Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- National Highway Authority through Director (Legal) vs Lilley International2021 PLJ Islamabad 12, 2020 CLC 608, 2022 [M] CLR 1387, KLR 2022 Civil · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-11Read full judgment →
- National Highway Authority through Chairman vs M/s. Sarco (Private)2020 PLJ Islamabad 181 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-10Read full judgment →
- National Electric Power Regulatory Authority, Islamabad vs Gujranwala Energy (Pvt.) Limited2020 CLC 173 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment of a Single Bench of the High Court that had allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondent. The core legal question was whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a constitutional petition when the underlying statute provides a remedy of review. The appellant, the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority, sought to impose fines on the respondent for defaulting on annual license fees. The Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. Relying on the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and the principles established in Mst. Karim Bibi v. Hussain Bakhsh (PLD 1984 SC 344), the Court determined that if the law governing the original proceedings provides for an appeal, revision, or review, an Intra-Court Appeal is barred. The Court found that the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Review Procedure) Regulations, 2009, expressly provided the Authority with the power to review its own decisions, thereby satisfying the statutory bar against filing an Intra-Court Appeal.
Questions settled- Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a constitutional petition if the governing statute provides a remedy of review?
- Does the existence of a suo motu review power under the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Review Procedure) Regulations, 2009, constitute a remedy of review for the purposes of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- What is the definition of an 'original order' under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Najeeb Ullah vs The State2020 IHC 118 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, where the appellant was sentenced to 10 months rigorous imprisonment for the possession of 1100 grams of charas. The core legal question concerns the appropriate sentencing approach for a first-time offender who was a juvenile at the time of the offense. The court, while upholding the conviction upon finding no material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, exercised judicial discretion regarding the sentence. The court held that first-time offenders, particularly those who were juveniles at the time of the crime, deserve a lenient view to facilitate rehabilitation and avoid the stigma of incarceration. Relying on precedents and international conventions regarding juvenile justice, the court determined that the appellant's interests were better served by avoiding further imprisonment. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal but modified the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant, emphasizing the principle that sentencing should prioritize reformation over retribution for novice offenders.
Questions settled- Is a first-time offender who was a juvenile at the time of the offense entitled to a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone?
- Does the sentencing of a juvenile offender require consideration of international conventions and rules regarding the protection of children?
- Can an appellate court modify a sentence to the period already undergone based on the appellant's status as a first-time offender?
- Nadeem Mumtaz Qureshi vs Pakistan Petroleum Limited and others2020 PCTLR 187, 2019 CLD 1374 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-30Read full judgment →
- M/s. TNB Liberty Power Limited, Islamabad vs Federation Of Pakistan2020 PLJ Islamabad 122 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Humak Engineering (Pvt) Ltd. Islamabad through C.E.O. vs Model2020 PLJ Islamabad 109 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Telecom Foundation vs M/s Asko Enterprises2020 IHC 94 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-03Read full judgment →
- M/s Proxima Beta Pte. Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan, through the Secretary,2020 IHC 126, 2022 [M] CLR 1506 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a foreign company, challenged the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority's (PTA) decision to temporarily suspend the online game "PUBG." The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the petition regarding the authorization of the legal representative and the necessity of exhausting alternate statutory remedies, alongside the substantive legality of the PTA's action. The Court held that the petition was maintainable, noting that strict requirements for notarization of foreign powers of attorney can be relaxed in urgent matters, and that the absence of a formal, reasoned order rendered the statutory review remedy illusory. On the merits, the Court found the PTA's action without lawful authority. It held that Section 37 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, does not empower the PTA to "temporarily suspend" information, but only to block or remove it. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that administrative actions affecting rights must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring a prior hearing and a formal, speaking order, which were absent in this case. The PTA was directed to issue a reasoned decision following a public hearing.
Questions settled- Does the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, empower the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority to temporarily suspend online content?
- Is a writ petition maintainable when the alternative remedy provided under a statute is illusory due to the absence of a formal, appealable order?
- Can the requirement for notarization of a foreign power of attorney be relaxed in urgent litigation?
- Are the principles of natural justice applicable to administrative actions taken by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016?
- M/s Pakistan Telecommunication Authority vs Federation of Pakistan and2020 PTD 1683, 2020 IHC 122 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated matter involves multiple writ petitions filed by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) challenging show-cause notices and a demand for advance tax issued by the Inland Revenue department regarding spectrum license fees and renewal fees received from Cellular Mobile Operators. The core legal question was whether the proceeds from the sale and renewal of spectrum licenses collected by the PTA and deposited into the Federal Consolidated Fund constitute the income of the Federal Government and are thereby exempt from income tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, notwithstanding Article 165A of the Constitution. The Islamabad High Court held that pursuant to the proviso to Section 49(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, any amount received by the PTA from the sale of spectrum licenses after March 1, 2014, and the renewal thereof after March 10, 2019, is treated as the income of the Federal Government and is exempt from tax under Section 49(1). The court established that the PTA acts merely as a collecting agency and deposits these funds entirely into the Federal Consolidated Fund, making the impugned tax notices patently illegal and without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether the amounts received by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority as spectrum license fees and renewal fees are to be treated as income of the Federal Government under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
- Whether income tax can be levied on spectrum license renewal fees received by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority after March 10, 2019?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition against the issuance of a show-cause notice?
- Does Article 165A of the Constitution of Pakistan override the specific statutory exemptions provided under Section 49 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
- M/s DJM Security (Pvt.) Limited vs M/s Muhammad Ahmed Nadeem, etc2020 IHC 54, 2020 CLC 907 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-21Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmed Zeeshan vs Ch. Abdul Rauf etc2020 KLR Civil Cases 268, 2020 YLR 1469, 2020 IHC 22 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad Abbasi vs Chairman, Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad etc2020 MLD 1109, 2020 IHC 26 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-10Read full judgment →
- Munawar Ali Jalbani vs Chairman, Higher Education Commission and another2020 PLC (C.S.) 1281, 2020 IHC 36 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s departmental appeal against his removal from service by the Higher Education Commission (HEC). The core legal question concerns whether the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner complied with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Court held that the proceedings were fundamentally flawed due to several procedural violations: the failure to provide the petitioner with a copy of the inquiry report, the issuance of a charge sheet without the accompanying statement of allegations, and the failure of the Authorized Officer to issue the charge sheet and penalty order as required by HEC notification. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, ruling that disciplinary actions must strictly adhere to statutory procedures. The key principle laid down is that the failure to furnish an accused with an inquiry report, and the deviation from prescribed procedural mandates regarding the authority and content of disciplinary documents, vitiates the entire disciplinary process, rendering the resulting penalty unsustainable in law.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory to provide an accused employee with a copy of the inquiry report before imposing a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Does the failure of an appellate authority to address the grounds raised in a departmental appeal render the appellate order liable to be set aside?
- Does the issuance of a charge sheet by an officer other than the designated Authorized Officer invalidate disciplinary proceedings?
- Is a charge sheet issued under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 legally deficient if it is not accompanied by a statement of allegations?
- Mukhtair Ahmed vs State2021 YLR 416, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1770 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged recovery of 285 kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the quantity of narcotics when samples were taken from packets but not from each individual slab, and whether the trial court's estimation of weight was legally permissible. The High Court held that the trial court's method of calculating weight based on hypothesis was flawed. Relying on the principle established in Ameer Zeb vs. The State, the Court ruled that a sample must be taken from every separate slab; otherwise, only the quantity actually tested and verified as narcotic substance can be attributed to the accused. Consequently, the Court found that only 2,260 grams were proven to be narcotics. The conviction was modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone, as the proven quantity did not warrant life imprisonment under the Act.
Questions settled- Is it legally permissible to determine the weight of recovered narcotics based on an average calculation when individual slabs were not weighed?
- Does the failure to take a sample from every individual slab of a recovered narcotic substance invalidate the prosecution's claim regarding the total quantity?
- Can an accused be convicted for the full quantity of recovered narcotics if samples were only taken from a portion of the recovered packets?
- What is the consequence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 when the proven quantity of recovered narcotics is less than the threshold required for life imprisonment?
- Mujahid Pervez vs Federation Of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior and others2020 PLD Islamabad 357 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zubair vs Customs Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad and 7PTCL 2021 CL. 324, 2020 PTD 1843 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaar Nadeem and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 297 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions filed by civil servants of the Islamabad Capital Territory Police challenging the cancellation of their "out of turn promotions" and subsequent reversion to lower ranks. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate these service-related grievances, or if such jurisdiction is barred by the Constitution. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable, dismissing them on the grounds that the subject matter pertains to the terms and conditions of service, which falls exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 creates an absolute jurisdictional bar, prohibiting the High Court from entertaining proceedings in service matters, regardless of allegations that the impugned orders were mala fide, coram non judice, or violative of fundamental rights. The principle established is that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory remedial process provided for civil servants, and the pendency of departmental representations does not grant the High Court authority to intervene.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the cancellation of out of turn promotions by a civil servant?
- Does the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply even when a civil servant alleges that an impugned order is mala fide or violates fundamental rights?
- Can the High Court grant interim relief to a civil servant while their departmental appeal is pending before the competent authority?
- Does the pendency of a departmental representation under the service laws render a civil servant remediless, thereby justifying the invocation of the High Court's writ jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Tariq etc vs Sabira Bibi etc2020 IHC 74, 2020 CLC 1864 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Suleman, etc vs Abdul Aziz, etc2020 IHC 108 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Suleman and 8 others vs Abdul Aziz and 4 others2020 YLR 2135 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saleem Nawaz Malik vs Higher Education Commission and another2020 CLC 1138 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sadeeq vs Pervaiz Khan and 2 others2020 CLC 1582 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rashid vs The State and others2020 MLD 1549 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, for the murder of two individuals under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the ocular testimony and forensic evidence presented. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The Court identified significant contradictions between the ocular account, the medical evidence regarding the injuries, and the site plan prepared by the investigating officer. Furthermore, the Court noted unexplained delays in medical treatment and deficiencies in the investigation process. Emphasizing that proof beyond reasonable doubt must be based on logic and common sense, the Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt, and answered the reference for confirmation of the death sentence in the negative, while directing an inquiry into the investigation's failures.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to explain material discrepancies in the site plan and witness statements?
- What is the standard of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal case involving capital punishment?
- Muhammad Rashid and another vs The State2020 YLR 2476 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a murder reference and two jail appeals challenging the conviction and death sentences imposed on the appellants for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a retracted confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed, citing significant discrepancies between medical evidence and the crime scene description, the lack of independent corroboration for the retracted confession, and unreliable witness testimony. The Court emphasized that while a voluntary statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, can support a conviction, it must be corroborated by independent evidence when retracted. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing that conviction cannot rest on a retracted confession without material corroboration.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on a retracted confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- What is the evidentiary value of a confessional statement that has been retracted by the accused during trial?
- Is independent corroboration mandatory for a retracted confession to form the basis of a criminal conviction?
- Does a discrepancy between medical evidence and the prosecution's narrative of the crime scene create reasonable doubt?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Syed Muhammad Tahir Zahoor and others2020 [M] C L R 641 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Mehsood vs Federation Of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 775 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Islamabad High Court addresses a writ petition filed by a Deputy General Manager (Mining) of the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation (PMDC) against the corporation's decisions requiring him to rejoin his parent department before being considered for promotion and stopping his salary. The core legal question was whether the High Court, under its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere in employment disputes of a company whose service rules are non-statutory. The court held that since PMDC is incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and its employee service rules are not framed under a statutory power, the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant, rendering the constitutional petition non-maintainable. The key principle laid down is that a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is not maintainable for employees of non-statutory bodies seeking redressal of employment grievances, including matters of promotion, where service rules lack statutory backing.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against a corporate entity whose service rules are non-statutory?
- Does a dispute regarding promotion between an employee and a non-statutory corporation attract the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Are the rules framed by the Board of Directors of the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation under its Articles of Association considered statutory rules?
- Muhammad Farooq and 4 others vs Full Bench, NIRC Islamabad and 42020 PLC 175 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Through this writ petition, the petitioners impugned the concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission dismissing their complaints filed under Section 49(4)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which sought penal action and reinstatement following their dismissal during the pendency of a trade union registration application. The core legal questions involved whether complaints under Section 65 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 can be maintained against official designations rather than individuals, and whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction can interfere with concurrent findings of tribunals absent jurisdictional errors. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that proceedings under Section 65(1) are akin to contempt proceedings and cannot be brought against official designations rather than named individuals, and that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction via a writ of certiorari does not permit substituting factual findings or remanding matters merely to cure fatal foundational mistakes by a party. The key principle laid down is that penal complaints for unfair labour practices and violations of status quo orders under industrial laws must strictly target responsible individuals and cannot be sustained against official designations.
Questions settled- Can complaints under Section 65 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 be maintained against official designations instead of named individuals?
- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of inferior tribunals in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction without a manifest error of law?
- Is a complaint under Section 65(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 akin to contempt proceedings?
- Can the High Court remand a matter back to a tribunal solely to allow a petitioner to rectify a fatal defect in their original complaint?
- Muhammad Bilal Sheikh vs National Accountability Bureau through its2020 IHC 6 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bilal Sheikh vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and another2020 P Cr. L J 671 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former bank executive, sought post-arrest bail regarding allegations of misusing authority to sanction finance facilities, violating Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal questions concerned whether the National Accountability Bureau could initiate proceedings for imprudent or defaulted loans without the mandatory approval of the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan, under Section 31-D of the Ordinance, and whether the recent legislative amendment requiring corroborative evidence of monetary benefit for "misuse of authority" applied retrospectively. The Court held that Section 31-D is a mandatory procedural provision, and the failure to obtain the regulator's approval rendered the proceedings procedurally irregular. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the explanation added to Section 9(a)(vi) is clarificatory and thus applies retrospectively. Since the prosecution failed to establish evidence of the petitioner's personal monetary benefit or disproportionate assets, and given that the investigation was concluded, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as punishment when reasonable grounds for complicity are not clearly established.
Questions settled- Does the requirement under Section 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 for State Bank of Pakistan approval apply to investigations into imprudent or defaulted loans?
- Is the explanation added to Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 regarding the necessity of corroborative evidence of monetary benefit retrospective in nature?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment in cases where the trial has not yet commenced?
- Muhammad Azhar through Attorney and 6 others vs Additional District2020 [M] C L R 1535, 2020 YLR 932 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs Muzaffar Khan (Deceased) and 5 others2021 PLJ Islamabad 32, 2020 CLC 1021 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashfaq Jutt vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 IHC 152 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Asad Durrani vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 IHC 164 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Arif vs Shahid Mehmood and another2020 PLD Islamabad 443, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1127 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated petitions seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents in a criminal case involving allegations of abduction and Zina (adultery). The core legal question was whether the respondents' marriage, contracted while the accused was allegedly still married to the complainant's elder daughter, constituted a void marriage amounting to Zina, thereby justifying bail cancellation. The Court held that under Hanafi law, a marriage with a wife's sister during the subsistence of a previous marriage is irregular (Fasid) rather than void (Batil). Consequently, the union between the accused and the complainant's daughter did not constitute Zina. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the considerations for cancelling bail are distinct from those for granting it; bail cannot be cancelled absent strong, exceptional grounds such as perversity, illegality, or evidence of tampering with the prosecution case. Finding no such grounds, the Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the impugned bail orders were legally sound and that the marriage, while potentially irregular, did not warrant criminal liability for Zina.
Questions settled- Is a marriage contracted with a wife's sister during the subsistence of a previous marriage void (Batil) or irregular (Fasid) under Hanafi law?
- Does an irregular marriage under Islamic law constitute Zina?
- What are the necessary grounds for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a competent court?
- Can a husband be held liable for consensual Zina for marrying during the Iddat period?
- Muhammad Afzal etc vs Muzaffar Khan & others2020 KLR Criminal Cases 108, 2020 P Cr. L J 721, PLJ 2020 Cr.C (Islamabad) · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-West, Islamabad, whereby a complaint under Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was allowed and the appellants were convicted under Section 3(2) of the Act. The core legal question was whether the Illegal Dispossession Act applies to disputes between co-sharers over unpartitioned joint inherited property involving civil disputes rather than professional land grabbers. The Islamabad High Court held that the Act does not apply to run-of-the-mill disputes between co-owners or co-sharers where properties remain unpartitioned and a civil dispute regarding title or possession exists, and that co-sharers cannot be prosecuted under the Act absent evidence of being property grabbers or land mafia. The court laid down the principle that joint property disputes between co-sharers must be resolved through civil courts or revenue authorities rather than criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants.
Questions settled- Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to disputes between co-sharers over unpartitioned joint property?
- Can a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act be entertained when the matter of possession is subject to an ongoing civil or revenue dispute?
- Whether ordinary persons with no antecedents as property grabbers or land mafia can be prosecuted under the Illegal Dispossession Act?
- Muhammad Abid Farooq vs The State and another2020 P Cr.L J 1179 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonor of cheques. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s decision to compel the accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses himself, due to the absence of his defense counsel, violated the accused's right to a fair trial and due process. The court held that the trial court’s procedure resulted in a miscarriage of justice. It emphasized that the right to cross-examination is a fundamental and valuable right of an accused in criminal proceedings, which cannot be effectively exercised by an unrepresented layman. The court ruled that directives for the expeditious disposal of cases do not authorize courts to deprive an accused of the right to legal representation and a fair trial. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court with directions to allow the petitioner's counsel to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses within a specified timeframe.
Questions settled- Does compelling an unrepresented accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses personally constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial?
- Can a trial court's directive for the expeditious disposal of a case override the accused's right to legal representation during cross-examination?
- Is the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses by an unrepresented accused a valid substitute for cross-examination by a legal counsel?
- Mst. Saman Naz vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Federal Education and Profession Training Islamabad and 4 others2020 PLJ Islamabad 184, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 905 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses three consolidated writ petitions challenging repatriation orders issued by the Federal Directorate of Education (F.D.E.) to return female teachers serving on deputation to their respective parent provincial departments, alongside a related plea for permanent absorption under the wedlock policy. The core legal questions revolved around whether a deputationist possesses a vested right to complete a tenure, remain on deputation under the wedlock policy, or claim permanent absorption in the borrowing department without the consent of the parent department and compliance with statutory formalities. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a deputationist has no vested or fundamental right to complete a deputation period, remain indefinitely, or be absorbed without the parent department's No Objection Certificate and formal concurrence. The court laid down the principle that deputation is a contract terminable at any time in the exigencies of service, the wedlock policy does not override statutory deputation limits or compel absorption, and absorption cannot be claimed as of right.
Questions settled- Does a deputationist have a vested right to complete their tenure or remain on deputation for an indefinite period?
- Whether a deputationist can claim permanent absorption in the borrowing department without the formal concurrence of the parent department?
- Does the wedlock policy exempt a deputationist from repatriation when the parent department refuses to issue a No Objection Certificate for an extension?
- Can a deputationist invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an administrative order of repatriation?
- Mst. Saira vs S.S.P., Islamabad and 5 others2020 YLR 2657 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sabiha Laeeq vs District and Sessions Judge (West), Islamabad and another2020 CLC 1282, 2020 IHC 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
- Ms. Iffat Rana and 2 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary2020 PLC (C.S.) 1548 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed by Assistant Nursing Superintendents sought ante-dated up-gradation in BPS-17 from the date of the creation of the posts or from the date their junior colleagues were up-graded, along with consequential benefits. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were subjected to discriminatory treatment in violation of their fundamental rights by the delayed up-gradation of their posts compared to parallel cadre junior staff. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioners were indeed subjected to discriminatory treatment and administrative disparity, violating the principle of equality before law. The Court ruled that similarly placed employees cannot be treated differently and directed the respondents to up-grade the petitioners' posts to BPS-17 from the date when the parallel posts of Head Nurses were up-graded, along with all consequential benefits. The key principle laid down is that the State cannot apply divergent yardsticks to similarly placed civil servants, and discriminatory denial of up-gradation or ante-dated promotion resulting in the reversal of seniority violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Questions settled- Whether the non-grant of ante-dated up-gradation to civil servants while granting the same to junior colleagues in a parallel cadre constitutes discriminatory treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can similarly placed government employees be subjected to divergent yardsticks in matters of promotion and up-gradation?
- Whether the High Court can direct the up-gradation of posts with consequential benefits to remove administrative disparity and reverse discriminatory treatment?
- Mrs. Shahida Perveen vs Saeed Ahmed and others2020 [M] C L R 1550 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mrs Zeenat Salim vs Pakistan Naval Forms, etc2020 IHC 124 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-23Read full judgment →
- Miss Rida Batool vs Khurram Shahzad Kazmi and 2 others2020 P Cr.L J 1307, 2020 IHC 120 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner-mother seeking the recovery and interim custody of her minor children from the respondent-father through a writ of habeas corpus, challenging an order passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing her application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the Islamabad High Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to entertain the habeas corpus petition when the minors resided and studied outside its territorial limits and the alleged removal did not occur within Islamabad. The court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction because the corpus was not within the Islamabad Capital Territory, the minors were studying in Sargodha, and the school from which they were allegedly removed was located in Rawalpindi, placing the matter outside the purview of the Islamabad High Court. The key principle laid down is that for a High Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus or exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the person in custody or the place from where the custody was allegedly removed must fall strictly within the territorial limits of that court.
Questions settled- Does the Islamabad High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition when the minors are residing and studying outside the Islamabad Capital Territory?
- Can a writ of habeas corpus be issued under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 if the corpus is not within the territorial limits of the court and was not removed from within its jurisdiction?
- Does the appellate jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply beyond the territorial limits of the High Court?
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The State through Chairman, National2020 IHC 154 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal appellate proceedings wherein the court examined the efforts made by the Foreign Office and the Pakistan High Commission in London to execute non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against the appellant, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. The core legal question concerned the appropriate judicial course of action when an appellant deliberately avoids service of warrants and fails to appear despite being aware of the pendency of the appeal. The court held that despite diligent efforts by state functionaries, the warrants could not be served personally, but the appellant could not be deemed unaware of the proceedings, particularly given the prior appearance of his principal counsel. Consequently, the court decided to initiate proceedings under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by ordering the issuance of a formal proclamation for the appellant's appearance, to be published in designated national newspapers and served through the Pakistan High Commission in the United Kingdom. The key principle laid down is that where an appellant evades arrest warrants in a criminal appeal, the court may resort to proclamation proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure to compel attendance.
Questions settled- What procedure is to be adopted when an appellant in a criminal appeal evades the service of non-bailable warrants of arrest?
- Can a court issue a proclamation under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when warrants cannot be executed through diplomatic missions?
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs State through Chairman, National2020 IHC 140 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for exemption from personal appearance filed by the appellant, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, in an appeal pending before the Islamabad High Court. The appellant, whose bail and suspension of sentence had previously been granted by the Court for eight weeks with liberty to seek extension from the Provincial Government under Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, had his extension request rejected by the Government of Punjab. Consequently, the appellant's bail and suspension of sentence lapsed. The appellant sought exemption from appearance citing medical grounds, despite not being hospitalized. The Court observed that the appellant failed to inform the Court regarding his departure abroad or the removal of his name from the Exit Control List. The Court held that the appellant, being no longer on bail, must surrender to the authorities. It granted the appellant a final opportunity to appear and surrender before the next date of hearing, failing which legal proceedings, including those under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999, would be initiated against him.
Questions settled- Does the expiry of a time-bound suspension of sentence granted by the High Court render the appellant an absconder if they fail to surrender?
- Can an appeal be decided on merits even if the appellant is declared an absconder?
- Does an order from another High Court permitting travel abroad override the suspension of sentence conditions set by the court hearing the appeal?
- Mian Muhammad Aslam vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 PLD Islamabad 352, 2020 IHC 100 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs: Oil And Gas Development Company Ltd vs Commissioner Inland2020 PT D 1826 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Telecom Foundation vs Messrs Asko Enterprises2020 [M] C L R 1387, 2020 CLC 1605 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenged a trial court's decision to set aside an arbitration award. The core issues were whether an award rendered beyond the four-month statutory period is invalid, whether engrossing a previously signed award on stamp paper constitutes misconduct, and whether the limitation period for filing an award in court under Section 14(2) commences without formal notice under Section 14(1). The Court held that an award rendered beyond four months is not void if parties participated in proceedings without objection, as such conduct constitutes waiver and estoppel. Furthermore, engrossing an award on stamp paper is a ministerial act, not misconduct. Finally, the Court ruled that the 90-day limitation period under Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908, only begins upon service of formal written notice as required by Section 14(1) and Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1940; knowledge gained otherwise is insufficient. Consequently, the Court extended the time for the award, dismissed the objections, and made the award a Rule of Court.
Questions settled- Does an arbitration award rendered beyond the four-month statutory period become invalid if the parties participated in the proceedings without objection?
- Does an arbitrator commit misconduct by signing an award on plain paper and subsequently engrossing it on stamp paper?
- Does the 90-day limitation period for filing an arbitration award in court under Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908, commence without formal service of notice as required by Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Can an appellate court exercise the power to extend the time for making an arbitration award under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Messrs Tameer-E-Mashrique (Private) Ltd vs Government Of Pakistan2020 MLD 2025 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rose Associates vs Messrs Saudi Pak Industrial And Agricultural2020 CLD 1320 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Humak Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. through CEO vs The Model2020 [M] C L R 1322, 2020 PLJ Islamabad 109, PTCL 2020 CL.576, 2020 PTD · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Hongkong Huihua Global Technology Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Revenue Division and others2020 [M] C L R 983, 2020 PCTLR 175, PTCL 2020 CL. 363, 2020 PTD 7 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a tax exemption application regarding an Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning (EPCC) contract. The petitioner, a non-resident, sought exemption from withholding tax under Section 152(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 for the offshore supply component of the contract. The core legal question was whether the EPCC contract was a composite, indivisible agreement, thereby rendering the offshore supply component subject to tax as Pakistan-source income, and whether the petitioner maintained a permanent establishment in Pakistan. The Court held that the EPCC contract was an indivisible whole, and the petitioner’s activities—including assembly, installation, and supervision—constituted a permanent establishment under Section 2(41)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. Consequently, the payments were deemed Pakistan-source income under Section 101(3), and the exemption was correctly denied. The key principle laid down is that where an offshore supply is part of an overall arrangement for installation and commissioning in Pakistan, it does not qualify for the exemption under Section 152(7) and is subject to withholding tax.
Questions settled- Does an EPCC contract constitute a single composite contract for tax purposes?
- Does a non-resident contractor have a permanent establishment in Pakistan if the contract involves installation and assembly at a site?
- Are payments for offshore supplies under an EPCC contract considered Pakistan-source income?
- Does Section 152(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 exempt offshore supplies from withholding tax when the contract is an overall arrangement for supply and installation?
- Messrs Askari Bank Limited, Rawalpindi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax2020 PTD 2119, 2022 PCTLR 172 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-16Read full judgment →
- Matloob Hussain vs The State2020 YLR 2356 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for Qatal-e-Amd. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the ocular account provided by a chance witness and the integrity of the weapon recovery. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The judgment laid down that the testimony of a chance witness is inherently suspect and cannot be relied upon unless justifiable reasons for their presence at the crime scene are established. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a single reasonable doubt regarding a witness's presence is sufficient to discard their testimony entirely. Additionally, the Court reiterated that a statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or discarded in its entirety, rather than relying on selective portions to secure a conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon without justifiable reasons for their presence at the crime scene?
- Should a statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
- Is a single reasonable doubt regarding the presence of a witness at the crime scene sufficient to discard their testimony?
- Matloob Hussain vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1141 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for Qatal-e-Amd under Section 302-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the reliability of the ocular evidence and the recovery of the weapon. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, noting that the primary eye-witness was a "chance witness" who provided no justifiable reason for his presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, the Court found the recovery of the weapon doubtful and the motive unproven. The Court emphasized that a single reasonable doubt regarding a witness's presence is sufficient to discard their testimony entirely. Additionally, the Court clarified that a statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or discarded in its entirety rather than selectively. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the related revision and leave to appeal petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon without justifiable reasons for their presence at the crime scene?
- Must a statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
- Is a single reasonable doubt regarding a witness's presence at the crime scene sufficient to discard their testimony?
- Masood Alam vs Haji Mubarak Hussain and 03 others2020 CLC 1461, 2020 IHC 20, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 321 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
- Market Committee, Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) through Chairman vs Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad and 10 others2020 CLC 731 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-03Read full judgment →
- Managing Director, Overseas Pakistani Foundation and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M_O Labour Manpower and Overseas Pakistani and another2020 PLC 8 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal challenged a judgment directing the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation (OPF) to finalize an inquiry against a former employee within one month or release his retirement benefits. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable against the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation regarding service-related disputes. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable, setting aside the impugned judgment. Relying on established precedents, the Court reasoned that the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation is a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, not a statutory body created by the Federal Government, and does not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation. Furthermore, the Foundation's service rules are non-statutory, meaning the principle of master and servant applies, precluding the invocation of constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. While allowing the appeal, the Court expressed strong disapproval of the Foundation's delay in processing the respondent's pensionary benefits, noting that withholding dues for nine years without proven allegations of misconduct constitutes a significant injustice, and urged the Foundation to resolve the grievance promptly.
Questions settled- Is the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation?
- Can a writ petition be maintained against the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation regarding the terms and conditions of service?
- Malik Qamar Hussain vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 344 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the rape and murder of the deceased. The prosecution's case, based entirely on circumstantial evidence, alleged that the appellant abducted the deceased, raped her, and administered a lethal dose of a benzodiazepine tranquillizer. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established a complete, unbroken chain of causation linking the appellant to the administration of the poison and the subsequent death of the deceased. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Key discrepancies in witness testimony, the failure to produce critical call data records, the medical impossibility of detecting semen several months post-occurrence, and the lack of evidence regarding the quantity of the drug administered rendered the prosecution's evidence unreliable. The Court affirmed the principle that in cases of unseen occurrences, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused, which was not achieved in this instance. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on circumstantial evidence where the chain of causation is broken?
- Is medical testimony regarding the presence of semen reliable when the autopsy is conducted months after the alleged rape?
- Does the failure to produce call data records and key witnesses undermine the credibility of a prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence?
- Malik Mushtaq Ahmed vs President of Pakistan and others2020 IHC 170 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-15Read full judgment →
- Major Raja Zahid Mahmood vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan and others2020 [M] C L R 1152, 2020 PLD Islamabad 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
- Mahfooz Khan and 17 others vs Secretary, Aviation Division, Islamabad and 3 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1315 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, retired employees of the Airport Security Force (A.S.F.), filed a writ petition seeking up-gradation of their posts effective from 12.03.2015, the date the Finance Division conveyed conditional concurrence for such up-gradation. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to retrospective up-gradation despite the fact that the administrative conditions—specifically the amendment of recruitment rules—were not fulfilled until August 2016. The Court held that the up-gradation of posts was conditional and dependent upon the amendment of recruitment rules and subsequent selection processes. Consequently, the petitioners could not claim the benefit of up-gradation from the date of the Finance Division's concurrence, as the conditions precedent had not been satisfied at that time. The Court affirmed the principle that the up-gradation of a post does not automatically equate to the up-gradation of its incumbent, and that such benefits are subject to the fulfillment of prescribed statutory and administrative conditions. The petition was dismissed, as the petitioners failed to establish a legal right to the claimed retrospective relief.
Questions settled- Does the up-gradation of a post automatically result in the up-gradation of its incumbent?
- Can an employee claim the benefit of a conditional up-gradation of a post from the date of administrative concurrence if the conditions were not met at that time?
- Is the up-gradation of posts in the Airport Security Force subject to the amendment of recruitment rules?
- Madiha Ishaq and another vs Estate Officer, Estate Office, Islamabad and another2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 21 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-10-27Read full judgment →
- Madiha Ishaq and another vs Estate Officer and another2020 PLC (C.S.) 510 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts which dismissed the petitioners' suit for declaration and injunction regarding the allotment of government accommodation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a regularized government employee, was entitled to retain the government accommodation previously allotted to her retired father under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower courts' judgments. The Court held that the petitioner's services were validly regularized, qualifying her as a 'Federal Government Servant' under the Rules. The Court established that under Rule 15(2) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, a serving child living with a retired Federal Government Servant is eligible for the allotment of the same accommodation, provided they meet the criteria and apply within the stipulated timeframe. The Court emphasized that administrative notifications, unless withdrawn, remain effective, and lower courts must correctly interpret the legal status of such notifications and the definitions provided within governing rules.
Questions settled- Whether a child of a retired Federal Government Servant is entitled to the allotment of the parent's government accommodation under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
- Does a regularized daily-wage employee qualify as a 'Federal Government Servant' under Rule 2(g) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
- Can a court rely on a judgment that has been set aside by a higher appellate bench to determine the validity of an administrative notification?
- M. Tariq Asad, Asc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 PLD Islamabad 338, 2020 IHC 98 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-01Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 826 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, civil servants serving in BS-19 and BS-20 respectively, challenged orders deferring their promotions due to incomplete Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) for the years 2017 and 2018. The core legal question was whether a civil servant could be made to suffer or be deferred for promotion due to the non-availability or incompleteness of PERs arising from the department's failure to maintain them. The Islamabad High Court held that the preparation, completion, and maintenance of PERs is the statutory duty of the employer department, not the civil servant, and an employee cannot be penalized or deferred for the department's failure in this regard. The Court laid down the principle that promotion is a matter of honour, pride, and legitimate expectancy for a civil servant, and departments cannot act in a callous manner by submitting incomplete records to the Central Selection Board while playing with the careers of civil servants. The petitions were disposed of with directions to the respondents to complete the PERs forthwith and consider the petitioners in the next meeting of the Central Selection Board.
Questions settled- Is it the obligation of the employee civil servant or the employer department to prepare and maintain Performance Evaluation Reports?
- Can a civil servant's promotion be deferred due to incomplete Performance Evaluation Reports caused by the department's failure?
- Whether the department can introduce new grounds not mentioned in the impugned deferment order during arguments before the court?
- Liaqat Ali vs National Accountability Bureau2020 IHC 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-26Read full judgment →
- Khurram Shahzad vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 392 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of cheques issued to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite allegations of being a habitual offender and the existence of other similar cases against him. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the offence under Section 489-F, carrying a maximum punishment of three years, does not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be withheld as a punitive measure, nor can it be denied solely based on the existence of other pending cases. Furthermore, as the investigation was complete and no risk of evidence tampering existed, continued incarceration would amount to punishment before conviction, which is impermissible under criminal jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if it does not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be denied to an accused solely on the ground that they are involved in other similar cases?
- Does the mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused justify the refusal of bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it?
- Khamas Saeed vs Director General of Trade Organizations and 42020 CLD 121 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-06Read full judgment →
- Khalida Bibi vs Mst. Shabnam UN Nisa and 12 others2020 CLC 47 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-26Read full judgment →
- Khalid Hussain vs Full Bench National Industrial Relation Commission and others2020 PLC 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s grievance petition by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner, a former employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, was dismissed from service on 22.09.2016. He subsequently filed a grievance petition before the N.I.R.C. challenging this dismissal, which was dismissed by the Member, N.I.R.C., and subsequently by the Full Bench, on the basis that it was time-barred. The core legal question was whether the N.I.R.C. correctly dismissed the petition and whether the petitioner had complied with the mandatory procedural requirements for seeking redressal. The Court held that the grievance petition was not maintainable because the petitioner failed to serve a mandatory grievance notice upon his employer as required by Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court affirmed that judicial liberty to approach a forum does not exempt a litigant from statutory procedural requirements, including the service of a grievance notice and adherence to limitation periods prescribed by the Act.
Questions settled- Is a grievance petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission maintainable without the prior service of a grievance notice on the employer?
- Does a court's observation granting liberty to challenge an order before an appropriate forum exempt a litigant from statutory limitation periods and procedural requirements?
- What is the mandatory procedure for a worker to seek redressal of a grievance under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Khadim Hussain vs Secretary, Ministry of Human Rights, Islamabad, etc2020 [M] C L R 1351, 2020 PLD Islamabad 268, 2020 IHC 68 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses petitions concerning grave human rights violations, overcrowding, and abysmal living conditions in prisons across Pakistan. The core legal questions involve determining the constitutional rights of prisoners under Articles 9 and 14, the State's duty of care toward incarcerated individuals, the enforceability of international conventions, and the availability of remedies for inhuman treatment. The Court held that overcrowding, failure to segregate prisoners, and denial of medical care and legal access violate fundamental rights and international obligations. The ratio decidendi establishes that a prisoner retains the presumption of innocence (if unconvicted) and fundamental rights to life and human dignity, imposing a strict fiduciary duty of care on the State. The Court laid down key principles regarding prisoner rights, state accountability under tort law for false imprisonment or negligence, the enforceability of international treaties consistent with domestic law, and the mandatory operationalization of legal aid legislation.
Questions settled- Whether the overcrowding of prisons and the failure to segregate under-trial prisoners from convicted criminals violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the State owe a fiduciary duty of care to incarcerated prisoners to safeguard their right to life and provide adequate medical treatment?
- Can incarcerated prisoners seek damages or remedies under the law of tort for false imprisonment or degrading treatment resulting from sub-standard prison conditions?
- Are international conventions ratified by Pakistan enforceable as domestic law without enabling legislation?
- Does deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners constitute a violation of the constitutional right to life?
- Kamil Rehman and others vs Haji Rehman Bangash and another2020 CLC 1251 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-14Read full judgment →
- Kabir vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 736 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves 270 consolidated petitions filed by under-trial prisoners incarcerated in Central Prison, Rawalpindi, seeking bail during the COVID-19 pandemic. The core legal question was whether prisoners charged with offences falling under the prohibitory clause could be granted bail in light of the extraordinary health risks posed by the pandemic within overcrowded prison facilities. The Court held that the State bears a fundamental duty of care to protect the life and health of incarcerated individuals, who are entirely dependent on prison authorities. Given the impossibility of maintaining social distancing in overcrowded prisons and the potential for a deadly outbreak, the Court allowed the petitions and admitted the petitioners to bail, subject to specific conditions. The key principle laid down is that the right to life is paramount and remains protected even during incarceration; therefore, the State must take proactive measures to safeguard prisoners from health crises, and the emergence of a pandemic constitutes a fresh ground for reconsidering bail, even for offences otherwise falling under the prohibitory clause.
Questions settled- Does the outbreak of a pandemic like COVID-19 constitute a fresh ground for bail for under-trial prisoners?
- Does the State have a duty of care to protect the life and health of incarcerated prisoners during a health crisis?
- Can prisoners charged with offences falling under the prohibitory clause be granted bail in extraordinary circumstances such as a pandemic?
- JZ Enterprises Pvt. Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Communications, Government of Pakistan2020 IHC 13 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
- Islamabad Wildlife Management Board through its Chairman vs Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad through its Mayor & 4 others2021 [M] C L R 430, 2020 IHC 92, 2021 PLD Islamabad 6 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-21Read full judgment →
- Islamabad Marquees, Catering and Banquet Hall Association vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 IHC 162 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
- Islamabad Club, Islamabad through its Secretary vs Appellate Tribunal2020 PLJ Islamabad 1, 2019 IHC 124, PTCL 2022 CL. 616 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-04-25Read full judgment →
- Inspector Mohammad Abbas vs Inspector General of Police, Islamabad2020 PLC (C.S.) 964, 2020 IHC 46 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged a retirement notification, with the petitioner seeking correction of his date of birth in official records. The core legal question was whether a retired employee qualifies as a "civil servant" under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate service-related grievances, specifically date of birth disputes, in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The ratio established is that the definition of "civil servant" under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, when read with Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, encompasses retired employees regarding the enforcement of their service terms and conditions. Consequently, the High Court is barred from adjudicating such disputes, as exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that matters concerning the correction of a date of birth are strictly related to terms and conditions of service and must be pursued through the appropriate administrative tribunal rather than a constitutional petition.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'civil servant' under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 include retired employees?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 bar the High Court from entertaining petitions regarding the correction of a date of birth for a civil servant?
- Is a dispute regarding the correction of a date of birth considered a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Imran Khan vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 1652 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for bail after arrest arose from FIR No. 30/2019, involving allegations of uploading and transmitting sexually explicit and derogatory images of the complainant and his family via social media, invoking sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016, and sections 500, 506, and 109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, particularly given the contention that the alleged offences fell outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the existence of prima facie incriminating evidence—including forensic reports and subscriber data linking the petitioner to the illicit activity—precluded the grant of bail. The Court affirmed the principle that bail is a concession rather than a right, and that offences falling outside the prohibitory clause are not automatically bailable, especially when the nature of the crime involves severe social stigmatization and humiliation of the victim, thereby disentitling the accused to relief.
Questions settled- Does the fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted where there is prima facie incriminating evidence linking the accused to the offence despite allegations of family enmity?
- Is the concession of bail a right or a discretionary relief for the court to grant?
- Imran Javed Aziz, etc vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2020 PLD Islamabad 302, 2020 IHC 42 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-06Read full judgment →
- Imperial Electric Company (Private) Limited through Chief Financial2020 PLJ Islamabad 95 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Hayat Ullah Barki vs Additional District Judge, West, Islamabad and others2020 [M] C L R 99 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-17Read full judgment →
- Hassan Ali Raja vs The State, etc2020 IHC 50, 2020 PCRLJ 931, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 336 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a dispute over a real estate transaction and non-transfer of a plot. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail could be granted to an accused who was previously declared a proclaimed offender and had absconded, where the case otherwise fell within the scope of further inquiry and outside the prohibitory clause. The Islamabad High Court held that where a case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused, bail must be granted as a matter of right, which prevails over the question of propriety regarding the accused's status as a proclaimed offender. The court laid down the principle that the right to bail in further inquiry cases outweighs abscondence or proclaimed offender status, and that an accused who voluntarily surrenders to the court should not be penalized.
Questions settled- Does the status of a proclaimed offender disentitle an accused to pre-arrest bail when the case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry?
- Is a dispute arising from a real estate sale transaction and non-transfer of property primarily of a civil nature rather than a criminal breach of trust?
- Does the right to bail in a case calling for further inquiry prevail over the question of propriety regarding an accused's abscondence?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted to an accused who has previously jumped bail and been declared a proclaimed offender upon voluntarily surrendering to the court?
- Hasnain Yaseen vs S.H.O. Police Station Sihala, Islamabad, etc2020 P Cr. L J 792, 2020 IHC 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under Sections 506, 354, and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a property dispute between the parties. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional or inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR at the initial stage when a challan has been submitted and disputed questions of fact exist. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court will not ordinarily quash an FIR in the presence of disputed questions of facts and where an efficacious alternate remedy, such as an application for acquittal under Section 249-A or Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is available before the trial court. The court laid down the principle that criminal trials must be allowed to reach their logical conclusion to uphold the right to a fair trial, and the adequacy or inadequacy of evidence cannot be examined through a writ petition to strangulate a trial.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash an FIR under Article 199 of the Constitution or Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the case involves disputed questions of fact and is at the trial stage?
- Whether an accused person can seek premature acquittal under Section 249-A or Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure after cognizance of the case has been taken by the trial court?
- Does the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure extend to examining the adequacy or inadequacy of evidence before the framing of a charge?
- Hashmat Medical and Dental College vs Pakistan Medical and Dental2020 CLC 84 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-21Read full judgment →
- Haroon-Ur-Rashid and another vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 [M] C L R 52, 2020 PLD Islamabad 469 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-18Read full judgment →
- Haroon-Ur-Rashid and 3 others vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 163, 2020 P Cr. L J 170 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference arose from the conviction of four appellants for the murder of a police constable during an investigative visit. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence, the validity of forensic reports following procedural delays, and the substantiation of a plea of self-defense. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of three appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, citing unreliable ocular testimony and unexplained delays in submitting crime empties for forensic analysis, which rendered the forensic report unreliable. Consequently, their convictions were set aside. Regarding the fourth appellant, Muhammad Asim, the Court upheld his conviction and death sentence, ruling that he failed to discharge the burden of proving self-defense, as the deceased was unarmed and the appellant had fired multiple fatal shots. The judgment reaffirms that while the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, an accused asserting self-defense bears the onus to substantiate that claim, and where such plea remains unsubstantiated, the conviction based on corroborated evidence must stand.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proving self-defense shift to the accused when such a plea is explicitly taken?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution relies on ocular evidence that is deemed untrustworthy and lacks corroboration?
- Does an unexplained delay in sending crime empties to a forensic laboratory render the resulting report unreliable?
- Is it permissible for the prosecution to withhold material witnesses without providing a valid explanation?
- Hamid Nasrullah Ranjha vs Chief Commissioner, ICT, etc2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 161 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges a notification issued by the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, repatriating the petitioner—an Assistant Director in the Labour Welfare Department, ICT—back to his parent department, NADRA. The core legal question revolves around whether a deputationist has a vested right to permanent absorption in a borrowing government department and whether the petitioner's transfer and deputation complied with relevant civil service rules. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that a deputationist has no vested right to permanent absorption, that the absorption of non-civil servants or persons outside their specialized service cadre into government departments is impermissible under the law, and that the competent authority possesses the absolute right to terminate a deputation period and repatriate an employee to their parent department. The key principles laid down are that deputation cannot be used as a backdoor entry to circumvent recruitment rules, horizontal movement across distinct service cadres is unlawful, and unauthorized absorptions are void ab initio.
Questions settled- Does a deputationist have a vested right to permanent absorption in a borrowing department?
- Can a non-civil servant or an employee from an autonomous body be absorbed into a government service cadre contrary to prescribed rules?
- Whether the competent authority has the power to terminate a deputation period and repatriate an official to their parent department at any time?
- Is appointment by transfer or deputation permissible to positions outside an employee's original service cadre?
- Haider Bin Masood vs Election Commission of Pakistan & 7 others2020 IHC 70, 2020 PLD Islamabad 236 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-30Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Gulzar Begum and another2020 PLJ Islamabad 68 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 537, 2020 P Cr. L J 59 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns consolidated jail appeals and a murder reference arising from the conviction of Gul Muhammad and Mst. Eid Un Nisa for the murder of Saeed ur Rehman. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the testimony of a child witness and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction for murder. The Islamabad High Court upheld the convictions and sentences, confirming the death sentence of the primary accused. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through consistent and reliable evidence, including the testimony of the deceased's daughter. Regarding the legal principles, the Court affirmed that a child witness is competent to testify provided they can understand questions and provide rational answers. While the testimony of a child witness requires careful scrutiny and, as a rule of prudence, corroboration to ensure the absence of tutoring, there is no universal rule requiring rejection of such evidence. The Court found the child witness's deposition consistent, corroborated by forensic evidence, and free from external influence.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of a child witness admissible in a criminal trial without corroboration?
- What are the criteria for determining the competency of a child witness to testify?
- Does the rule of prudence regarding child witness testimony require absolute corroboration in every case?
- Ghulam Sarwar Sindhu vs The Chairman National Accountability Bureau2020 YLR 909 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-04-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi vs Oil And Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL)2020 PLC (C.S.) 1467 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an office memorandum issued by the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner, Ghulam Nabi, after his retirement. The core legal questions were whether disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal could be maintained post-superannuation and whether the competent authority could lawfully disregard an authorized officer’s recommendation to exonerate the employee without recording reasons. The court held that the impugned dismissal order was unsustainable. The ratio established that while a competent authority is not strictly bound by the findings of an inquiry officer or authorized officer, it cannot arbitrarily disagree with an exoneration recommendation. The authority must provide a reasoned order demonstrating a conscious application of mind when taking a contrary view. Failure to record such reasons, particularly when the authorized officer has recommended exoneration, constitutes a procedural illegality that vitiates the penalty. Consequently, the court set aside the dismissal order, directing the respondent to address the petitioner's outstanding pensionary and retirement benefits in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a competent authority impose a major penalty of dismissal after an employee has attained the age of superannuation?
- Is a competent authority required to record reasons when disagreeing with an authorized officer's recommendation to exonerate an employee?
- Does the failure of a competent authority to provide reasons for rejecting an exoneration recommendation invalidate a disciplinary penalty?
- Ghulam Nabi vs Oil & Gas Development Company Limited and others2020 IHC 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-06Read full judgment →
- Gemalto Middle East FZ-LLC vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division and others2020 CLD 151 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the procurement process for ID-3 electronic data pages conducted by the National Security Printing Company (N.S.P.C.L.). The petitioner alleged violations of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004, specifically regarding the extension of bid validity periods, the pre-qualification of a bidder who failed to meet essential shipping volume requirements, and the lack of transparency in the Grievance Redressal Committee's proceedings. The Court held that N.S.P.C.L. acted unlawfully by extending bid validity after its expiry without valid exceptional circumstances and by accepting documents post-deadline to satisfy pre-qualification criteria. The Court affirmed that procurement agencies must strictly adhere to statutory timelines and criteria. Furthermore, the Court established that Grievance Redressal Committees must provide reasoned decisions and observe principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing. Consequently, the Court declared the pre-qualification of the successful bidder unlawful and set aside the resulting purchase order, granting N.S.P.C.L. liberty to initiate a fresh, transparent procurement process in strict compliance with the 2004 Rules.
Questions settled- Can a procuring agency extend a bid validity period after it has already expired?
- Does a foreign company's failure to comply with registration requirements under the Companies Act 2017 bar it from invoking the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a Grievance Redressal Committee required to provide a reasoned decision and an opportunity for a hearing to an aggrieved bidder?
- Can a bidder satisfy essential pre-qualification criteria by submitting documents after the deadline for submission?
- First Women Bank Ltd. through Attorney vs Muhammad Tayyab and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment decides six Intra Court Appeals filed by First Women Bank Ltd. against a single-judge decision that directed the bank to process the regularization of the private respondents' services. The private respondents, initially appointed as daily wagers and later as contract employees, challenged the non-extension of their contracts and sought regularization. The appellant bank contended that it lacked statutory service rules, making the writ petitions non-maintainable, and that the master-servant relationship governed their employment. The Islamabad High Court examined whether contractual employees of a non-statutory entity could invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court held that in the absence of statutory service rules, the relationship between the bank and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant. Consequently, contractual employees have no vested right to seek regularization or reinstatement through constitutional petitions, and their remedy for wrongful termination lies in damages. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Can a contractual employee of an organization without statutory service rules invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 to seek regularization or reinstatement?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of a government-owned company in the absence of statutory service rules?
- Whether the termination of a non-stigmatic contractual service can be challenged through a writ petition when the contract period has expired?
- Can a court direct the regularization of contractual employees in the absence of a specific law or statutory provision providing for such regularization?
- Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation vs Javaid Iqbal and others2020 YLR 2306 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
- Fazal Rehman and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 IHC 90 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-14Read full judgment →