conscious knowledge of narcotics found in a secret cavity of a vehicle?
  • Can a vehicle be confiscated under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 without proving the owner's knowledge of the offense?
  • Does the failure to associate the vehicle owner in the investigation violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain Shah and others vs Capital Development Authority through its Chairman & another2024 IHC 214 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• Awais Aslam Ali through representative vs Capital Development Authority2024 YLR 1422 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• Asim Sabir Qureshi vs Additional District Judge (East), Islamabad and others2024 IHC 258 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-18Read full judgment →
• Arshad Sharif and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 170, 2025 PLD Islamabad 177 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-08-26
  multiple FIRsquashing of FIRsfreedom of expressionterritorial jurisdictionsame transactionabuse of processprotective bailcybercrime investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses consolidated petitions filed by journalists challenging the registration of multiple FIRs across various provinces for the same alleged cause of action, specifically regarding vlogs and media statements. The core legal questions concerned whether multiple FIRs for a single incident are permissible, the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts to quash FIRs registered in other provinces, and the interplay between the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act. The Court held that registering multiple FIRs for the same incident constitutes an abuse of process and violates constitutional rights. While the Court clarified it lacks the authority to quash FIRs outside its territorial jurisdiction, it established that only the first FIR is valid, with subsequent ones to be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment lays down comprehensive principles, including that an arrest in one case is deemed an arrest in all cases of the same subject matter, and mandates that investigations for cyber-related offences be referred to the Federal Investigation Agency.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court quash FIRs registered within the territorial jurisdiction of another High Court?
  • Does the registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident constitute an abuse of process?
  • Are offences under the Pakistan Penal Code automatically transformed into offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act simply because they were committed using an information system?
  • If an accused is arrested in one case, does that arrest count as an arrest in all other pending cases involving the same subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Mansoor Khan vs Special Court, Islamabad, through its Registrar2024 IHC 216, 2025 PLD Islamabad 168 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• Amir Mujahid Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 222 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-18
  civil servicepromotioncentral selection boardcompulsory retirementdeferment of promotionconstitutional jurisdictionintelligence bureau
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the petitioner, a civil servant in the Intelligence Bureau, seeking a direction to promote him to the post of Joint Director General (BPS-21) from the date the Central Selection Board considered and deferred his case. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service vide a departmental notification, leading the respondents to argue that the petition had become infructuous and that a retired civil servant cannot be considered for promotion. The core legal question was whether this Court can refer a retired civil servant's case for promotion to the Central Selection Board and whether the decision of the Board to defer the petitioner's promotion was unlawful or irrational. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while a court may in certain circumstances refer a retired civil servant's case for promotion if they were wrongfully prevented from consideration, the Central Selection Board had recorded valid, detailed reasons based on the petitioner's service record and performance for deferring his promotion, and the Court cannot substitute its own views for the collective wisdom of the Board in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether this Court can refer a retired civil servant's case for promotion to the Central Selection Board?
  • Can the High Court substitute its own views about the fitness of a civil servant for promotion with those of the Central Selection Board in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the imposition of the major penalty of compulsory retirement render a promotion writ petition infructuous under all circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Butt vs Managing Director PTVC, Islamabad, etc2024 IHC 262 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ullah Khan vs Waseem Iqbal and others2024 IHC 104, 2024 MLD 1422 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-21Read full judgment →
• Allama Raja Nasir Abbas and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and others2024 IHC 88, 2024 PLD Islamabad 332, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 291 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-23
  writ petitioncontempt of courtprison rulesvisitation rightsjail superintendentdisobedience of court ordersecurity threatjudicial reviewhuman rightsrule of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a writ petition seeking visitation rights for political allies and friends with a high-profile prisoner, and a subsequent contempt petition against the Jail Superintendent for non-compliance with the Islamabad High Court's visitation order. The core legal question was whether the Superintendent's failure to arrange the meeting, citing security threats and prior discretionary orders, constituted willful contempt of court. The Court held that once a visitation order is passed, the Jail Superintendent is duty-bound to obey it and cannot justify disobedience by challenging its validity or citing rules empowering his discretion. Disregarding a court order on the basis of perceived per incuriam status or vague security concerns, without seeking review, amounts to contempt. While finding prima facie willful contempt, the Court refrained from further proceedings due to the Superintendent's subsequent compliance with a later order, emphasizing that future omissions would be dealt with strictly. The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring obedience to its directives.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Jail Superintendent disregard a High Court's visitation order by citing security concerns or prior discretionary orders without seeking review?
  • Does a Jail Superintendent's failure to respond to visitation applications constitute a breach of duty under the Pakistan Prison Rules?
  • What constitutes willful contempt of court in the context of non-compliance with judicial directives?
  • Can an alleged contemnor justify non-compliance by claiming the court's order was passed per incuriam?
  • How does subsequent compliance with a court order affect contempt proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and another vs Mst. Qudrat Bibi through L.Rs. and 22024 YLR 615 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-31Read full judgment →
• Ali Waqar Azeem vs Standard Chartered Bank Pakistan Limited2024 IHC 74, 2024 CLD 397, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 100 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
• Ali and others vs The State2024 IHC 116, 2024 MLD 1247 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-16
  joint possessionControl of Narcotic Substances Actconscious possessionseparate recoveriessentencing guidelinesfemale convict mitigationconfession rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  The Islamabad High Court heard an appeal against a Special Court judgment convicting three appellants under Sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 (CNSA) and sentencing each to life imprisonment on the basis of joint possession of the total quantity of drugs recovered from a vehicle. The prosecution case established that distinct recoveries of charas, opium, and heroin were made individually from each appellant based on their separate disclosures. The High Court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences, holding that joint and collective liability requires evidence of joint possession and control, not mere knowledge or presence in the same vehicle. Applying the sentencing guidelines set out in Ghulam Murtaza v. The State for offences committed prior to the 2022 CNSA amendments, the Court maintained the driver's sentence due to the quantity of heroin recovered from the boot, reduced the sentence of the male passenger based solely on the charas recovered from him, and reduced the sentence of the female passenger for the opium recovered from her, extending a one-third reduction in sentence pursuant to the precedent governing female convicts.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere presence in a vehicle where narcotics are recovered automatically attract the principle of joint and collective possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can accused persons be sentenced for the aggregate quantity of narcotics recovered from a vehicle when separate and distinct recoveries were made from each individual?
  • What degree of evidence is required to establish joint possession when narcotics are concealed in different parts of a vehicle or within personal items of passengers?
  • How does the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 operate against passengers compared to the driver of a vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Baraka Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Representative vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1196 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-22
  superdarinarcotics controlcase propertytemporary custodymusharakah agreementinnocent ownercriminal trialevidence preservation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of an application for the superdari (temporary custody) of a vehicle seized by the Anti-Narcotics Force in connection with an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant bank claimed ownership via a Musharakah Agreement, seeking possession to recover funds following the borrower's default. The core legal questions were whether a seized vehicle can be released on superdari before being exhibited as evidence in court, and whether a bank can claim superdari to effect recovery of funds during a pending trial. The Court held that a vehicle seized under the Act cannot be released on superdari prior to its exhibition as evidence, as this is essential to preserve the integrity of the case property. Furthermore, the Court determined that superdari is intended for the personal use of an innocent owner, not for financial institutions to repossess and sell vehicles to recover debts. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the trial court correctly denied the application.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle seized in relation to an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be released on superdari before it is exhibited as evidence in the trial court?
  • Does the law permit the release of a vehicle on superdari to a financial institution for the purpose of repossessing and selling the vehicle to recover loan funds during the pendency of a criminal trial?
  • Is the release of a vehicle on superdari to an innocent owner an absolute right, or is it subject to the preservation of evidence in an ongoing criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Al Nafees Medical College, Islamabad vs The Pakistan Medical and Dental2024 IHC 40 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed Khan And Another vs Dilawar Khan, Etc.2024 IHC 82, 2024 MLD 316 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• Adamjee Life Assurance Co Limited vs The President of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 112 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saeed vs Mrs. Naseem Khattak Humayun and others2024 IHC 34, 2024 CLD 611 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hadi Chatta, etc vs The State2024 IHC 252, 2025 PCRLJ 622 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-31
  physical custodyremandanti-terrorismsupervisory jurisdictionliberty of the subjectjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an order by the Special Court-I (Anti-Terrorism), Islamabad, which granted three days of physical custody to the police in connection with FIR No. 1161/2024. The core legal question was whether the Special Court properly exercised its discretion in granting physical custody, specifically regarding compliance with established judicial principles and the necessity of such custody. The Islamabad High Court held that the impugned order was legally untenable because the Special Court failed to apply its mind or adhere to the principles for granting physical custody established in previous case law and the High Court Rules and Orders. The Court emphasized that physical custody involves the liberty of a person and should not be granted lightly. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the mandatory requirement for the Special Court to remit physical custody orders to the Sessions Judge for supervisory review, serving as a necessary check mechanism. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, reiterating that police authorities must provide specific, justifiable reasons for requesting physical custody.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order granting physical custody to the police legally valid if it fails to apply judicial mind or adhere to established principles?
  • Does the failure to remit a physical custody order to the Sessions Judge for supervisory review render the order defective?
  • Are police authorities required to provide specific justifications when requesting physical custody of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 70 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-04Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Ali Khan vs The Ombudsperson and others2023 IHC 68 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-06Read full judgment →
• Zahir Zakir Jaffar, The State vs The State, Zahir Zakir Jaffar2023 IHC 160 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-13
  capital punishmentmurder referencerapeabductionCCTV footageelectronic evidencelast seen theoryunsoundness of mindabetmentappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court decides multiple criminal appeals and murder references arising from the brutal murder and rape of Noor Mukaddam. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial and electronic evidence (CCTV footage via DVR), the admissibility and evidentiary value of Call Data Records (CDR) and forensic reports, the validity of pleas regarding unsoundness of mind under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the culpability of co-accused domestic staff and acquitted parents. The court upheld the conviction and capital punishment of the prime accused, Zahir Zakir Jaffar, for murder and enhanced his sentence for rape, while maintaining the convictions of co-accused domestic helpers for abetment and abduction. The appeals challenging the acquittal of the parents and other co-accused were dismissed. The key principles laid down include the admissibility and high probative value of unedited CCTV footage under Article 164 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the parameters for establishing 'last seen' evidence, and the legal requirement for a prima facie opinion before initiating an inquiry into an accused's mental incapacity.

  Questions settled

  • Is CCTV footage stored on a DVR admissible as electronic evidence under Article 164 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 without examining the original maker of the recording, provided a forensic report verifies its integrity?
  • Whether the absence of motive or failure to prove motive operates as an absolute mitigating factor for converting a death sentence into life imprisonment in a murder case?
  • What is the legal threshold and procedure required for a court to entertain and conduct an inquiry into an application under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the accused's unsoundness of mind?
  • Does the 'last seen' theory alone suffice to sustain a murder conviction, or must it be corroborated by additional incriminating circumstances such as forensic evidence and recoveries?
  • What evidentiary value do Call Data Records carry when the representatives of the cellular companies are not produced in evidence to vouch for their veracity?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Overseas2023 IHC 93, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 382, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1091 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-01
  quo warrantopublic appointmentmerit-based recruitmentservice rulesWorkers Welfare Fundwritten testjudicial discretionmalice in law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought a writ of quo warranto to challenge the appointments of four respondents within the Workers Welfare Fund (W.W.F.), alleging procedural irregularities and lack of merit. The core legal questions concerned whether the appointments violated the Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules 1997, specifically regarding the necessity of written tests and adherence to recruitment procedures. The Court held that the appointments were valid, finding that the petitioner was motivated by malice and personal grudge arising from pending disciplinary proceedings against him. The Court emphasized that quo warranto is a discretionary remedy that should be refused if the petitioner lacks bona fides. Regarding the merits, the Court ruled that while a written test is highly desirable for transparency and meritocracy in public appointments, it cannot be judicially imposed where the governing rules do not explicitly mandate it. The Court concluded that in the absence of proof of illegality, appointments made through interviews by a selection committee remain valid, though it advised the W.W.F. to incorporate written tests in future recruitment processes to ensure transparency.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ of quo warranto be issued if the petitioner is motivated by malice or personal vendetta?
  • Are appointments in the Workers Welfare Fund illegal solely because they were made without a written test where the governing rules do not explicitly mandate one?
  • Does the court have the authority to read a requirement for a written test into service rules that do not expressly provide for it?
  • Can past and closed transactions regarding the regularization of employees be disturbed in a writ of quo warranto?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahhid Rashid vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to the Prime2023 PLC (C.S.) 251 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-16
  civil servantpromotionsupersessiondefermentCentral Selection BoardintegrityPerformance Evaluation Reportdisciplinary proceedingsconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed before the Islamabad High Court challenges the decision of the Central Selection Board recommending the supersession of the petitioner, a civil servant, for promotion from BPS-19 to BPS-20. The core legal questions involve whether the mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings or inquiries can serve as a valid ground to deny promotion or recommend supersession, and whether the Central Selection Board can award zero marks for integrity without tangible documentary evidence contradicting the officer's positive Performance Evaluation Reports. The Court held that pendency of disciplinary proceedings does not justify supersession or deferment of promotion, and that adverse grading regarding integrity must be supported by tangible material rather than generalized perceptions or hearsay, upholding the principles of natural justice. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the supersession letter, directed that the supersession be treated as deferment, and ordered that the petitioner be reconsidered for promotion in the next meeting.

  Questions settled

  • Can the mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings or an inquiry against a civil servant serve as a valid ground for his supersession or deferment for promotion?
  • Is the Central Selection Board legally required to base an adverse opinion regarding a civil servant's integrity on tangible material and documentary evidence?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to judicially review the process and the manner in which discretion is exercised by the Central Selection Board in recommending the supersession of an officer?
  • Whether the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem require that a civil servant be confronted with adverse material before being awarded negative marks for integrity by the Central Selection Board?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Abbas vs Federation Of Pakistan, etc2023 IHC 432 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-27
  service matterwrit jurisdictiondepartmental appealFederal Service Tribunalalternate remedycompulsory retirementconstitutional jurisdictionlimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a civil servant seeking a direction to the Intelligence Bureau to decide his pending departmental appeal against an order of compulsory retirement. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could compel a departmental authority to decide an appeal when the petitioner had failed to avail the statutory remedy of approaching the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) after the expiry of the mandatory ninety-day waiting period. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable due to the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court reasoned that Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 provides an adequate alternate remedy for civil servants aggrieved by delays in departmental proceedings. By failing to approach the FST within the prescribed limitation period following the ninety-day waiting period, the petitioner could not bypass the statutory scheme by invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass the Service Tribunal when an adequate alternate remedy exists under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to direct a departmental authority to decide a pending appeal when the petitioner has an alternate remedy under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does the failure to approach the Federal Service Tribunal within the prescribed limitation period after the expiry of the ninety-day waiting period entitle a civil servant to invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction?
  • Is the remedy provided under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, considered an adequate alternate remedy for a civil servant aggrieved by the delay in deciding a departmental appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Mehmood and another vs Mst. Shaheen Baig and another2023 CLC 968 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-28Read full judgment →
• Yassa Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of National Health Services Regulation and Coordination and another2023 CLC 744 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-21Read full judgment →
• WSKB Operator Private Limited, Islamabad through Authorized2023 PLJ Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-01Read full judgment →
• WSKB Operator Private Limited through Authorized Representative vs National Highway Authority through Chairman and 20 others2023 MLD 674 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-01Read full judgment →
• Wasim Abbas and another vs Higher Education Commission Akhtar2023 IHC 292 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-10Read full judgment →
• Waseem Khurshid vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 158 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-16
  service rulespromotion criteriavested rightpost-qualification experienceconstitutional jurisdictioneligibility criteriacivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by a Deputy Secretary (Finance) (BPS-18) challenging the promotion criteria for the post of Director (Finance) (BPS-19) as prescribed by a 2015 notification issued by the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (F.B.I.S.E.). The core legal question is whether the High Court, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, can strike down statutory eligibility criteria for promotion requiring specific post-qualification experience merely because existing feeding cadre officers do not fulfill it. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that rule-making authorities possess the exclusive domain to determine and enhance qualifications and service criteria to maintain efficiency, and civil servants possess no vested right to have eligibility rules remain unaltered or to be promoted. The key principle laid down is that the prescription of service rules and promotion criteria, including post-qualification experience requirements, is a matter of policy and administrative expediency into which courts will not interfere in the absence of a violation of a vested right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court under constitutional jurisdiction declare promotion criteria unlawful merely because officers in the feeding cadre do not meet the prescribed requirements?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to have the eligibility criteria and service rules for a higher post remain constant and unaltered?
  • Is the rule-making authority competent to prescribe post-qualification experience requirements for promotion to a public post?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment2023 IHC 210 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
• WaliUllah vs Muhammad Nauman Munawar, etc2023 IHC 400 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-16
  dishonoured chequeacquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencecriminal liabilityfinancial obligationSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent given the evidence presented. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the complainant’s own admissions during cross-examination revealed that a settlement had been reached between the complainant and the respondent’s father, involving the issuance of a replacement cheque that subsequently dishonoured, for which a separate FIR was registered. The Court held that the underlying financial obligation regarding the impugned cheque had been discharged by the replacement cheque, rendering the charge under Section 489-F groundless. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the established principle that an accused person acquitted by a competent court enjoys a double presumption of innocence, which cannot be dislodged without strong and cogent reasons, which were absent in this appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused person acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction enjoy a double presumption of innocence?
  • Can a criminal charge under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the underlying financial obligation has been discharged by a replacement cheque?
  • What are the mandatory requirements to establish the offence of issuing a cheque with dishonest intention under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Saad vs The Additional District Judge, Islamabad (West) and 52023 CLC 421 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-12Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited through President vs Full Bench National Industrial2023 PLC 5 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-21
  workmanpower of attorneygrievance petitionNational Industrial Relations Commissionmaster and servantmanagerial capacityback benefitstermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner bank challenged an order passed by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) which had reinstated respondent No.2 in service with back benefits after setting aside the dismissal of his grievance petition. The core legal question was whether an employee holding the designation of Officer Grade-III, in whose favour a power of attorney conferring managerial and supervisory powers had been executed, falls within the definition of a 'workman' under labour laws so as to maintain a grievance petition against termination. The Islamabad High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Full Bench's order, and restored the N.I.R.C. Member's order dismissing the grievance petition. The court held that the execution of a power of attorney granting managerial and administrative powers removes an employee from the ambit of a 'workman', regardless of whether the powers were actively exercised or physically delivered. The key principle laid down is that the nature of powers conferred via a power of attorney determines the status of an employee, precluding them from claiming the status of a workman under industrial relations and labour legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee holding a power of attorney that confers managerial and supervisory powers cease to be a workman under labour laws?
  • Is actual exercise or physical delivery of a power of attorney a prerequisite for determining whether an employee is excluded from the definition of a workman?
  • Where does the burden of proof lie when an employee approaches a court or tribunal claiming the status of a workman?
  • Does a mere designation or emolument determine an employee's status as a workman or do the actual duties and conferred powers govern?
  Read full judgment →
• Umer Perwaiz and others vs Capital Development Authority and another2023 IHC 200, 2024 CLC 419 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• Tufail Hussain Shah vs Tatheer Hussain Shah & others2023 IHC 102 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-22Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General, ICT vs Additional Sessions Judge2023 PCRLJ 83 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-16
  physical remandcriminal revisionjudicial functionliberty of citizensupervisory jurisdictionSection 167 CrPCmagisterial custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed a criminal revision against a Judicial Magistrate’s refusal to grant physical remand. The core legal question was whether an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, concerning the remand of an accused, constitutes a judicial order amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. The High Court held that the function of granting or refusing remand under Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is a judicial function involving the liberty of a citizen, and thus, such orders are subject to criminal revision. The Court emphasized that Magistrates must exercise this power with caution, avoiding mechanical application, and must record reasons for their decisions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Sessions Court to decide the revision petition on its merits. The judgment reaffirms that Sessions Courts possess supervisory jurisdiction over remand orders to ensure the protection of fundamental rights and procedural compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a judicial order?
  • Is a criminal revision maintainable before a Sessions Court against an order passed by a Magistrate regarding the remand of an accused?
  • Does a Magistrate perform a judicial function when deciding on the grant or refusal of police remand?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate General, ICT Islamabad vs Muhammad Ayaz2023 MLD 83 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-09
  appeal against acquittalcompetency of appealpublic prosecutoradvocate generalchance witnessinterested witnessmurderbenefit of the doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for murder under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question concerned the maintainability of the appeal under section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically whether an appeal against an acquittal in the Islamabad Capital Territory can be validly filed by the Advocate General upon the direction of the Chief Commissioner rather than by a designated Public Prosecutor. The Islamabad High Court held that an appeal against acquittal under section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be presented by a Public Prosecutor duly appointed under section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and a direction by the government cannot be issued to the Advocate General unless the Advocate General has been specifically appointed as a Public Prosecutor. Since no such appointment notification existed for the Advocate General of the Islamabad Capital Territory, the appeal was incompetent. Furthermore, the court found the appeal devoid of merit as the prosecution failed to corroborate the solitary, interested, and chance witness whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against an acquittal under section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be validly filed by the Advocate General without being appointed as a Public Prosecutor?
  • Can the Provincial Government or equivalent authority direct the Advocate General to file an appeal against an acquittal under section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the testimony of a solitary, interested, and chance witness sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder without independent corroboration?
  • What constitutes a chance witness and how does the absence of corroborative evidence affect the prosecution's case in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate General vs Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi2023 PLD Islamabad 145 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-03
  contempt of courtsuo motu noticejudicial contemptcriminal contemptbona fide apologyfreedom of speechsubstantial detriment to administration of justiceshow cause notice discharged
  Summary & questions settled

  Suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated by the Islamabad High Court against the Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf for remarks made during a public speech directed at a female Additional Sessions Judge regarding a sub judice remand matter. The key legal questions concerned whether an unconditional apology and surrendering to the court's mercy are strict prerequisites for discharging contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, whether entering a defence negates the bona fides of an apology, and whether the respondent was liable to conviction. A Larger Bench of the High Court discharged the show-cause notice, holding that an apology need not follow a rigid formula and entering a defence does not detract from its bona fides under Section 5(2). The court ruled that contempt powers are extraordinary, curative rather than punitive, and require substantial detriment to the administration of justice under Section 18. In light of the respondent's personal appearance, affidavit of remorse, and visit to the trial judge's court, the apology was held bona fide.

  Questions settled

  • Whether tendering an unconditional apology and placing oneself at the mercy of the court is a mandatory condition precedent for discharging contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003?
  • Whether an alleged contemnor entering a defence or explaining the context of their conduct detracts from the bona fides of an apology under Section 5(2) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003?
  • Whether the principle of extending the benefit of doubt is applicable to contempt of court proceedings?
  • Can a person be convicted and punished for contempt of court in the absence of a finding that the contempt caused substantial detriment to the administration of justice under Section 18(1) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003?
  Read full judgment →
• The Federation of Pakistan vs Waqas Mehmood and others2023 IHC 36 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• The Federation of Pakistan vs Imtiaz Ali Qureshi and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1421, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 301 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-27
  service lawvested rightsretrospective operationRules of Businessstatutory appointmentquo warrantomisleading summaryICT-PEIRA
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal concerns the termination of the respondent’s services as Member (Academics) of the Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Authority (ICT-PEIRA). The respondent was appointed on a permanent basis in 2009. In 2021, the Federal Cabinet terminated his services, asserting the appointment was illegal for lacking governing rules and failing to adhere to tenure-based requirements introduced by the 2015 Rules. The core legal question was whether the 2015 Rules could be applied retrospectively to terminate a permanent appointment made years prior, and whether the summary submitted to the Cabinet was legally deficient. The Court held that the appointment was valid under the 2006 Ordinance and that the 2015 Rules could not be applied retrospectively to destroy vested rights. Furthermore, the Court found the summary submitted to the Cabinet was misleading due to the suppression of a critical Law and Justice Division opinion, violating the Rules of Business, 1973. The Court upheld the reinstatement of the respondent, emphasizing that statutory appointments are not invalidated by the mere absence of specific recruitment rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can statutory rules be applied retrospectively to adversely affect vested rights of an employee?
  • Does the absence of specific recruitment rules render a statutory appointment made by the Federal Government illegal?
  • What are the consequences under the Rules of Business, 1973, when a summary submitted to the Cabinet suppresses material legal opinions?
  • Can a decision of the Cabinet be judicially reviewed if the summary preparation process is found to be flawed or misleading?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajid Akbar vs Mrs. Sarwat Raja and others2023 IHC 254 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• The Attock Oil Company Limited vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad2023 PTD 455 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
• Tausif Ahmed vs Muhammad Wakeel and another2023 PLD Islamabad 132 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
• Taslim Mumtaz, Assistant Vice-President vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 others2023 PLC (C.S) 863 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-11
  regularization of servicecontract employeemaster and servantwrit petitionstatutory corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a writ petition filed by an Assistant Vice-President against the Federation of Pakistan and others, seeking the regularization of her service in the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) and the setting aside of an order declining the renewal of her contract. The core legal questions involve whether a contract employee of a statutory corporation can maintain a writ petition for regularization and whether the petitioner acquired a legal right to regularization based on continuous service on permanent posts and the principle of master and servant. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's contract expired by efflux of time, that the relevant NBP Staff Service Rules stood repealed, and that the relationship between the parties is governed by the principle of master and servant without statutory protection. The court laid down the principle that contract employees of commercial statutory entities lacking statutory rules cannot claim regularization through writ petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract employee of a statutory organization have a legal right to file a writ petition claiming regularization?
  • Whether the principle of master and servant applies to contract employees of the National Bank of Pakistan in the absence of statutory rules?
  • Can an employee claim regularization of service after the expiry of a fixed-term contract by efflux of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Tasharaf Ali alias Khanzada vs The State and another2023 PLD Islamabad 253 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-11
  Section 382-B Cr.P.C.benefit of detention periodlife imprisonmentcriminal proceduremandatory statutory provisionpost-conviction relief
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, had his sentence converted to life imprisonment by the High Court in 2016. Following the dismissal of his appeals and review petitions by the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which had been omitted in the appellate judgment. The core legal question was whether the High Court could grant the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. at a post-conviction stage, even after the matter had been finalized by the Supreme Court, and whether the heinous nature of the offense precluded such relief. The Court held that the benefit of Section 382-B is a mandatory statutory provision that can be granted at any stage, even if previously omitted by the trial or appellate court. The Court affirmed that the nature of the offense does not bar this relief, and consequently allowed the application, granting the petitioner the benefit of the time spent in detention.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted by the High Court if it was omitted in the original appellate judgment?
  • Does the heinous nature of an offense preclude a convict from receiving the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is there a time bar for filing an application seeking the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the conviction has been upheld by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Hussain Manji vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman2023 PLD Islamabad 238, 2023 CLD 1025 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Hussain Manji vs National Accountability Bureau and another2023 IHC 91 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Tahseen Shaukat through Special Power of Attorney, Islamabad vs Additional District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad and 3 others2023 YLR 502 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Tabish Badar through Special Power of Attorney vs Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 2 others2023 CLC 1457, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 290 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-31
  Exit Control Listfundamental rightsfreedom of movementNational Command Authoritydismissed employeeFederal Cabinet approval
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the placement of the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List (ECL) pursuant to a memorandum issued by the Ministry of Interior. The petitioner, a former employee of the Air Weapons Complex (AWC) under the National Command Authority (NCA), had proceeded abroad for studies, failed to return to serve the mandatory period, and was subsequently dismissed from service. The core legal questions involved whether an entity under the NCA can recommend placing a dismissed employee on the ECL, whether such placement can be used to prevent a citizen's re-entry into Pakistan, and whether the Federal Cabinet's approval is mandatory. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner, having been dismissed, was no longer an employee under the NCA Act, that the NCA possesses no statutory authority under the Exit Control Ordinance to regulate travel, and that placing a citizen's name on the ECL to prevent re-entry or without Federal Cabinet approval is coram non judice and illegal. The court laid down principles regarding fundamental rights to travel, the limits of non-statutory rules, and the strict interpretation of powers under the Exit Control Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Command Authority have the statutory authority under the NCA Act to recommend placing a dismissed employee on the Exit Control List?
  • Can the power to place a person's name on the Exit Control List under the Exit Control Ordinance, 1981 be exercised to prevent a citizen already abroad from re-entering Pakistan?
  • Is a placement on the Exit Control List sustainable if it is not approved by the Federal Cabinet?
  • Can non-statutory rules framed by a public entity be used to curtail a citizen's fundamental rights to liberty and freedom of movement?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zaheer Hussain Naqvi vs Asif Raza Mir2023 MLD 242 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Waheed-ud-Din and others vs Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation2023 IHC 218 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Sajjad Prince vs Learned Additional District Judge and others2023 IHC 66 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ayub Shah and others vs Registrar Cooperative2023 MLD 307 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-09
  cooperative societieswrit jurisdictionalternate remedycontinuing mandamuselection disputeinfructuous petitionmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions challenging the election process of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Employees Cooperative Housing Society. The petitioners alleged violations of the Islamabad Capital Territory Cooperative Societies (Managing Committee Election) Rules, 2014, specifically regarding the dispensing of mandatory membership slip and CNIC requirements, and sought directions for election management. The core legal questions addressed were the maintainability of a writ petition where an alternate statutory remedy was previously availed and withdrawn, and the applicability of the doctrine of 'continuing mandamus' after the primary relief of holding elections had been achieved. The Court held that the writ petition challenging the election process was not maintainable, as the petitioners had already invoked and subsequently abandoned the adequate alternate remedy provided under Section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petition seeking directions for elections had become infructuous upon the completion of the election process, rejecting the application of 'continuing mandamus' to supervise ongoing affairs once the specific prayer had been satisfied.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable when the petitioner has already availed and subsequently withdrawn an alternate statutory remedy for the same grievance?
  • Does the doctrine of 'continuing mandamus' apply to keep a writ petition alive after the primary relief of holding elections has been granted?
  • Can a court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 assume the role of an appellate authority regarding election disputes governed by the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohsin Shah vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice, Islamabad and 3 others2023 PLD Islamabad 272, 2023 PLC (C.S) 1467 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-15
  directory retirementcivil servantspublic interestdelegated legislationterms and conditions of servicefundamental rightsdue processsupersession
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment addresses a series of writ petitions challenging the constitutional and statutory vires of the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, as well as specific promotion decisions and the vires of Section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The core legal questions revolve around whether the delegated rulemaking power to enact directory retirement rules after twenty years of qualifying service exceeds the parent statute, violates fundamental rights such as due process and fair trial under the Constitution of Pakistan, or conflicts with the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that directory retirement does not constitute a punishment or stigma, but rather serves as a valid mechanism for the competent authority to evaluate the efficiency and suitability of civil servants in the public interest. The Court established that Section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the 2020 Rules are intra vires the Constitution, that delegated legislation consistent with parent statutes is permissible, and that the incorporation of procedural safeguards, right of hearing, and review provisions under the rules fully satisfies the requirements of due process and natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020 are ultra vires the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does a civil servant possess a vested right to continue in service after completing twenty years of qualifying service until the age of superannuation?
  • Can a civil servant who has opted for voluntary return or plea bargain under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 still be subjected to departmental retirement or disciplinary proceedings?
  • Whether the decision of a selection board regarding the fitness of a civil servant for promotion is open to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Asad Ali Shah vs The Chief Editor, daily Jang and others2023 IHC 180 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Asim Jaffari and 4 others vs Qamar Abbas and 6 others2023 CLC 895 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Ghaffor and others vs Commissioner National Industrial2023 IHC 208 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-10
  limitation periodgrievance noticeindustrial relationslachesconstitutional petitionregularization
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a writ petition to assail an order of the Full Bench, National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.), which had set aside a Member's order directing the regularization of the petitioners' services from an earlier effective date and the grant of back benefits. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners' grievance notices and subsequent grievance petitions before the N.I.R.C. were filed within the mandatory limitation periods prescribed by the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The court held that the cause of action arose upon the issuance of the petitioners' appointment letters, and since the grievance notices and petitions were filed well beyond the statutory limitation periods of ninety and sixty days respectively, the N.I.R.C. Full Bench rightly dismissed the petitions. Additionally, the court found the constitutional petition barred by laches due to a delay exceeding seven months. The key principle laid down is that strict adherence to the limitation periods for serving grievance notices and filing grievance petitions under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is mandatory for maintaining a labor claim, and writ petitions filed beyond a reasonable time of ninety days are liable to dismissal on the grounds of laches.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grievance petition before the N.I.R.C. is maintainable without the prior service of a grievance notice on the employer within the limitation period provided in Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • What is the limitation period for filing a grievance petition before the N.I.R.C. under the proviso to Section 33(4) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 filed after a delay of more than seven months can be dismissed on the grounds of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Sumaira Nazir Siddiqui vs Ministry of Housing and Works through its2023 IHC 360, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 704 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-06
  accommodation allocation rulesgovernment accommodationcivil servantsre-employment after superannuationgeneral waiting listsubject-to-vacancy allotmenthigh court judges privilegesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns consolidated writ petitions challenging the cancellation of official residential accommodation allotted to the petitioner, a retired civil servant re-employed on contract in an MP-I scale, and addressing broader systemic irregularities in the distribution of state-owned housing under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. The core legal questions involve the eligibility of re-employed contract personnel and retired civil servants for government accommodation under the rules, the legality of subject-to-vacancy allotments, and the proper statutory basis for allocating residences to High Court judges. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Rule 3(4) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, retired civil servants re-employed on contract, particularly in management pay scales, are ineligible for government accommodation, rendering the petitioner's initial allotment void. The court laid down key principles establishing that accommodations must be allotted strictly according to seniority-driven General Waiting Lists, that subject-to-vacancy allotment letters are illegal, and that High Court judges are entitled to official residences under the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997, rather than the civil servants' accommodation rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired civil servant re-employed on contract against an MP-I scale position is eligible for the allotment of government residential accommodation under Rule 3(4) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Are allotment letters issued by the Ministry of Housing and Works on a subject-to-vacancy basis legally valid under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Does the entitlement of High Court judges to official residence flow from the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997, rather than the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Whether the High Court can exercise suo motu powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sumaira Nazir Siddique vs Ministry of Housing and Works through its2023 IHC 118 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-16
  official accommodationcivil servantsgeneral waiting listcontract employmenthigh court judgessubject-to-vacancy allotmentdiscriminatory treatmentaccommodation allocation rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses petitions challenging the cancellation of official residential accommodation allotted to the petitioner, a retired civil servant re-employed on contract as a Member of the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal in MP-1 scale. The core legal questions involved the petitioner's eligibility for government accommodation under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, the legality of subject-to-vacancy allotments, and the correct legal mechanism for providing official residences to High Court judges. The court held that re-employed civil servants on contract in MP-1 scale are ineligible for government accommodation under Rule 3(4) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, rendering the petitioner's initial allotment illegal and its subsequent cancellation lawful. The Islamabad High Court further ruled that subject-to-vacancy allotments are void, that General Waiting Lists must be transparently digitized, and that judges' entitlements to official residences arise strictly from the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997, rather than the civil servants' accommodation rules.

  Questions settled

  • Is a federal government servant re-employed after superannuation on contract in an MP-1 scale eligible for government residential accommodation under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Are allotment letters issued on a subject-to-vacancy basis legally valid under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Does the entitlement of High Court judges to official residence fall under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 or the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997?
  • Can a High Court exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Niaz Gill vs Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad and others2023 MLD 708 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-16Read full judgment →
• Sohail Majeed Bhatti vs Muhammad Ashraf (Late) through Legal Heirs and others2023 CLC 1357 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sohail Majeed Bhatti vs Muhammad Ashraf (late) through his legal heirs2023 IHC 10 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali vs Shamas Hussain & others2023 IHC 422 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-12Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry2023 IHC 352, 2024 PLD Islamabad 135 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Yasin vs Mansoor Majeed Ayat2023 IHC 256 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-28Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Ishtiaq vs The State, etc2023 IHC 362 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-19
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationmitigating circumstancesocular evidenceforensic evidenceretinitis pigmentosacriminal appealinterested witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Jail Appeal and a Murder Reference arising from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his uncle and house trespass. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the appellant’s plea of false implication due to his medical condition (retinitis pigmentosa), and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the appellant's age and mental state. The Court held that the prosecution’s ocular account, corroborated by forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime scene, was reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 302(b) and Section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, the Court found mitigating circumstances, specifically the appellant's young age, lack of criminal history, and the emotional distress caused by his degenerative eye condition and unrequited marriage proposal. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The judgment reaffirms that while ocular testimony from relatives is not inherently suspect, sentencing must balance retribution with the potential for reform, particularly where mental or emotional impairment exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does a blood relationship between eyewitnesses and the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment based on the accused's medical condition and emotional state?
  • Is the burden of proof on the accused to establish a plea of false implication when claiming a specific medical condition?
  • Does a minor discrepancy in the timeline of a post-mortem examination invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shirazi Trading Company (Pvt.) Limited vs National Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine and others2023 IHC 240 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-21Read full judgment →