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.

• Interworld Communication Private Limited through Authorized2023 MLD 323 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
• International Islamic University through its President and another vs President’s Secretariat (Public), Awain-e-Sadar and others2023 IHC 302 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Imran Khan Niazi vs District Election Commissioner, Islamabad & Another2023 IHC 158 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-07
  non-bailable warrantsissuance of processprocuring attendanceconstitutional petitionframing of chargepersistent non-appearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by a trial court issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner in a complaint case under the Elections Act, 2017, following persistent non-appearance. The core legal question concerned the scope and procedure of issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether non-bailable warrants were lawfully issued to secure attendance. The Islamabad High Court held that the trial court adopted the correct path by issuing non-bailable warrants due to the petitioner's continuous failure to appear personally for framing of the charge. The court noted that general security threats affecting the country do not justify halting judicial proceedings or excusing personal attendance. However, to meet the ends of justice and prevent immediate proclamation proceedings, the court suspended the non-bailable warrants until a specific date, directing the petitioner to appear personally before the trial court. The key principle laid down is that where an accused persistently avoids appearance, a court may issue warrants to procure attendance, and the accused must either seek pre-arrest bail or appear to execute bonds as outlined in landmark apex court jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the primary purpose of issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can general security threats serve as a valid legal ground for an accused to continuously evade personal appearance before a trial court?
  • What are the available legal remedies for an accused against whom bailable or non-bailable warrants have been issued to procure attendance?
  • Does the issuance of a process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, equate to a finding of reasonable grounds of guilt under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Amir and another vs Mst. Ismat Bibi and another2023 CLC 1059 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-17
  harassment at workplacedouble jeopardyombudsmanconcurrent proceedingscriminal prosecutiondepartmental proceedingscosts of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging an interim order of the Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, which dismissed their application for the rejection of a complaint filed under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether concurrent proceedings before the Ombudsman and a Criminal Court stemming from the same set of factual allegations violate the fundamental right against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that inquiry proceedings before the Ombudsman are not criminal in nature and carry penalties distinct from criminal convictions. The Court affirmed that civil/departmental inquiries and criminal prosecutions serve different purposes, involve different standards of proof, and can proceed simultaneously without constituting double jeopardy. Additionally, Section 12 of the 2010 Act provides that its provisions are in addition to other laws. Due to concealing the prior dismissal of an identical application, additional costs were imposed on the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings before the Ombudsman under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 violate Article 13 of the Constitution during the pendency of a criminal trial on similar allegations?
  • Do civil or departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings on the same factual cause of action constitute double jeopardy?
  • Can penalties imposed under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 co-exist with sentences passed by a Criminal Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs The State, etc.2023 IHC 150 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-27
  post-arrest bailofficial secretsquashing of FIRclassified documentconstitutional immunitycypher
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment of the Islamabad High Court addresses a petition seeking post-arrest bail and a constitutional petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under sections 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, while serving as Prime Minister, communicated and misused a classified diplomatic document (cypher) for political gain in a manner prejudicial to state security. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 to civilians and former prime ministers, the validity of cognizance taken upon a government-authorized complaint, the scope of constitutional immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether grounds existed for post-arrest bail or quashment of the FIR. The court held that the Official Secrets Act applies universally to citizens, that the provisions of section 5 are disjunctive and prima facie attracted, that executive immunity does not extend to political speeches or criminal acts outside official duties, and that alternate remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a constitutional petition for quashment. Consequently, both the bail application and the quashing petition were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 apply to civilians and holders of public office or are restricted exclusively to members of the Armed Forces?
  • Does a former Prime Minister enjoy criminal immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 for statements made during political gatherings?
  • Whether the disclosure and alleged mishandling of a classified diplomatic cypher prima facie attract the penal provisions of section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable for the quashment of an FIR when an efficacious alternate remedy under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs District Election Commissioner, Islamabad2023 IHC 164 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-04
  criminal revisionstatement of assets and liabilitiescorrupt practiceelection commission of pakistanlimitation periodauthorization of complaintsupervisory jurisdictionremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad (West), which dismissed applications for the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against the petitioner for alleged corrupt practices regarding statements of assets and liabilities. The core legal questions revolved around whether the complaint was filed by a duly authorized person and whether it was barred by limitation under section 137(4) of the Elections Act, 2017. The Islamabad High Court held that the trial court dealt with the complex legal issues in a perfunctory and cursory manner with scanty reasons, failing to properly evaluate the questions of authorization and limitation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the applications afresh with detailed reasons within seven days. The key principle laid down is that a trial court must judiciously and thoroughly examine substantial legal questions and provide reasoned decisions in compliance with the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution, rather than disposing of them in a slipshod manner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal complaint filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan under section 190(2) of the Elections Act, 2017 requires specific authorization by the Commission itself?
  • Whether the 120-day limitation period provided under section 137(4) of the Elections Act, 2017 for initiating criminal proceedings is mandatory or directory?
  • Whether a superior court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 should substitute its own findings or remand the case when the trial court has failed to address material legal issues?
  • Whether lack of proper authorization at the time of initiating criminal proceedings is fatal to the complaint or capable of subsequent ratification?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State through Attorney General Office, Islamabad & Another2023 IHC 148 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State etc.2023 IHC 166 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-02
  pre-arrest bailnon-appearance of accusedexemption from personal appearancebail dismissalcriminal revisionsinvoluntary absence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple criminal revision petitions filed by Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, impugning orders of trial courts that dismissed his pre-arrest bail applications due to his non-appearance. The petitioner was confined in jail serving a sentence following a conviction under the Elections Act, 2017, making his personal attendance before the bail courts impossible. The core legal question was whether trial courts can summarily dismiss pre-arrest bail applications solely due to the accused's absence when such absence is involuntary and due to imprisonment in another case. The Islamabad High Court held that where an accused's absence is not deliberate and is beyond their control, trial courts must liberally grant exemption applications and should not dismiss bail applications in absentia without deciding them on merits. The court set aside the dismissal orders, restored the bail applications to be deemed pending, and highlighted that the state's lack of intent to execute arrests should also be factored in by the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decide a pre-arrest bail application in the absence of the accused?
  • Should trial courts liberally grant exemption from appearance when the accused's absence is due to confinement in another case?
  • Whether an application for pre-arrest bail ought to be dismissed solely on the ground of non-appearance without considering the merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2023 IHC 142 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-20Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 IHC 97 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-20Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 IHC 154 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 202, 2024 PLD Islamabad 155, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 126 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-19
  jail trialopen trialdue processintra-court appealOfficial Secrets Actjudicial independenceseparation of powersprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a single-judge judgment upholding the trial of the appellant in jail for offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The core legal question concerned the legality of conducting a criminal trial in jail premises without a prior judicial order under Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and without adhering to the procedure prescribed in Rule 3 of the Lahore High Court Rules. The Court held that the notifications issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice were without lawful authority, as they lacked the requisite judicial order and government sanction. The Court emphasized that the right to an open trial is a fundamental component of due process and a cornerstone of the judicial system. It held that while jail trials are permissible in exceptional circumstances, they require a judicial order passed by the presiding judge after hearing the parties, followed by government sanction. Executive notifications cannot bypass these procedural safeguards, nor can they retrospectively validate proceedings conducted in violation of the open trial principle. Consequently, the jail trial proceedings were declared vitiated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal trial be conducted in jail premises without a prior judicial order under Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the executive government have the authority to unilaterally designate a jail as the venue for a criminal trial without following the procedure prescribed in Rule 3 of the Lahore High Court Rules?
  • Can an executive notification provide retrospective validation for criminal proceedings conducted in violation of the open trial principle?
  • Is an intra-court appeal maintainable against a judgment passed under Article 199 of the Constitution where no statutory remedy of appeal, revision, or review was available at the time of the original order?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs District Election Commissioner, IslamabadPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 929 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-28
  suspension of sentenceshort sentencebail pending appealElections Act 2017jurisdictional defectscriminal procedurediscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the suspension of a three-year sentence awarded to the applicant following his conviction under the Elections Act 2017. The core legal question was whether the sentence should be suspended pending the final disposal of the appeal, given the applicant's contentions regarding jurisdictional defects, limitation bars, and procedural irregularities in the trial court's proceedings. The Court held that the sentence of three years constitutes a "short sentence," and in accordance with established judicial principles, the discretion to suspend such a sentence should generally be exercised in favor of the applicant. The Court declined to engage in a deep appreciation of the complex jurisdictional and merits-based arguments raised by the parties, holding that such matters are reserved for the final adjudication of the appeal. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, suspended the sentence, and ordered the applicant's release on bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The key principle established is that at the suspension of sentence stage, courts should avoid lengthy determinations on complex merits or jurisdictional issues.

  Questions settled

  • Is a three-year sentence considered a short sentence for the purpose of suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  • Should a court engage in a deep appreciation of jurisdictional and merits-based arguments during the hearing of an application for suspension of sentence?
  • Is the failure to implead the State as a party in an application for suspension of sentence fatal to the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Iffat Nawaz vs M/s The Bank of Khyber and others2023 IHC 234 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-20
  removal from servicemisconducthabitual negligenceindustrial relationsNIRCmaster and servantsolitary act of negligenceback pay and reinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed by Iffat Nawaz impugns the orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) dismissing her appeal against her removal from service by her employer, the Bank of Khyber, following an inquiry into fraudulent transactions. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of removal from service could be imposed when the inquiry report found the employee guilty only of a solitary act of negligence rather than habitual negligence or misconduct. The Islamabad High Court held that under Standing Order 15(3)(i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, negligence must be habitual to constitute misconduct, and a single instance of negligence does not warrant the major penalty of removal from service. The court set aside the concurrent orders of the N.I.R.C. and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, laying down the principle that a solitary act of negligence does not amount to misconduct under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single instance of negligence constitute misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can a major penalty of removal from service be lawfully imposed on an employee found guilty of a solitary act of negligence rather than habitual negligence?
  • When does the thirty-day limitation period for issuing a charge sheet under Standing Order 15(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 commence?
  Read full judgment →
• ICI Pakistan Ltd vs Appellate Authority Eibi & others2023 IHC 434, 2024 PLC 188 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-08
  Employees Old Age Benefits InstitutionEOBI contributionprincipal employerindependent contractorcontract of servicenon-speaking orderdoctrine of mergeremployer-employee relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a public limited company, challenged an appellate order passed by the Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) upholding a demand notice and decision that held the petitioner liable as a 'principal employer' to pay contributions under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 for truck drivers and other personnel engaged by its independent transport contractor. The core legal questions involved whether the employees of an independent service contractor qualify as employees of the principal establishment under the EOB Act, 1976, whether the statutory prerequisites for assessment under Section 12(3) were satisfied, and whether the impugned order constituted a speaking order. The Islamabad High Court held that the lower forums failed to analyze essential legal tests—such as control, supervision, payment of wages, and the nature of the contract—to establish any employer-employee relationship or privity of contract between the petitioner and the contractor's workers. The Court ruled that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, set aside the concurrent decisions, and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of an independent transport contractor can be considered employees of the principal establishment for the purposes of contribution under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • What are the pre-requisites and evidentiary requirements for assessing contributions under Section 12(3) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • Does an order that merely reproduces statutory provisions and case law without independent reasoning or analysis constitute a non-speaking order under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1890?
  • How does the doctrine of merger operate when an appeal is dismissed by a higher forum against the decision of a lower forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Shah vs The StatePLJ 2023 Cr.C. 337, 2023 MLD 2037 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
• Hukam Dad vs Islamabad Electric Supply Company through chief2023 PLC 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-20
  date of birth correctionservice recordmaster and servantwrit petitionNIRCdelayed claimconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the orders passed by the Member Bench-II and Full Bench NIRC, which dismissed the petitioner's grievance petition and subsequent appeal seeking the correction of his date of birth in his service record. The core legal questions involve whether a civil court decree for date of birth correction obtained without arraying the employer is binding, whether a belated claim for altering the date of birth after decades of service is maintainable, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a non-statutory corporation where the master-and-servant principle applies. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that a civil court judgment obtained without the employer as a party has no binding effect, that a date of birth recorded upon entry into service cannot be altered after decades of delay, and that a constitutional petition is not maintainable for employees of non-statutory corporations governed by the master-and-servant principle in the absence of statutory rules violation. The key principles laid down are that service record dates of birth are immutable after long delays, civil decrees lack binding force against un-arrayed departments, and master-and-servant rules bar constitutional remedies against non-statutory entities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court decree for the correction of a date of birth be pressed into service against an employer who was not a party to the suit?
  • Whether the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into service can be altered after a lapse of several decades?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable by an employee against a non-statutory corporation where the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Housing Directorate Anchorage vs Muhammad Yasin and others2023 IHC 250 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-24Read full judgment →
• Haroon Wazir vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 232 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-17
  service matterwrit jurisdictionconstitutional barterms and conditions of servicevires of rulesFederal Service Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingscivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, filed a writ petition challenging the vires of the National Highways and Motorway Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2016, and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. He contended that these rules were superseded by the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020, rendering the 2016 rules unlawful. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the challenge. Relying on Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Court affirmed that matters concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, including the vires of service rules or notifications, fall exclusively within the domain of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Court clarified that such rules or notifications are treated as 'final orders' under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, for the purpose of filing an appeal. Consequently, the High Court ruled that a civil servant cannot bypass the Service Tribunal by invoking constitutional jurisdiction, even when alleging violations of fundamental rights or mala fides.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to determine the vires of service rules that affect a civil servant's terms and conditions of service?
  • Can a civil servant challenge the validity of service rules before the High Court by alleging a violation of fundamental rights?
  • Are service rules or notifications that adversely affect a civil servant's terms and conditions of service considered 'final orders' for the purpose of filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to adjudicate a challenge to the vires of service rules based on grounds of mala fides?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Nasrullah Ranjha vs The Civil Judge Islamabad-West etc2023 IHC 390, 2024 MLD 10 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-16Read full judgment →
• Hamad vs The State and another2023 IHC 178 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-31
  post-arrest bailchild sexual abusefurther inquiryprotective orderschild rightscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 252/2023 registered under sections 377-B and 506(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shamas Colony, Islamabad, for allegedly sexually abusing a minor. The core legal questions involved whether a case for further inquiry was made out under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the nature of the allegations and lack of medical evidence, and the extent to which protective measures and preventative orders can be imposed alongside bail in child sexual abuse cases. The Islamabad High Court held that a ground for further inquiry was made out under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, while laying down important principles regarding child protection, victim safety, and the issuance of restrictive and protective measures drawing inspiration from international conventions and the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case of further inquiry is made out for post-arrest bail when no medical examination of the minor victim is conducted and the allegation involves acts less than an attempt?
  • Can bail be granted in non-bailable and non-compoundable offences solely on the basis of a compromise or compounding statement by the complainant?
  • What protective and preventative measures can a court pass alongside the grant of bail in child sexual abuse cases under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Yaqoob vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary2023 IHC 338, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 1, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 492 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-07
  succession certificateTarkaservice benefitsPrime Minister Assistance Packagefamily pensionconcurrent findingswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, father of a deceased Federal Education department teacher, challenged the concurrent decisions of the lower courts which held that service benefits such as the Prime Minister Assistance Package, Benevolent Fund, and other post-demise grants belonged exclusively to the respondent widow and did not constitute 'Tarka' (heritable estate). The Islamabad High Court examined the distinction between 'Tarka' and 'non-tarka' service benefits. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that 'Tarka' comprises only those financial benefits that an employee was entitled to claim or withdraw during their lifetime. Conversely, grants, concessions, or compensation packages that mature or are offered by the employer only after the employee's death do not form part of the heritable estate and are distributable solely to the nominees or family members specified under the relevant service rules. Finding that the father was not an eligible beneficiary for these post-demise grants under the applicable rules, and noting the limited scope of interference in concurrent findings under writ jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal distinction between 'Tarka' (heritable estate) and 'non-tarka' service benefits of a deceased government employee?
  • Are post-demise grants and compensation packages, such as the Prime Minister Assistance Package, inheritable by all legal heirs under Shariah?
  • Can a father of a deceased government employee claim a share in service benefits that mature only after the employee's death if the service rules restrict beneficiaries to the spouse or children?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts in its writ jurisdiction under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ullah Lehri and another vs National Highway Authority and others2023 IHC 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-21Read full judgment →
• Gul Taj vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1712 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-08
  narcotic traffickingchain of custodycriminal appealinvestigating officercomplainantheroin recoveryprocedural irregularitySection 9(c) CNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for trafficking 2500 grams of heroin. The appellant contested the conviction, alleging procedural flaws, including the complainant acting as the investigating officer, discrepancies in the chain of custody, and the use of a generic seal mark on the recovered contraband. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the recovery and the chain of custody through consistent witness testimony and chemical analysis reports. Regarding the legal questions raised, the Court ruled that a police officer is not prohibited from acting as both the complainant and the investigating officer, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. It further emphasized that where the prosecution proves its case on salient features, unnecessary technicalities should not be allowed to hamper the administration of justice. The court concluded that the evidence was unimpeachable and the conviction was well-founded, rejecting the appellant's claims of bias and illegal confinement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police officer act as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a narcotics case?
  • Does the use of a generic seal mark on recovered contraband automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution establishes an unbroken chain of custody for the recovered narcotics?
  • Does the failure of an accused to make a statement under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impact the credibility of their defense plea?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Nabi Khan vs Muhammad Ayub Khan Awan and others2023 IHC 378 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-28Read full judgment →
• Guarantee-Salex-Thales Joint Venture vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division & others2023 IHC 412, PTCL 2023 CL. 801, 2025 PTD 544 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yaseen and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 264 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Sheikh and another vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and another2023 PLC (C.S.) 32 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-18
  deputationistrepatriationOffice Management GroupOMG inductionvested rightFederal Secretariatlegitimate expectationCivil Servants Act 1973
  Summary & questions settled

  The Islamabad High Court addressed sixteen consolidated writ petitions challenging a notification dated 17.10.2018 issued by the Establishment Division, whereby civil servants and ex-cadre officers serving as deputationists in the Federal Secretariat were repatriated to their parent departments. The petitioners argued that having completed more than three years on deputation, they had developed a legitimate expectation to be absorbed or inducted into the Office Management Group (OMG) against the 10% quota reserved for deputationists. The court held that deputationists possess no vested right to serve out a specific period or remain in the borrowing department indefinitely, and the competent authority retains the power to repatriate them at any time. Furthermore, absorption/induction in the OMG cannot occur automatically and requires compliance with the prescribed competitive procedure, including testing and selection by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). Finding no illegality in the repatriation orders and noting that a deputationist is not an 'aggrieved person' for invoking constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant serving on deputation have a vested right to complete the full term or remain indefinitely in the borrowing department?
  • Can a deputationist challenge an order of repatriation to their parent department through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Is a deputationist automatically entitled to absorption or induction in the Office Management Group (OMG) merely on the ground of having served for more than three years in the Federal Secretariat?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 1188, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 246 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-24
  quo warrantomaintainabilitybona fidespublic officemalicious petitioncost of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan challenging the appointments of various respondents in the Special Technology Zones Authority in a non-transparent manner. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a writ of quo warranto, whether the positions held by the respondents constituted public offices, and whether the petitioner approached the court with bona fide intentions or for collateral purposes as an employee of a media network. The Islamabad High Court held that the petition had become infructuous regarding some respondents who no longer held office, and more importantly, that the petitioner lacked bona fides, acting as a proxy in a malicious media campaign and blackmail enterprise following the authority's refusal to grant a license to the petitioner's employer. The court established the principle that a writ of quo warranto is a discretionary remedy which will be summarily dismissed if the petitioner is found to be acting with mala fide intent, ulterior motives, or as a proxy for private grievances, thereby abusing the court process. The petition was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ of quo warranto can be maintained when the petitioner lacks bona fides and acts for collateral purposes?
  • Does a petition for quo warranto become infructuous if the respondents no longer hold the public office in question?
  • Can the superior courts dismiss a writ of quo warranto summarily due to extraneous motives of the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghiasuddin vs The Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-10Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain Warraich vs Syed Zarfan Hussain Shah2023 MLD 437 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan and others vs M/s Bismillah Associate CNG Filling2023 IHC 24 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-15Read full judgment →
• Federal Revenue Alliance Employees Union vs Federal Board of Revenue2023 IHC 184 · Islamabad High Court
  trade union registrationindustrial relationscivil servantsadministration of the Stateworkmenstatutory interpretationlabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a judgment that set aside the registration of the Federal Revenue Alliance Employees' Union as a trade union. The core legal question was whether employees of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), who are civil servants engaged in the administration of the State, are entitled to form a trade union under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA-2012). The Court held that while the registration application was correctly rejected under the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 (IRA-2008)—which restricted such unions to Railway and Pakistan Post employees—the legal landscape shifted with the enactment of the IRA-2012. The Court determined that Section 1(3)(b) of the IRA-2012 explicitly includes "workmen" employed in the administration of the State, thereby removing the previous restriction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal against the initial cancellation but clarified that the union is not precluded from applying for fresh registration under the current IRA-2012. The judgment establishes that statutory changes in the IRA-2012 broaden the eligibility for trade union formation among state employees classified as workmen.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 allow workmen employed in the administration of the State to form a trade union?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 confer a right of appeal to an employer against an order of the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission?
  • Does the definition of 'employer' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 exclude certain staff from trade union membership?
  Read full judgment →
• Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation through Director2023 PLD Islamabad17 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education vs Shahab-ud-2023 IHC 224 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Ltd vs Full Bench NIRC etc2023 IHC 320 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-21
  workmanNIRC jurisdictiongrievance petitionlocker custodianbeneficial legislationservice termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed by Faysal Bank Limited impugns an order passed by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.), which had allowed respondent No.2's appeal and remanded her grievance petition for a decision on merits after finding her to be a "workman". The core legal question was whether respondent No.2, a Locker Custodian in Officer Group-II, qualified as a "workman" under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, thereby giving the N.I.R.C. jurisdiction to entertain her grievance petition against the termination of her services. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the nature of respondent No.2's duties—which lacked managerial, administrative, or supervisory powers—clearly brought her within the definition of a workman. The key principles laid down are that the omission to explicitly plead the status of a workman under the 1968 Ordinance in a grievance petition is not fatal when the petition is filed under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and that beneficial labour legislation ought not to be construed strictly against the worker due to drafting deficiencies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission in a grievance petition to explicitly plead that an employee is a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is fatal to the maintainability of the petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  • Does a bank employee serving as a Locker Custodian fall within the definition of a "workman" under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • What is the burden of proof for a person approaching the National Industrial Relations Commission claiming the status of a workman when such status is denied by the employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Fawad Ahmed vs Election Commission of Pakistan through its Chief2023 IHC 146, 2025 MLD 642 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-25Read full judgment →
• Fauji Fertilizer Bin Qasim Limited vs National Industrial Relations2023 IHC 246 · Islamabad High Court
  grievance noticelimitation periodcondonation of delayNIRCindustrial relationscontract employeepermanent workman
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) which allowed a grievance petition filed by a contract employee regarding the non-extension of his service agreement. The core legal question was whether the N.I.R.C. could adjudicate a time-barred grievance petition on merits without first deciding an application for condonation of delay and whether mandatory timelines for serving a grievance notice under industrial relations law were met. The Islamabad High Court held that a court or tribunal is legally bound to address and decide the question of limitation and any condonation application with a conscious application of mind before proceeding to merits, and that concept of implied condonation is alien to the law. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the N.I.R.C. to first determine the limitation and condonation issues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tribunal can decide a time-barred grievance petition on merits without first formally deciding an application for condonation of delay?
  • Is the concept of implied condonation of delay permissible under the law of limitation in industrial disputes?
  • What are the mandatory time limits for serving a grievance notice and filing a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Can a court or tribunal examine the question of limitation suo motu even if it is not specifically agitated by the respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Jamal Afridi vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary Ministry2023 IHC 424 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Habib vs Election Commission of Pakistan Islamabad2023 IHC 162 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-29Read full judgment →
• Fakhar-E-Azam Wazir vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 CLC 1435 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Faisal Maqbool Shaikh vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 02 others2023 IHC 116, 2023 IHC 340, 2025 PCRLJ 425 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-20
  Passport Control Listfreedom of movementfundamental rightsright to travel abroadpendency of criminal caseconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenged a notification placing the petitioner's name on the Passport Control List (PCL) following the registration of a criminal case. The core legal question was whether a citizen's name can be placed on the PCL and their freedom of movement restricted merely due to the pendency of a criminal case and without fulfilling statutory requirements and approval of the Federal Government. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petition, holding that the placement of the petitioner's name on the PCL was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court laid down the principle that the right to travel abroad is an intrinsic part of the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and freedom of movement under Articles 4, 9, 10A, and 15 of the Constitution. Furthermore, mere registration of a criminal case or pendency of an investigation does not justify restricting travel, and statutory procedures under the Passport Rules, 2021 and Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be strictly adhered to.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere pendency of a criminal case or investigation is sufficient justification to place an accused person's name on the Passport Control List?
  • Does the inclusion of a person's name on the Passport Control List require the explicit approval of the Federal Government under the Passport Rules, 2021?
  • Is the right to travel abroad an integral part of the fundamental rights to life and liberty under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • What constitutes the taking of cognizance by a court under criminal law to restrict movement under special banking laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Hayat vs Learned Additional Sessions Judge_Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, and others2023 IHC 370, 2024 YLR 1037 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
• Fairdeal Exchange Company (Private) Limited through Director of Company vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and 3 others2023 PTD 919 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-27Read full judgment →
• Faiq Ali Jamali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law2023 IHC 386 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Euro Tiles and Granite through Proprietor and 4 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Commerce Division and others2023 PTD 21 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shireen M. Mazari vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and another2023 IHC 346 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Noor-Us-Saba vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Health Services and others2023 CLC 1245 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-13
  regularization of contract employeesrepatriationrules of businesssummary to the prime ministervested rightsdrug regulatory authoritynatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Scientific Officer at the National Institute of Health (NIH) and subsequently appointed as Project Director on contract and regularized as Director (BS-20) in the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) pursuant to the Prime Minister's approval, challenged a subsequent notification dated 15.07.2019 repatriating her to the NIH following a reviewed summary approved by the Prime Minister. The core legal question was whether the Prime Minister's subsequent decision to review and undo the regularization, resulting in the petitioner's repatriation based on an incomplete and misleading summary, was legally sustainable. The Islamabad High Court held that the summary submitted by the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination (NHSR&C) was misleading, omitted crucial historical facts and the stakeholder's (petitioner's) point of view in violation of the Rules of Business 1973 and Cabinet guidelines, rendering the consequent decision unsustainable. The Court set aside the impugned notification and directed that the Prime Minister decide the matter afresh after considering a complete and lawful summary containing the petitioner's perspective.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a summary submitted to the Prime Minister affecting a person's vested rights is legally flawed if it omits the point of view of the affected stakeholder?
  • Can an employee be lawfully repatriated to a parent department when their name has already been struck off its strength upon regularization elsewhere?
  • Whether the Prime Minister's approval for reviewing a prior regularization decision can be sustained when based on an incomplete and misleading departmental summary?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for submitting a summary to the Prime Minister under Rule 15(2) of the Rules of Business, 1973 read with Cabinet guidelines?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mutahir Shah vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination, Islamabad and others2023 IHC 368 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Naeem vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 298 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Hafeez Ahmad vs The State etc2023 IHC 54 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-05
  revision petitionsummoning of accusedpolice reportColumn No. 2Section 204 CrPCreview of ordercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged a Trial Court order summoning the petitioner, who had been placed in Column No. 2 of the police report. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the Trial Court's contradictory orders: initially observing that no evidence existed to summon the petitioner, then subsequently issuing a summons based on the erroneous characterization of the police report as a 'challan.' The High Court held that the Trial Court's orders were inconsistent and legally flawed. The Court determined that an order issued under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is tentative in nature and not a final judgment; therefore, it is subject to review by the Trial Court if found to be erroneous or suffering from inherent vice. The Court emphasized the legal distinction between a police report under Section 173, which may not recommend trial, and a 'challan,' which does. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision after hearing both parties.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order issued under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a final judgment that cannot be reviewed by the Trial Court?
  • What is the legal distinction between a police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and a 'challan'?
  • Can a Trial Court review its own order if it is found to suffer from inherent vice or is erroneous on the face of the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aziz-Ur-Rehman and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet and others2023 PLJ Islamabad 179, 2024 PLD Islamabad 53, 2024 CLD 230 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• Dr Shamoona Naqvi & 4 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations & Coordination & 3 others2023 IHC 416 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-07
  quo-warrantodeputationwed-lock policycivil serviceeligibility criteriadirect recruitment quotaadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition in the nature of quo-warranto challenged the appointment of a Surgeon (Obstetrics & Gyneacology) on deputation in the Federal Government Polyclinic, Islamabad. The core legal questions were whether the respondent's appointment violated the eligibility criteria prescribed under S.R.O. 1134(I)(2018) and whether the deputation was legally permissible. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the deputation was a temporary administrative arrangement between departments. The Court found that the respondent possessed the requisite qualifications as verified by a specialized committee constituted by the Ministry. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appointment was made against the quota reserved for direct recruitment, thereby causing no prejudice to the promotion prospects of the petitioners. The judgment establishes that courts should not interfere in internal administrative matters regarding deputation where no legal right of the petitioners is infringed, and that a civil servant on deputation in the same pay scale, who meets the eligibility criteria, may be appointed to a post reserved for direct recruitment without violating the rights of existing employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be appointed on deputation to a post reserved for direct recruitment?
  • Does the court have the authority to interfere in internal administrative matters regarding the deputation of a civil servant?
  • Is a petition in the nature of quo-warranto maintainable when the appointment is a temporary deputation arrangement?
  • Does the posting of a civil servant on deputation against a direct recruitment quota violate the promotion prospects of existing employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr Rehiana B. Ali vs Chaudhry Riaz ahmed & others2023 IHC 99 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-15
  private complaintpreliminary inquiryprima facie casecriminal revisionissuance of processstandard of proofmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, which dismissed a private complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, alleging murder. The core legal question was whether a trial court, during a preliminary inquiry, may apply the evidentiary standards of a full-length trial to determine if a prima facie case exists for issuing process against the accused. The High Court held that the trial court erred by overstretching the preliminary inquiry and effectively conducting a full-fledged trial, which is impermissible at this stage. The court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The judgment reaffirms the principle that during a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the complainant’s burden is merely to establish a prima facie case to justify the issuance of process. The court must not examine evidence minutely or require proof beyond reasonable doubt, as such rigorous standards are reserved exclusively for the final trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court equate the standard of establishing a prima facie case at the preliminary inquiry stage to the standard of proof required after a full-length trial?
  • Is a trial court permitted to examine evidence minutely during a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the dismissal of a private complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 serve as a substitute for an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Director of Works/Chief Engineer (Navy) Naval Head Quarter, E-8,2024 PLJ Islamabad 86, 2023 MLD 1324 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
• Daewoo Pakistan Motorway Service Limited vs The Government of Pakistan2023 IHC 310, 2024 YLR 1457 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• D-Watson Chemist and Super Store and others vs Federation of Pakistan2023 PTD 803 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Islamabad and others vs2023 PTD 603 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Ltu, Islamabad vs M/s Askari Cement2023 IHC 122 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Tahir Kaleem Siddiqui vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 374 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-05
  deputationabsorptionWorkers Welfare Fundlocus poenitentiaeservice lawrepatriationvoid ab initiocontract employee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former contract employee of the Directorate of Workers Education, was absorbed into the Workers Welfare Fund (W.W.F.) in 1998 and subsequently promoted to the post of Director General. In 2017, the W.W.F. declared his absorption illegal and void ab initio, citing procedural violations of the Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997, specifically the lack of a Selection Committee recommendation and his prior contractual status. The petitioner challenged this repatriation order. The core legal question was whether the department could retroactively invalidate an appointment and repatriate an employee after nineteen years of service due to procedural irregularities committed by the department itself. The Court held that the department could not penalize the petitioner for its own procedural lapses in the appointment process. Applying the principles of locus poenitentiae and estoppel, the Court ruled that the department cannot turn around and terminate an employee for its own failures, especially after long-term service. The impugned repatriation order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision by the W.W.F.

  Questions settled

  • Can a department terminate an employee for procedural irregularities in appointment committed by the department itself after a long period of service?
  • Whether an employee absorbed into a department can be repatriated after nineteen years of service due to alleged procedural flaws in the initial absorption process?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the state from undoing an appointment after a significant lapse of time where the employee is not at fault?
  • Can an appointment made by a superior body be declared invalid for non-compliance with rules requiring a recommendation from a subordinate committee?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Islamabad Electric Supply2023 PLJ Islamabad 171 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Islamabad Electric Supply2023 PTD 569 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-II) Ltu, Islamabad vs Messrs2023 PTD 390 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
• Commander (R) Muhammad Riaz vs The Chief of Naval Staff, Naval2023 IHC 190, 2024 MLD 75 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-30Read full judgment →
• Commander (R) Muhammad Riaz vs The Chief of Naval Staff, Naval2023 IHC 108 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Circle Net Communication Pakistan Pvt. Ltd vs PTCL2023 IHC 372 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-24Read full judgment →
• China Water and Electric Corporation (Cwe) P.R. China vs National2023 CLD 1365 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-27Read full judgment →
• China International Water and Electric Corporation (Cwe) P.R. China vs National Highway Authority2023 CLD 1400 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-04Read full judgment →
• Chaudry Fawad Hussain and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 MLD 1417, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 90 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-16Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Jabbar and others vs Controller General Accounts, Islamabad2023 IHC 324 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-12
  writ petitioncivil servantterms and conditions of servicedisciplinary proceedingsService TribunaljurisdictionArticle 212departmental appealshow cause noticede novo inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a show cause notice issued to civil servants by the Controller General of Accounts, alleging successive de novo inquiries without lawful justification and violation of due process and fundamental rights. The core legal question was the maintainability of the petition given that the matter related to the petitioners' terms and conditions of service as civil servants. The court held that the petition was not maintainable, dismissing it in limine. The decision was based on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunals under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for matters concerning civil servants' terms and conditions, including disciplinary proceedings. The court emphasized that departmental remedies, such as appeals under the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, or before the Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, must be exhausted before invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable in the High Court regarding disciplinary matters concerning civil servants' terms and conditions of service?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the jurisdiction of High Courts in matters pertaining to civil servants' terms and conditions?
  • Are civil servants required to exhaust departmental remedies before filing a writ petition concerning their service matters?
  • Can an order for a de novo inquiry against a civil servant be challenged through a departmental appeal under the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over grievances of civil servants relating to their terms and conditions of service, including disciplinary matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Captain (R) Muhammad Ali Zulqarnain Kiani vs Islamabad Electric Supply2023 PLC (C.S) 886 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-06
  maintainability of constitutional petitionmaster and servantstatutory rules of servicetransfer and postingdemotionIESCO
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO), challenged orders regarding his transfer and the withdrawal of his promotion from BS-18 to BS-17. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan against IESCO is maintainable, and whether the service matters of its employees are governed by statutory rules. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that IESCO is a company incorporated under the laws of Pakistan rather than a statutory entity, and its employees do not have statutory rules of service, rendering constitutional petitions against it non-maintainable. Furthermore, the court held that transfer is an exigency of service and demotion was conducted following an inquiry without any violation of fundamental rights or law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO)?
  • Are the employees of Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO) governed by statutory rules of service?
  • Does an employee have a fundamental right to claim a posting at a particular station?
  • Whether transfer orders and departmental demotions in a non-statutory corporate entity violate fundamental rights without statutory backing?
  Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority through its Chairman vs Pakistan Television2023 IHC 248 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Better Engineered Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd. through authorized2023 PLD Islamabad 105 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-30Read full judgment →
• Bahria Town (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Mirza Zahid Iqbal and others2023 IHC 288 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-04Read full judgment →
• Association, Constituted of (1) M/s Associated Consultancy Centre2023 IHC 330 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-19Read full judgment →
• Asim Irfan Ahmad vs Additional District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad2023 YLR 1123 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-30Read full judgment →
• Asif Iqbal vs Civil Aviation Authority through its Director General and another2023 IHC 286 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-14
  writ petitionmaintainabilitystatutory rulesCivil Aviation Authorityservice regulationsconstitutional jurisdictiontransfer order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Civil Aviation Authority (C.A.A.), challenged his transfer from Islamabad International Airport to Gwadar Airport, alleging victimization due to his trade union activities and prior litigation. He further contended that the transfer violated the C.A.A.'s internal policy prohibiting the transfer of non-Baloch employees to Balochistan. The C.A.A. contested the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner's terms and conditions of service were not governed by statutory rules or regulations. The core legal question was whether the Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations, 2000, constitute statutory rules, thereby enabling the High Court to exercise its constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Court, relying on established Supreme Court precedents, held that the C.A.A. Service Regulations, 2000, are non-statutory as they lack Federal Government approval and function primarily for internal control and management. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner could not invoke constitutional jurisdiction for service-related grievances. The petition was dismissed without addressing the merits of the transfer order.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations, 2000 considered statutory rules?
  • Can an employee of the Civil Aviation Authority invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court regarding service matters?
  • Does the absence of Federal Government approval render internal service regulations of a statutory body non-statutory?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Fahim Malik through his Special Attorney vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 500, 2023 YLR 2426 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-07
  appeal against acquittalspecial attorneylimitation periodcondonation of delaycheatingmaintainabilitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the respondent in an offence under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the competency of filing a criminal appeal through a special attorney and the maintainability of an appeal filed with an inordinate delay of 176 days, alongside the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 to criminal appeals against acquittal. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The court held that criminal law does not provide for the filing of a criminal appeal through an attorney and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is excluded by virtue of Section 29 of the same Act when a special law provides a distinct limitation period. The key principles laid down are that criminal appeals cannot be prosecuted through a special attorney, that the limitation period of thirty days for filing an appeal against acquittal is strictly applicable, and that a delay in filing cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal appeal be filed and prosecuted through a special attorney?
  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to criminal appeals against acquittal governed by Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether delay in filing a criminal appeal can be condoned without a formal application or a satisfactory explanation for each day of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Umar vs The State and others2023 IHC 276 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
• Asad Umar vs The State and another2023 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mehmood and others vs Special Judge-I, Anti-Terrorism Court, Islamabad and others2023 PCRLJ 203 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-19
  anti-terrorism courtjurisdictionmens reaterrorismpersonal vendettaprivate enmitytransfer of casesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves writ petitions challenging an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the petitioners' application under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and holding that the charged offence falls within the definition of terrorism. The core legal question was whether a gruesome crime resulting from a private altercation and personal enmity can constitute terrorism under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, merely because it creates fear and insecurity or involves the use of firearms. The Islamabad High Court held that an act, howsoever gruesome or shocking, does not qualify as terrorism unless it is accompanied by the requisite specific mens rea and design or purpose set out in section 6(1)(b) and (c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and that fear or insecurity resulting as an unintended consequence or fallout of a private crime does not make it an act of terrorism. The court laid down the principle that the interpretation of terrorism established by the Supreme Court in Ghulam Hussain applies retrospectively to the enactment of section 6 in its present form, and directed the transfer of the case to the ordinary Sessions Court for continuation of the trial from the stage left off.

  Questions settled

  • Does a gruesome crime resulting from personal enmity or private vendetta constitute terrorism merely because it creates fear and panic in society?
  • Can mens rea for the offence of terrorism be inferred solely from the consequences or effects produced by a criminal act?
  • Does the interpretation of terrorism laid down by the Supreme Court in Ghulam Hussain apply retrospectively to acts committed prior to its pronouncement?
  • Whether an Anti-Terrorism Court is bound to transfer a case to an ordinary court under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, when the offence does not fall within the definition of terrorism?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Abbas vs The State and another2023 IHC 410 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-07
  circumstantial evidencemurderlast seenburden of proofdomestic violencestrangulationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, for the murder of the appellant's wife. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through circumstantial evidence, specifically regarding the 'last seen' theory, medical evidence of strangulation, and the appellant's failure to substantiate his defense of suicide. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution effectively proved the chain of events, including the appellant's presence at the scene and a history of domestic cruelty. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that once the prosecution discharges its initial burden, the evidential burden shifts to the accused under Article 122 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to explain facts within his exclusive knowledge. As the appellant failed to provide credible evidence for his contradictory defense of a 'blind incident' versus 'suicide,' the trial court's judgment was upheld. The principle established is that circumstantial evidence, when forming a complete chain, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in a domestic setting.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to provide evidence for a defense plea of suicide, when the prosecution has established a chain of circumstantial evidence, justify the dismissal of an appeal against conviction?
  • When does the evidential burden shift to the accused under Article 122 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in a murder case?
  • Is a defense plea that is self-contradictory, claiming both a 'blind incident' and 'suicide,' sufficient to rebut prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbaz Rahim vs The Manager/Incharge Careem & another2023 IHC 8 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-13
  consumer protectionunfair trade practicestandard form contractunconscionabilityride-hailing servicesadhesion contractconsumer court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment by the Consumer Court, Islamabad, which dismissed a complaint filed under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, regarding alleged overcharging by a ride-hailing service provider and its driver. The core legal questions were whether standard form contracts, which shift liability to third-party contractors, can shield service providers from consumer protection claims, and whether a complaint can be summarily dismissed without procuring the attendance of all necessary parties. The High Court set aside the dismissal, holding that the Consumer Court acted prematurely by not exhausting efforts to secure the driver's presence. The Court established that service providers cannot use unconscionable standard form contracts or adhesion contracts as a 'concealed dagger' to evade liability for unfair trade practices. Consumer protection laws are designed to safeguard consumers from exploitative practices, and courts must utilize statutory powers to procure the attendance of necessary parties to ensure a fair adjudication on the merits rather than dismissing claims based on procedural technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service provider use terms and conditions in a standard form contract to avoid liability for unfair trade practices under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  • Is a consumer complaint liable to be dismissed solely on the basis of a private agreement between a consumer and a third-party contractor without an inquiry into the alleged unfair trade practice?
  • Does the Consumer Court have the authority to seek assistance from government agencies to procure the attendance of a respondent under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbaz Rahim vs Manager/Incharge Careem and anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 667, 2023 CLD 1348 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-17
  consumer protectionunfair trade practicestandard form contractunequal bargaining powerunconscionable bargainride-hailing serviceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal assails the judgment of the Consumer Court dismissing the appellant's complaint under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 concerning alleged overcharging by a ride-hailing service (Careem) and its registered driver. The core legal questions involved whether standard form contracts with unequal bargaining power can bar consumer claims, and whether a consumer complaint can be dismissed without securing the testimony of the driver. The Islamabad High Court held that unconscionable standard form terms cannot be used by service providers to evade liability for unfair trade practices, and dismissing the complaint prematurely without procuring the driver's attendance was unwarranted. The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Consumer Court for a decision on merits after securing the driver's presence. The key principle laid down is that adhesion contracts and standard terms cannot override consumer protection rights or be used as a shield against liability for unfair trade practices.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the terms and conditions agreed by a party having unequal bargaining power in an un-negotiated standard form of contract can take away the right of a consumer to dispute any unfair trade practice before the Consumer Court?
  • Can a service provider rely on standard form terms and conditions to avoid liability under consumer protection laws?
  • Whether a consumer complaint can be dismissed without procuring the version and attendance of the service provider's agent or driver involved in the dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqeel Mirza vs The State2023 MLD 793 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-21
  superdarirelease of vehiclecontrol of narcotic substancesnarcotics transportationcriminal appealbona fide ownerlack of knowledge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (East), Islamabad, dismissing the appellant's application for the release of a vehicle on superdari. The vehicle was used to transport a huge quantity of Charas, during which the occupants escaped, leaving the car behind. The core legal question was whether the registered owner was entitled to the temporary release of the vehicle on superdari under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, despite lacking concrete evidence of lack of knowledge regarding its illicit use. The court held that the appellant took contradictory pleas, failed to provide convincing evidence or documents showing lack of knowledge, and did not establish that he was unaware of the vehicle's use in narcotics transportation. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that a vehicle involved in narcotics transportation will not be released on superdari during trial unless the owner prima facie establishes a lack of knowledge regarding such use.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vehicle involved in the transportation of narcotics can be released on superdari during the pendency of the trial?
  • Does the owner of a vehicle carrying contraband need to establish lack of knowledge to claim superdari?
  • Can a court release a vehicle on superdari when the owner takes self-contradictory pleas regarding its possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Baig, Chairman Conservancy Management Committee (CMC) and 4 others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Climate Change and 2 others2023 CLD 1249 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-25Read full judgment →
• Anser Mahmood Chughtai vs Shahzadi Fatima Ali2023 CLC 267 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-29Read full judgment →
• ANF vs Adnan Rafique2023 YLR 63 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-28
  confiscation of vehiclereturn of case propertytransportation of narcoticsControl of Narcotic Substances Actregistered ownercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, challenging the order of the Special Court whereby a motorcar used in the transportation of narcotics was ordered to be returned to the respondent claimant. The core legal question was whether a vehicle used in the transportation of narcotics could be released to its registered owner who was not an accused in the crime and whose knowledge or connivance in the offence was unsubstantiated. The Islamabad High Court held that since the respondent was the undisputed registered owner and lacked any established nexus, knowledge, or connivance with the commission of the offence, the vehicle was not liable to confiscation. The court affirmed the trial court's order and dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that a vehicle cannot be confiscated if the registered owner's innocence and lack of connivance in the narcotics crime remain unsubstantiated during trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vehicle used in the transportation of narcotics can be returned to its registered owner upon conclusion of the trial?
  • Is a vehicle liable to confiscation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when the owner's knowledge or connivance in the offence remains unsubstantiated?
  • Does section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 bar the return of a vehicle to an innocent registered owner who has no nexus with the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Ammad Yousaf vs Ghulam Murtaza Chandio & anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 685, 2023 P Cr. LJ 1256 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-14
  framing of chargeprima facie casetrial within a trialadmissibility of evidencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the trial court's order dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the trial court decided to proceed with framing a charge against the petitioner in a case registered under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application under Section 265-D, Cr.P.C. and whether the evidentiary value and admissibility of documents like transcripts can be examined at the stage of framing of charge. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that at the stage of framing a charge under Section 265-D, the trial court is only required to see whether a prima facie case or ground for proceeding with the trial exists based on the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and accompanying documents, without delving into the veracity, admissibility, or deep scrutiny of evidence. The key principle laid down is that evaluating the truth, veracity, or strict admissibility of evidence is not the domain of the court at the charge-framing stage, as doing so would amount to holding a trial within a trial.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of inquiry by a trial court under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at the stage of framing a charge?
  • Can the admissibility and evidentiary value of documents such as transcripts be determined at the stage of framing a charge?
  • Whether a trial court is required to assess the truth or veracity of evidence when considering an application under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hameed Gondal and another vs Raja Muhammad Ilyas2023 CLD 92 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-11Read full judgment →
• Amir Sajjad and others vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 1650 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-17
  Qatl Shibh-i-Amdcustodial deathpolice tortureburden of proofwrongful confinementcriminal appealcustodial negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals and a revision petition challenging convictions for Qatl Shibh-i-Amd and wrongful confinement of a detainee who died in police custody. The core legal question was whether police officers are liable for Qatl Shibh-i-Amd when a detainee dies in their custody with evidence of physical torture, despite an inconclusive medical cause of death. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeals and the revision petition, upholding the trial court's conviction. The court held that while direct evidence of intentional murder was absent, the appellants, as custodians of the deceased, failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the circumstances of the death. The key principle laid down is that under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a person dies in police custody, the burden of proof shifts to the custodians to explain the circumstances, particularly where evidence of physical torture exists. Police officers have a mandatory legal duty to provide medical care to detainees; failure to do so, combined with evidence of abuse, warrants conviction for Qatl Shibh-i-Amd.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to police officers to explain a death occurring in their custody under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can police officers be convicted for Qatl Shibh-i-Amd when a detainee dies in custody with evidence of torture but an inconclusive cause of death?
  • Is a police officer liable for wrongful confinement under Section 344 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a detainee is held without a warrant?
  Read full judgment →
• Allama Iqbal Open University vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PTD 1205 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-06Read full judgment →
• Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU), through Registrar vs Federation of Pakistan through D.G. Legal for President of Pakistan and 2 others2023 PLJ 61, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 61 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU) through Registrar vs Federation of Pakistan through Director General Legal for President of Pakistan and 2 others2023 CLC 638 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan vs The State2023 YLR 89 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-24
  confessional statementmurder referencebenefit of the doubtmedical evidenceunseen crimecriminal appealcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentence handed down to the appellant for the murder of a domestic worker in an unseen, blind crime. The core legal questions involved the reliability and voluntariness of a confessional statement recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the corroboration of medical evidence with the confession, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case because the confessional statement contradicted the medical evidence, suffered from procedural defects by the recording magistrate, and lacked corroboration, while the alleged motive remained unproven. The court laid down the principle that a confessional statement must be voluntary, true, and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, and that any material contradictions between the confession and the medical evidence render the prosecution's case doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on the sole basis of a confessional statement that contradicts the medical evidence?
  • What are the essential requirements for relying on a confessional statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the failure of a magistrate to follow mandatory procedures while recording a confession render the statement inadmissible?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt in a blind murder case where the motive remains unproven?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ejaz vs Arbitration Council and another2023 PLD Islamabad 75 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
• Al Hannan Travels (Pvt.) Limited and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 270 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Akhuanzada Shahid Ali Qureshi vs Judge Special Court (Offences in Banks), Islamabad and others2023 PCRLJ 1763 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-05
  self-incriminationseizure of propertyunfreezing of bank accountsCode of Criminal ProcedureFIA investigationconstitutional protectionfishing expedition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the Special Court's refusal to order the return of the petitioner's mobile phone and the unfreezing of his bank accounts by the FIA. The core legal questions concerned the legality of retaining a seized device to compel an accused to unlock it for forensic examination and the justification for freezing bank accounts. The Court held that the mobile phone, seized upon arrest, was not case property and its retention without reporting to a Magistrate under Section 523, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was illegal. The Court emphasized that compelling an accused to unlock a device to incriminate themselves violates Article 13(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Additionally, the Court found the freezing of bank accounts unjustified as the FIA admitted they did not contain proceeds of the alleged crime, violating internal SOPs. The Court ordered the return of the phone, the unfreezing of accounts, and initiated an inquiry into the FIA's conduct. The judgment reinforces that investigative agencies cannot conduct fishing expeditions or violate constitutional protections against self-incrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Can an investigating agency retain a seized mobile phone indefinitely to compel an accused to unlock it for forensic examination?
  • Does the retention of a seized mobile phone without reporting it to a Magistrate violate Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is compelling an accused to unlock a device to reveal incriminating information a violation of the constitutional protection against self-incrimination?
  • Under what conditions can the Federal Investigation Agency freeze the bank accounts of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Air Blue (Pvt.) Limited through M.D. and others vs Judge Consumer Court2023 CLD 387 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-21Read full judgment →
• Air Blue (Pvt.) Limited through M.D. and another vs Judge Consumer Court2023 PLD Islamabad 189 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-21Read full judgment →