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.

• Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others2018 IHC 146 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-04Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Khan alias Shahzad Khan vs State, etcPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-12-09
  criminal appealmurderinjured witnessuncross-examined testimonyfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusseparation of grain from chaffbenefit of doubtmedical corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Islamabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased, alongside an attempt to commit murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the testimony of an injured eyewitness, whose specific attribution of the fatal and injury-causing shots to the appellant remained unchallenged in cross-examination, can form the sole basis of conviction notwithstanding the acquittal of co-accused. The Islamabad High Court held that the un-rebutted testimony of the injured witness, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt, and that the principle of separating the grain from the chaff allows for the conviction of one accused while acquitting others where distinct roles are proven. The court laid down the principle that failure to cross-examine a witness on a material and substantive part of their testimony amounts to an admission of that fact, and that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no universal application in Pakistan's criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to cross-examine a witness on a material part of their statement amount to an admission of that fact?
  • Whether the conviction of an accused can be sustained when co-accused in the same trial have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of the doubt?
  • Does the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus have universal application in the criminal administration of justice in Pakistan?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an injured eyewitness testimony when corroborated by medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifco Group through Chief Executive and another vs Privatisation2018 PLJ Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saeed Abdi Mahmud vs National Database Registration Authority2018 CLC 1588 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-07Read full judgment →
• Saeed Abdi Mahmood vs NADRA2018 CLC 1588, 2018 IHC 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-07Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Shabbir Kiyani vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 20 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-06-12
  criminal jurisdictionsentencing powersMagistrate Section 30Code of Criminal Proceduretrial competencepolice reportSection 173 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision challenges the orders of a Judicial Magistrate and a Sessions Judge, who transferred a criminal case to the Sessions Court solely because the potential sentence for the charged offences (sections 394, 511, and 337-A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860) exceeded the Magistrate's sentencing powers. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate may refer a case to the Sessions Court on the grounds that the prescribed punishment exceeds their sentencing jurisdiction, despite the offence being triable by a Magistrate of the 1st Class. The Court held that the impugned orders were illegal. It established that the jurisdiction to try an offence is distinct from the power to award a specific quantum of punishment. A Magistrate of the 1st Class possesses the jurisdiction to try offences triable by them, regardless of whether the maximum prescribed sentence exceeds their sentencing authority. If a Magistrate finds a case beyond their jurisdiction, they must return the police report under section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rather than making a reference to the Sessions Court under section 190(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that a prescribed sentence exceeds a Magistrate's sentencing power deprive the Magistrate of the jurisdiction to try the offence?
  • Can a Magistrate refer a case to the Sessions Court under section 190(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely because the potential punishment exceeds their sentencing authority?
  • What is the correct procedure for a Magistrate to follow when they determine a case is beyond their jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Regional Director Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi through Additional Director Law vs Muhammad Aslam2018 P Cr. L J 87 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-05-29
  quantum of sentencecontrol of narcotic substancesconfessional statementjudicial discretionprinciple of proportionalitydeterrencenarcotics trafficking
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter before the Islamabad High Court involves multiple appeals filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force against the quantum of sentences awarded by the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad. The respondents in these cases were convicted on the basis of their confessional statements for possessing and transporting various quantities of narcotic drugs under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court's adoption of a stereotype formula—handing down sentences limited strictly to the period already undergone in custody regardless of the type or quantity of narcotics involved—was sustainable in law. The Court held that the trial court's methodology was an arbitrary exercise of discretion that violated legislative intent and established precedent. Setting aside the sentences while maintaining the final convictions, the High Court established key principles regarding sentencing discretion, proportionality, the significance of drug quantities, and the requirement for structured judicial reasoning in narcotics cases, remanding the matters back to the trial court to redetermine appropriate sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can adopt a stereotype formula limiting a sentence to the period already undergone in custody upon an accused's confession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the quantum of sentence for narcotics offences depend upon the quantity and nature of the recovered substance?
  • What are the guiding principles for structuring judicial discretion when determining the adequate punishment for offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Whether strong and convincing reasons are required for awarding a lesser sentence when a statute prescribes multiple alternative punishments including death or life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ameer vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 199, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 340 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-21Read full judgment →
• Raja Khurram Ali Khan vs Mst. Tayyaba Bibi (complainant) through herPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 697 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Raja Khurram Ali Khan and another vs Tayyaba Bibi and another2018 IHC 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-06-04
  child crueltychild labourdomestic worker abusemens rea in child neglectsentence enhancementcross-examination failurechild witness testimonydisappearance of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court adjudicated an appeal against conviction by a Judicial Officer and his wife, alongside the State’s petition seeking acquittal reversal and sentence enhancement. The case arose from the severe physical abuse, confinement, and exploitation of Tayyaba Bibi, a domestic child maid under ten years of age. The core legal issues centered on the assessment of a traumatized child witness's evidence, the failure to cross-examine material prosecution witnesses, the evidentiary and mens rea standards required under Section 328-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and principles for sentencing enhancement. The High Court dismissed the convicts' appeal, allowed the State’s appeal, enhanced their Section 328-A sentences from one to three years' imprisonment, convicted them under Section 201 PPC, and further convicted the female appellant under Sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(i) PPC with 'daman'. The Court held that Section 328-A encompasses both actual and potential harm and is satisfied by subjective awareness or reckless disregard, while child domestic labor constitutes severe exploitation.

  Questions settled

  • What legal inference arises when a party fails to cross-examine a prosecution witness on a material statement of fact?
  • What standard of mens rea is required to establish the offence of cruelty to a child under Section 328-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a First Information Report be lawfully registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on an unsigned complaint?
  • What principles govern the judicial discretion to impose the maximum prescribed sentence rather than a lesser punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain Raja vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others2018 CLC 1006 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-23Read full judgment →
• Prof. Jawaid Mohsin Malik and others vs Federation of-Pakistan through Secretary M_o Federal Education and Professional Training and others2018 [M] C.L.R. 846 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Prof. Jawaid Mohsin Malik and others vs Federation of Pakistan2018 IHC 28 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-22Read full judgment →
• Prof. Jawaid Mohsin Malik and 7 others vs Federation of Pakistan2018 PLD Islamabad 274 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-09Read full judgment →
• Park View Enclave (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Financial Officer vs Capital2018 CLC 947 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-27Read full judgment →
• Park View Enclave (Private) Limited vs Capital Development Authority2018 CLC 947, 2018 KLR Civil Cases 30, 2018 PLJ Islamabad 124 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-27Read full judgment →
• Park View Enclave (Private) Limited through Financial Officer, Lahore vs Capital Development Authority through its Chairman and 2 others2018 PLJ Islamabad 124 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. through General Manager2018 PLJ Islamabad 287 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through General2018 PLJ Islamabad 287, 2018 PTD 946 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Stone Development Company Ltd. vs Muhammad Yousaf and another2018 PLJ Islamabad 256, 2018 KLR Civil Cases 395 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Stone Development Company Ltd. through Chief Executive2018 PLJ Islamabad 256 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Stone Development Company Limited through Chief Executive2018 CLC 877 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-16Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Real Estate Investment and Management Company (Pvt) Ltd.2018 [M] C.L.R. 875, 2018 IHC 3, 2018 PLD Islamabad 115 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-30
  arbitration agreementappointment of arbitratorallegations of fraudterritorial jurisdictionlocus standiassignment of contractsole arbitratorcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals challenge orders referring a dispute to arbitration and appointing a two-member tribunal. The core legal questions concerned the standing of an assignor to resist arbitration, the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the impact of unsubstantiated fraud allegations on arbitration, and the validity of a multi-member tribunal under a silent arbitration clause. The Court held that an assignor who has divested its rights lacks standing to challenge arbitration. It affirmed that territorial jurisdiction is established where the services were performed. Regarding fraud, the Court ruled that bare, unsubstantiated allegations do not constitute sufficient cause to refuse arbitration; specific prima facie evidence is required. Finally, the Court held that where an arbitration agreement is silent on the number of arbitrators, the default rule under the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940, mandates the appointment of a sole arbitrator. Consequently, the Court modified the trial court’s order to appoint a sole arbitrator, establishing that appellate courts possess the authority to rectify procedural defects in the appointment of arbitral tribunals.

  Questions settled

  • Does an assignor who has transferred all rights and liabilities under a contract have the locus standi to resist a reference to arbitration?
  • Can a party defeat an arbitration clause by making bare, unsubstantiated allegations of fraud against the other party?
  • Where an arbitration agreement is silent on the number of arbitrators, does the Arbitration Act, 1940, mandate the appointment of a sole arbitrator?
  • Does an appellate court have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator when the trial court erroneously appointed a multi-member tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Pak Gulf Construction Private Limited and another vs Abdul Hamid Baig2018 IHC 169 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-14Read full judgment →
• Overseas Pakistanis Foundation, Islamabad vs Joint Management (Pvt)2018 IHC 135 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-11-13Read full judgment →
• Oil & Gas Development Company Limited, Jinnah Avenue, Islamabad, through Chairman and another vs Muhammad Ilyas Mian2018 CLC 1666 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
• OGDCL and another vs Muhammad Ilyas Mien2018 [M] C.L.R. 585 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
• OGDCL and another vs Muhammad Ilyas Mian2018 CLC 1666, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 585, 2018 KLR Civil Cases 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
• Official Assignee of Karachi vs Mrs. Fauzia Tariq and 2 others2018 CLD 1205 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-22Read full judgment →
• Ocean Pakistan Limited vs Additional Commissioner, Inland Revenue, etc2018 P.C.T.L.R. 283 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ocean Pakistan Limited through Chief Executive Officer, Islamabad vs Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Audit-I), Islamabad and 2 others2018 PCTLR 283, 2018 PTD 996 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-15Read full judgment →
• Noman Ahmed and others vs Mst. Sobia Farooq and others2018 [M] C.L.R. 67 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-11-21Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed Afzal vs Muhammad Sarwar and others2018 [M] C.L.R. 1573, 2020 [M] C L R 106, 2018 IHC 98 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-04Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Hussain vs Appellate Bench NIRC and another2018 [M] C.L.R. 1732 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-19
  Civil Aviation AuthorityIndustrial Relations Actstatutory interpretationGeneral Clauses ActNIRC jurisdictiongrievance petitionrepeal and re-enactment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the Civil Aviation Authority, challenged NIRC orders that dismissed their grievance petitions for lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether Section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982, which explicitly excluded the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, also precluded the application of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, to the Authority’s employees. The Court held that the NIRC correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction. Relying on the principle of statutory interpretation codified in Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court reasoned that where a statute is repealed and re-enacted, references in other enactments to the repealed law must be construed as references to the successor legislation. Consequently, the exclusion of the 1969 Ordinance in the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982, must be read as an exclusion of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court affirmed that the NIRC had no authority to adjudicate grievances from these employees, thereby dismissing the writ petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982, exclude the application of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, to employees of the Civil Aviation Authority?
  • How does Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, affect the interpretation of references to repealed statutes in existing legislation?
  • Does the non-obstante clause in Section 87 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, override specific exclusion clauses in other statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Hussain through Attorney vs Appellate Bench NIRC and another2018 PLC 269 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-19
  Civil Aviation AuthorityNIRC jurisdictionIndustrial Relations Actservice disputewrit petitionexclusion of labor lawsmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses three consolidated writ petitions involving employees of the Civil Aviation Authority who challenged adverse orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) or its benches. The core legal question was whether the N.I.R.C. possesses jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 to entertain grievance petitions filed by employees of the Civil Aviation Authority, given the exclusionary provisions contained in section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982 explicitly bars the application of labor laws to persons in the service of the Authority, and that subsequent enactments such as the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 do not impliedly repeal or override the specific exclusion. The key legal principle established is that employees of the Civil Aviation Authority remain governed by their specific statutory service framework, and labor forums like the N.I.R.C. lack jurisdiction over their service disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to adjudicate grievance petitions filed by employees of the Civil Aviation Authority?
  • Whether section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982 excludes the application of subsequent labor legislation such as the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does section 87 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 override the exclusionary provisions of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveeda Jabeen vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Housing2018 KLR Labour and Service Cases 226, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 649, PLJ 2018 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-16
  official accommodationallotment rulesgeneral waiting listdependent familycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for a declaration and injunction regarding the allotment of official government accommodation. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, specifically whether a married and non-dependent daughter of a retired allottee is entitled to retain or be allotted her parent's official accommodation without fulfilling the general eligibility and entitlement criteria, including placement on the General Waiting List. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory definition of 'family' requires complete dependency, and that the proviso to Rule 15(2) requires the claimant to be otherwise eligible and entitled, which includes waiting list entitlement. The court laid down the principle that the rules must be interpreted harmoniously to ensure that accommodations are allotted based on established rules, preventing preferential bypass of the General Waiting List.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a child of a retired allottee who is married and not wholly dependent can claim allotment of official accommodation under Rule 15(2) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Does the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 exempt an applicant from the requirement of being entitled on the basis of the General Waiting List?
  • How are the terms 'family' and dependency construed under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 for the purpose of official accommodation allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveeda Jabeen vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Housing2018 PLJ Islamabad 262 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-16
  official accommodationallotmentcivil revisionwaiting listretirementdependent family
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration and injunction regarding the retention and allotment of an official government accommodation previously allotted to her retired mother. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, specifically whether a married, non-dependent child living with a retired allottee is automatically entitled to the transfer of official accommodation without awaiting their turn on the General Waiting List. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the claimant must fulfill all conditions of eligibility, including being part of the defined dependent family and becoming entitled on the basis of the General Waiting List. The key principle laid down is that the benefit under the proviso to Rule 15(2) of the Rules of 2002 cannot be claimed independently of the general eligibility conditions and waiting list seniority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a child of a retired government servant is entitled to retain official accommodation under Rule 15(2) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 without being dependent and on the general waiting list?
  • Does the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 exempt a serving spouse or child from fulfilling general eligibility conditions and seniority on the waiting list?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding whether a claimant was living with the allottee be interfered with in civil revision without showing a legal infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Panther Developers vs Additional District Judge (Adj), West,2018 [M] C.L.R. 1498, 2018 PLJ Islamabad 276 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan Real Estate Investment & Management Company (Pvt) Ltd.2018 [M] C.L.R. 875 · Islamabad High Court
  arbitration agreementSection 20 applicationterritorial jurisdictionassignment of contractallegations of fraudarbitral tribunal compositionsole arbitratorlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenged orders referring contractual disputes to arbitration and appointing a two-member arbitral tribunal. The core legal questions concerned the standing of an entity that had assigned its contractual rights to challenge the reference, the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the impact of unsubstantiated fraud allegations on arbitration clauses, and the validity of a multi-member tribunal when the agreement is silent on the number of arbitrators. The Court held that an entity having assigned its rights and exited the contract lacks locus standi to challenge the reference. Furthermore, it affirmed that bare allegations of fraud, lacking prima facie evidence, do not constitute sufficient cause to refuse arbitration. Regarding the tribunal's composition, the Court ruled that where an arbitration agreement is silent on the number of arbitrators, the First Schedule of the 1940 Act mandates a sole arbitrator. Consequently, the Court upheld the reference to arbitration but modified the tribunal's composition, appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party that has assigned its rights and obligations under a contract maintain an appeal against an order referring disputes to arbitration?
  • Do bare and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud constitute sufficient cause to refuse a reference to arbitration?
  • Where an arbitration agreement is silent on the number of arbitrators, is a court empowered to appoint a multi-member arbitral tribunal?
  • Does a court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, where the services under the contract were performed within its jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Hashtnagar Arms and Ammunition Dealers through Proprietor vs2018 PTD 795, 2018 PLJ Islamabad 267 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-11Read full judgment →
• M/s. Bestway Cement Limited through Senior Deputy Financial Controller2018 PLJ Islamabad 297 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Air Ciro through its Senior Partner vs Government of Pakistan through2018 [M] C.L.R. 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Air Ciro through its Senior Partner vs Government of Pakistan2018 PLJ Islamabad 94 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Sui Southern Gas Company Limited vs Ghulam Nabi Deeshak,2018 IHC 137 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-11-28
  contract workerstrade union referendumvoter listemployer-employee relationshipcollective bargaining agentsham contractindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed by M/s Sui Southern Gas Company Limited challenges the order of the Registrar Trade Unions accepting an application by the Sui Southern Gas Insaf Jafakash Union to include contract workers—engaged through third-party service providers—in the voter list for a forthcoming collective bargaining agent referendum. The core legal question was whether contract workers performing permanent functions at an establishment through third-party service providers are eligible for inclusion in a trade union voter list under the applicable labor framework. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that workers employed through contractors or service providers who perform permanent duties integral to the establishment's operations under its effective control are deemed workmen and employees of the principal employer. The Court laid down the principle that third-party service agreements cannot be used as a sham or device to deprive workers of their statutory labor rights, and that such workers are entitled to union membership and voting rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether workers engaged through third-party service providers can be included in the voter list of a trade union for a referendum?
  • Does the definition of a workman under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 include persons employed through a contractor?
  • Can service agreements executed with third-party contractors deprive workers of their statutory labor rights when such workers perform permanent functions at the establishment?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Panther Developers vs Additional District Judge (Adj), West,2018 MLD 1595, 2018 PLJ Islamabad 276, 2018 IHC 31 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan Real Estate Investment & Management Company (Private)2018 IHC 3 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-25
  arbitration agreementassignment of contractlocus standiallegations of fraudsole arbitratorterritorial jurisdictioncivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two appeals filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, impugning orders of the civil court which allowed an application under Section 20 of the Act and referred contractual disputes to a two-member arbitral tribunal. The core legal questions involved whether an assignor without remaining contractual interest has locus standi to appeal, whether unsubstantiated allegations of fraud constitute sufficient cause to refuse arbitration, and whether a reference to a multi-member tribunal is permissible when the arbitration agreement is silent. The Islamabad High Court held that an assignor who has assigned all rights and liabilities lacks locus standi to challenge the reference, that bare allegations of fraud without a prima facie case or framing of a criminal charge cannot defeat an arbitration agreement, and that a silent arbitration agreement mandates a sole arbitrator under the First Schedule of the Act. The Court dismissed the appeals as to maintainability and modification, setting aside the two-member tribunal and appointing a sole arbitrator.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assignor who has assigned all rights and obligations under a contract retains locus standi to file an appeal against an order referring disputes to arbitration?
  • Do bare and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud constitute sufficient cause for a court to refuse a reference to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can a civil court appoint a multi-member arbitral tribunal when the underlying arbitration agreement is silent regarding the number of arbitrators?
  • Does an appellate court under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 possess the power to modify an erroneous arbitral tribunal appointment and appoint a sole arbitrator?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority vs Commissioner of Income Tax,2018 IHC 167, PTCL 2019 CL. 137 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-19
  income tax exemptionstatutory bodieslocal authorityretrospective effecttax referenceconstitutional interpretationIncome Tax Ordinance 2001
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple income tax references involving various statutory bodies, including the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority and the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority, seeking exemption from income tax. The core legal questions were whether these entities, established under specific statutes, qualify for tax exemption under Section 49(1) to (3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and whether Section 49(4) of the same Ordinance, inserted via the Finance Act, 2007, possesses retrospective effect. The Court held that these statutory bodies do not constitute the Federal Government, Provincial Government, or Local Government as contemplated by the Ordinance and are therefore not entitled to the claimed exemptions. Furthermore, the Court determined that while Section 49(4) does not operate retrospectively, it serves as declaratory legislation consistent with Article 165-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which empowers Parliament to tax the income of such corporations. The principle established is that statutory bodies, despite being controlled by the government, remain distinct legal entities and are liable to taxation unless explicitly exempted by law, regardless of the ultimate destination of their income.

  Questions settled

  • Are statutory bodies established under federal or provincial laws entitled to income tax exemption under Section 49(1) to (3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does Section 49(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, have retrospective effect?
  • Does the control of a statutory body by the Federal Government automatically qualify that body for tax exemption as the Federal Government?
  • What constitutes a local authority for the purpose of tax exemption under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Nayatel (Pvt) Limited vs Appellate Tribunal Customs, Islamabad and2019 P.C.T.L.R. 23, 2019 PTD 288, 2018 IHC 150 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
• M/s Exceed Private Limited vs Pakistan Housing Authority Foundation and2019 KLR Civil Cases 69, 2018 IHC 144 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-27Read full judgment →
• Munawar Baig Mughal through L.Rs, and 2 others vs Capital2018 CLC 1818 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-07Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Malik and another vs Mumtaz Ali Malik and another2018 MLD 1975 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair and others vs National Command Authority and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 519 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-11-14
  promotionsecurity clearancenatural justiceaudi alteram partemservice jurisprudenceNational Command Authoritywrit petitionpublic functionary
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving as General Managers at the National Development Complex, sought promotion to higher scales, contending they met all eligibility criteria while their juniors were promoted. The respondent, National Command Authority, denied the promotion citing security clearance issues but failed to provide specific reasons or confront the petitioners with adverse material. The court examined whether the Authority could exercise unbridled discretion under the guise of security clearance. The court held that the denial of promotion without disclosing adverse material or allowing the petitioners an opportunity to defend themselves violates the principles of natural justice and Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court emphasized that public functionaries must act fairly and provide reasons for decisions detrimental to a subject. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to promotion from the dates their juniors were promoted, as the Authority failed to demonstrate any tangible basis for the denial. The petition was allowed, granting the petitioners consequential benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public authority deny promotion to an employee based on security clearance without disclosing the adverse material or providing an opportunity to be heard?
  • Does the failure to provide reasons for deferring an employee's promotion violate Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Is the principle of audi alteram partem applicable to the denial of promotion in a strategic organization?
  • Does the National Command Authority Act, 2010 override the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar Iqbal vs Malik Aurangzeb and another2018 [M] C.L.R. 1458, 2018 MLD 1689 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Dar vs Khawaja Mohammed Asif, etc.2018 [M] C.L.R. 915 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Dar vs Khawaja Mohammad Asif, Etc2018 IHC 45 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Dar vs Khawaja Mohammad Asif and others2018 PLD Islamabad 214 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Dar vs (Khawaja) Mohammad Asif, etc.2018 [M] C.L.R. 915, 2018 IHC 45, 2018 PLD Islamabad 214, KLR 2018 Civil · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited2018 CLD 543 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Khan vs Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources2018 IHC 119 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-26
  misconductembezzlementdisciplinary proceedingsremoval from servicewrit jurisdictionpublic fundsrestitution
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a departmental order imposing the penalty of 'removal from service' on the petitioner, a former Chief Accounts Officer, following his admission of embezzling public funds. The petitioner sought to have the penalty converted to 'compulsory retirement' to secure pensionary benefits and contested the employer's demand for markup on the embezzled amount. The Court held that the return of embezzled funds does not absolve an employee of misconduct or mitigate the penalty of removal from service, as the breach of trust remains established. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it cannot substitute its own findings for those of the competent authority in writ jurisdiction, especially where the petitioner had also been convicted of criminal charges related to the same embezzlement. The Court declined to interfere with the penalty or the employer's claim for markup, noting that the latter is a matter for a civil court to determine if a recovery suit is filed. The key principle established is that restitution of misappropriated funds does not automatically entitle a public servant to leniency or mitigation of disciplinary penalties for serious misconduct.

  Questions settled

  • Does the return of embezzled funds by a public servant mitigate the penalty of removal from service for misconduct?
  • Can a High Court in writ jurisdiction substitute a departmental penalty of removal from service with compulsory retirement?
  • Is an employee liable for markup on embezzled funds returned to the employer after several years?
  • Does the conviction of a public servant for embezzlement under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude reinstatement in service?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif, etc vs Muhammad Sadiq, etc2018 KLR Criminal Cases 263, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 793, 2018 IHC 55 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-15
  Illegal Dispossession Actabatement of proceedingscriminal revisionrestoration of possessiondeath of accusedlegal heirsimmovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision challenged an acquittal order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings regarding illegal dispossession abate upon the death of the accused, or if they survive against legal heirs for the purpose of property restoration. The Court held that while Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally mandates the abatement of criminal proceedings upon the death of an accused, this rule is limited to personal punishments like imprisonment. Where the proceedings concern the restoration of immovable property, the cause of action survives against the legal heirs. Drawing an analogy to Section 145(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court determined that the right to seek property restoration is not extinguished by the death of the accused. Consequently, the Court allowed the impleadment of the legal heirs, set aside the acquittal, and directed the restoration of the disputed property to the petitioners, as the legal heirs conceded they held no claim to the land.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal proceeding under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 abate upon the death of the accused?
  • Can proceedings for the restoration of immovable property continue against the legal heirs of a deceased accused?
  • Does the right to sue survive the death of an accused in cases involving property rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry2018 PLD Islamabad 258 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-17
  extraditionfugitive offendernon-treaty stateprima facie caseenquiry magistrateconstitutional petitionwrit of certiorari
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged the dismissal of a constitutional petition seeking to invalidate extradition proceedings initiated against the appellant by the United Kingdom for trial on charges of murder and conspiracy to commit arson. The core legal question concerned whether extradition proceedings to a non-treaty state are valid under the Extradition Act, 1972, in the absence of a pre-existing treaty, and whether procedural irregularities vitiate the inquiry. The Islamabad High Court held that pursuant to Section 4 of the Extradition Act, 1972, the Federal Government is empowered to direct by official notification that the Act shall apply in relation to a non-treaty state, thereby curing prior procedural irregularities such as the timing of the magistrate's appointment. The court affirmed that an extradition inquiry is merely summary to determine a prima facie case and does not equate to a full trial. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the extradition proceedings and the Enquiry Magistrate's findings were lawful, did not violate fundamental rights under Article 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and that strict compliance with the Extradition Act had been substantially met.

  Questions settled

  • Can a fugitive offender be extradited to a foreign state with which Pakistan does not have an extradition treaty?
  • Does the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Extradition Act, 1972 cure prior procedural irregularities regarding the appointment of an Enquiry Magistrate?
  • What is the scope and nature of an inquiry conducted by an Enquiry Magistrate under Section 8 of the Extradition Act, 1972?
  • Does extradition to a foreign state violate the fundamental right to freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sami-Ul-Haq vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and 3 others2018 CLC 1613 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sami ul Haq vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2018 CLC 1613, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 251, 2018 IHC 59 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safeer vs Additional Sessions Judge (West) Islamabad and others2018 PLD Islamabad 385 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-03
  child marriagecriminal revisionjurisdiction of magistratestatutory interpretationprocedural irregularityconviction reductionlocal government ordinanceage determination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction of the petitioners under the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, for solemnizing a child marriage. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate to take cognizance of the complaint in the absence of a functional Union Council, the necessity of a preliminary inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the liability of a minor contracting party under the Act. The Court held that in the Islamabad Capital Territory, the Chief Commissioner, through designated Administrators, validly exercised the powers of the Provincial Government to initiate proceedings under the Act. It affirmed that technical procedural omissions do not invalidate a trial absent a miscarriage of justice. Regarding liability, the Court ruled that the Act does not penalize the minor contracting party, only the adult promoter and guardian. Consequently, the Court acquitted the minor petitioner, while upholding the conviction of the father (petitioner No. 1) but reducing his sentence to the period already undergone, establishing that the Act does not invalidate the marriage itself but penalizes those responsible for its solemnization.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Executive Magistrate take cognizance of an offence under the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, if a Union Council is not established in the area?
  • Does the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, impose criminal liability on a minor who is a contracting party to the marriage?
  • Does a procedural omission, such as failing to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, automatically render a trial void?
  • Is the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, unconstitutional for being contrary to the injunctions of Islam?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohsin Fawad vs Hina Tayyaba Khalil and others2018 IHC 36 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Masroor-Ul-Haq vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M_O Overseas Pakistan & H.R.D. Islamabad and others2018 PLJ Islamabad 75 · Islamabad High Court
  deputationrepatriationvested rightWorkers Welfare Fundservice lawwedlock policywrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an Office Order issued by the Workers Welfare Fund (WWF) repatriating the petitioner, an Assistant Director, to his parent department, the Sindh Workers Welfare Board. The petitioner contended that his posting to the WWF constituted a transfer rather than a deputation, and that he held a legitimate expectation of absorption, further citing the wedlock policy as a bar to repatriation. The core legal question was whether a deputationist possesses a vested right to complete their tenure or to remain in the borrowing department indefinitely. The Court held that the petitioner’s status as a deputationist was clearly established by official correspondence and the governing service rules. Dismissing the petition, the Court affirmed the principle that deputation is an administrative arrangement between lending and borrowing authorities, not creating a vested right for the employee. Consequently, a deputationist has no legal entitlement to complete a specific tenure and may be repatriated to their parent department at any time by the competent authority, without the necessity of assigning reasons or adhering to policies like the wedlock policy.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to complete the full tenure of their deputation?
  • Can a competent authority repatriate a deputationist to their parent department without assigning reasons?
  • Does the wedlock policy prevent the repatriation of a government employee serving on deputation?
  • Is a deputationist entitled to remain in the borrowing department indefinitely based on a claim of legitimate expectation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad lqbal vs The State, etc.2018 KLR Criminal Cases 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-01-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs Muhammad Adnan Qureshi2018 CLC 585 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs State etc.2018 PLJ Islamabad 17, 2018 KLR Criminal Cases 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-01-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrar Khan and another vs Capital Development Authority2018 IHC 121 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Estate Office and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 344 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-03-07
  civil revisiongovernment accommodationAccommodation Allocation Rules, 2002unauthorized occupationrejection of plaintdelegated legislationeviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged concurrent orders rejecting the petitioner's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner, a Capital Development Authority (CDA) employee, sought to retain government accommodation previously allotted to his retired mother, relying on the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. The core legal questions concerned whether a CDA employee is eligible for Estate Office accommodation and whether the Federal Government can extend statutory retention periods via notification. The Court held that the petitioner, as a CDA employee, was ineligible for Estate Office accommodation and that the suit accommodation could not be transferred to the CDA pool. Crucially, the Court ruled that the Federal Government cannot, under the guise of Rule 28, issue notifications that effectively amend or relax substantive provisions of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, regarding retention periods. Consequently, the Court affirmed the rejection of the plaint, emphasizing that unauthorized occupants are liable for eviction and that public functionaries must strictly adhere to statutory rules and Supreme Court precedents regarding accommodation allotments.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government amend or relax substantive provisions of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, through notifications issued under Rule 28?
  • Is an employee of the Capital Development Authority eligible for the allotment of government accommodation from the pool of the Estate Office?
  • Does the continued occupation of government accommodation by a family member after the expiry of the permissible retention period following a government servant's retirement constitute unauthorized occupation?
  • Can a civil court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where the plaintiff lacks a legal right to the relief claimed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry2018 MLD 1176 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division2018 IHC 123 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed Khan, etc vs Mst. Nashid Anum Shahid, etc2018 [M] C.L.R. 1566, 2018 PLD Islamabad 379, 2018 IHC 90 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed Khan and others vs Mst. Nashid Anum Shahid and others2018 PLD Islamabad 379 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sara Bibi vs Muhammad Saleem and others2018 IHC 109 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Malik vs Ministry of Capital Administration and Development and another2019 [M] C.L.R. 167, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 186 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-08-23
  regularization of servicesdaily wages employeesdiscriminatory treatmentCabinet Sub-CommitteeBPS-16 regularizationequality before lawwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a daily wages Trained Graduate Teacher (BS-16) at an educational institution under the Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad, sought implementation of a notification dated 08.02.2013 issued by the Ministry of Capital Administration and Development regularizing her services pursuant to the approval of a Cabinet Sub-Committee. The respondents contested the petition, arguing that the Cabinet Sub-Committee lacked jurisdiction to regularize employees in BPS-16 and above under the governing Regularization Policy dated 29.08.2008, which was restricted to BPS-01 to BPS-15. The core legal question was whether the respondents could refuse to implement the regularization notification and discriminate against the petitioner while other similarly placed employees regularized by the same notification were granted relief. The Islamabad High Court held that the government could not take a paradoxical position by letting scores of similarly situated employees in BPS-16 and above work as regular employees while discriminating against the petitioner. The court ruled that since the notification holding the field had not been rescinded and similarly placed persons like Ms. Safia Bano had been granted regular status, the petitioner was entitled to the same treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution. The writ petition was allowed with a direction to implement the notification and post the petitioner against a permanent available post.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Cabinet Sub-Committee has the authority to regularize daily wages or contract employees in BPS-16 and above under the Regularization Policy dated 29.08.2008?
  • Can the government take a paradoxical position by regularizing some employees through a notification while denying the same benefit to similarly placed employees?
  • Does the denial of regularization to an employee while granting it to a similarly situated person violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Bibi vs Additional Sessions Judge (East), Islamabad etc2018 [M] C.L.R. 1405, 2018 P Cr. L J 1328, 2018 IHC 70 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-30
  custody of minorhazanatsuckling babywomen prisonershabeas corpuswelfare of minorguardian and wards
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by an incarcerated mother seeking the recovery and custody of her ten-month-old suckling daughter, who was allegedly taken from her and handed over to private respondents while the mother faced trial for murder. The core legal question was whether an under-trial mother facing murder charges is disqualified from retaining the custody of her infant suckling child, particularly in light of Islamic injunctions, personal law, and prison rules. The Islamabad High Court held that pending the trial and final determination by the Guardian Court under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, the mother cannot be deprived of the right of Hazanat for an infant suckling baby, and the state and prison authorities are obligated under Rule 326 of the Pakistan Prisons Code to permit women prisoners to keep their young children with them. The court laid down the principle that the welfare of a minor of tender age strongly favors maternal custody and breastfeeding, and allegations in a criminal trial—until proven—do not constitute a legal disqualification from temporary custody under habeas corpus proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an under-trial mother facing murder charges is disqualified from claiming the temporary custody of her infant suckling child under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a High Court issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus for the temporary custody of a minor pending adjudication of a guardian petition before the Guardian Court?
  • Does Rule 326 of the Pakistan Prisons Code permit women prisoners to keep their young children with them in prison?
  • What is the significance of Islamic injunctions and maternal breastfeeding regarding the right of Hazanat for an infant of tender age?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saadia Andaleeb vs Mst. Farzana Zia and 5 others2018 [M] C.L.R. 1644, 2018 IHC 96 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-06-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Pervez Akhter and 6 others vs Raja Shoaib Malal and 3 others2018 CLC 1702 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Pervaiz Akhter and others vs Raja Shoaib Malal and others2018 IHC 25 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Ali and another vs Mst. Rubina Ehtesham and 4 others2018 YLR 1891 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayesha Shabbir and others vs The Registrar Islamabad High Court, Islamabad and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 1026 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-06-06
  judicial service confirmationdepartmental examinationwrit jurisdictionprobation periodadministrative orderIslamabad Judicial Service Rulesjudicial comity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates, challenged the mandatory departmental examination requirement for their service confirmation, arguing that their probation period had expired and that the examination process was discriminatory and procedurally flawed. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could mandate such examinations after the initial probation period and whether the High Court’s administrative orders regarding judicial service conditions were subject to writ jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petitions, holding that confirmation under Rule 20(3) of the Islamabad Judicial Service Rules, 2011, is strictly conditional upon passing prescribed departmental examinations, regardless of the expiry of the probation period. The court further held that administrative orders issued by the High Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, as the High Court does not fall within the definition of a 'person' for such purposes. The judgment establishes that statutory conditions precedent, such as passing examinations, must be fulfilled for confirmation, and judicial comity precludes one bench from issuing writs against the administrative acts of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court's administrative order regarding judicial service conditions is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the expiry of a probation period automatically result in confirmation if a mandatory departmental examination has not been passed?
  • Can a High Court bench issue a writ against the administrative actions of the same High Court?
  • Is the requirement to pass a departmental examination a condition precedent for the confirmation of a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayesha Shabbir & others vs Registrar Islamabad High Court, Islamabad and others2018 PLJ Islamabad 28, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 1026 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-06-06
  departmental examinationprobation periodwrit jurisdictionjudicial service rulesadministrative orderconfirmation of serviceArticle 199
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates, challenged notifications requiring them to appear for departmental examinations, alleging discrimination and claiming automatic confirmation upon the expiry of their probation period. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court’s administrative orders regarding departmental examinations are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation despite failing the examination. The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable, as the administrative actions of the High Court, including the conduct of departmental examinations, are protected from writ jurisdiction under Article 199(5). The Court further clarified that the probation period is subject to the mandatory requirement of passing departmental examinations under the Islamabad Judicial Service Rules, 2011; thus, automatic confirmation does not occur upon the mere expiry of the probation period. The judgment affirms that the High Court’s administrative functions, when performed by the Court as an institution, are not subject to judicial review by the same Court.

  Questions settled

  • Are administrative orders issued by the High Court regarding departmental examinations subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the expiry of the maximum probation period under the Islamabad Judicial Service Rules, 2011, automatically result in the confirmation of a judicial officer?
  • Is the requirement to pass a departmental examination a mandatory condition precedent for the confirmation of a probationer under the Islamabad Judicial Service Rules, 2011?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asma Khursheed and another vs Station House Officer, Aabpara2018 P Cr. L J 674 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-18
  section 145 crpcdispossessionbreach of peaceconstitutional petitioncivil disputeattachment of propertypublic functionariesfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, whereby their residential property was attached and sealed, leading to their dispossession. The core legal question concerned the lawful exercise of jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C. when the petitioners' possession was undisputed, civil proceedings were already pending, and no imminent apprehension of a breach of peace existed at the time of attachment. The Court held that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. require strict jurisdictional prerequisites, including objective satisfaction regarding an imminent danger of a breach of peace, and cannot be used to dispossess persons who are in settled, undisputed possession or to bypass civil court adjudications. The Court declared the impugned sealing and dispossession illegal, without lawful authority, and ordered the immediate restoration of possession to the petitioners along with departmental inquiries against the responsible public functionaries.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate can exercise jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in the absence of an imminent apprehension of a breach of peace?
  • Can the powers under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be invoked to evict persons who are in undisputed and settled possession of a property?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit concerning the property oust the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to initiate attachment proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What are the mandatory jurisdictional requirements for initiating proceedings and attaching property under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Shagufta Hashmat, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2018 PLC (C.S.) 619, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 302 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-11-01
  regularization of servicescivil servantsad hoc appointmentfundamental rightspublic sector recruitmentconstitutional petitionmerit-based appointmentdelegated legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated petition concerns the regularization of services for various contract, daily wage, and contingent employees, primarily teaching staff in public schools and colleges. The core legal questions addressed whether regularization policies, particularly a 2011 policy approved by the Prime Minister but not the Cabinet, could override the Civil Servants Act 1973 and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The Court held that regularization policies cannot bypass primary or delegated legislation. It declared the 2011 'Committees Policy' illegal and void for lacking Cabinet approval and violating statutory recruitment procedures. The Court affirmed that appointments made without transparent, competitive processes, such as public advertisement, are void ab initio and do not confer a vested right to regularization. The key principle laid down is that public appointments must strictly adhere to statutory frameworks and merit-based, transparent selection processes. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the fundamental rights of students to receive quality education from qualified teachers supersede the individual claims of employees appointed through non-transparent, ad hoc methods.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government regularization policy override the provisions of the Civil Servants Act 1973 and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973?
  • Does an ad hoc appointment made without a transparent, competitive process create a vested right to regularization?
  • Is a regularization policy approved by the Prime Minister without the approval of the Federal Cabinet legally valid?
  • Can the court enforce the regularization of employees in public sector entities if their initial appointment violated statutory recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Shagufta Hashmat and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet Division and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 619 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-11-01
  regularization of servicescontract employeescivil servantsinitial appointmentAPT Rules 1973transparency in public appointmentsfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses multiple petitions filed by contract, daily wage, and contingent staff—predominantly teaching staff in public schools and colleges—seeking the regularization of their services against permanent posts. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners have a vested right to regularization based on previous executive policies, particularly a policy approved by the Prime Minister in 2011, and whether such appointments made without open competitive processes can be regularized in contravention of statutory rules. The court held that executive policies cannot override primary legislation or delegated statutory rules, that the 2011 policy lacked proper Federal Cabinet approval and was thus illegal, and that initial appointments made without transparency and statutory compliance are void ab initio. The court laid down key principles establishing that public sector appointments must strictly follow the Civil Servants Act 1973 and associated rules, that transparency and open competition are mandatory constitutional prerequisites for public employment, and that individual claims to regularization remain subservient to the fundamental rights of the public and students to fair, merit-based governance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an executive policy approved by the Prime Minister without the formal approval of the Federal Cabinet can override statutory rules governing civil servants?
  • Can contract or daily wage employees appointed without advertising posts and through non-transparent processes claim a vested right to regularization?
  • Whether appointments made in violation of the Civil Servants Act 1973 and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973 are void ab initio?
  • Does the payment of public school teachers from a private Student Fund violate constitutional norms and statutory frameworks?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sumaira Malik and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan2018 PLJ Islamabad 216 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mohammad Ashraf and another vs Mohammad Asghar Zardari and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 257 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-05-29
  service lawpromotion criteriaPakistan Engineering Councillocus poenitentiaestatutory interpretationintra-court appealprofessional engineering qualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal arose from a challenge to the promotion of Capital Development Authority (CDA) employees to engineering posts. The core legal question was whether employees lacking professional engineering degrees and registration with the Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) could be promoted to such positions, notwithstanding amendments to the CDA Employees (Service) Regulations, 1992. The Court held that the CDA’s amendment, which mandated PEC registration for engineering appointments, was valid and enforceable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that employees not registered with the PEC were ineligible for promotion to engineering cadres. The judgment affirmed that professional regulatory requirements established by the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, must be strictly followed. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellants' reliance on the principle of locus poenitentiae, holding that illegal promotions do not confer vested rights and that authorities possess the inherent power to rectify orders that violate established rules or laws. The decision emphasizes that statutory bodies must ensure their service criteria align with professional standards to maintain service efficiency and standards.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees lacking professional engineering registration are eligible for promotion to engineering posts in the Capital Development Authority?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect illegal promotions from being rectified by the appointing authority?
  • Can a statutory body mandate professional registration with the Pakistan Engineering Council as a prerequisite for promotion to engineering positions?
  Read full judgment →
• Moazzam Habib, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2018 PLJ Islamabad 239 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-07-12Read full judgment →
• Moazzam Habib and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 PLJ Islamabad 239, 2018 YLR 222 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-07-12
  constitutional petitionpro bono publicoIslamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001SRO notificationurban area demarcationequal protection of lawwrit of mandamusreasonable classification
  Summary & questions settled

  This public interest constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by advocates challenging the exclusion of urbanized regions, specifically Zone-V, from the territorial application of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 under S.R.O. No. 83(K)/2002. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government acted arbitrarily and in violation of fundamental constitutional guarantees by excluding approved urban housing schemes in Islamabad Capital Territory from rent restriction laws without intelligible differentia. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Federal Government to amend S.R.O. No. 83(K)/2002 within thirty days to explicitly include specified urban areas in Zone-V under the Ordinance. The Court held that executive notifications classifying areas for statutory coverage must be based on intelligible differentia having a reasonable nexus to the object of the legislation. Excluding modern urbanized zones without valid justification infringes equal protection of law under Article 25 and fundamental rights under Article 4. Additionally, the government retains authority under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to amend such notifications.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court issue a writ of mandamus under Article 199 directing the executive to amend a notification that arbitrarily excludes urban areas from rent protection laws?
  • Does the arbitrary exclusion of developed urban localities from rent laws violate Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can the Federal Government amend or vary an administrative notification regulating statutory application pursuant to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Robina Tabusam vs The State2018 YLR 913 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-11-15
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaymurderdelay in trialcriminal procedureconstitutional right to speedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Miss Robina Tabusam, in case FIR No. 143 dated 27.02.2014 registered under sections 365, 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of her trial under the third proviso of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where she has been incarcerated for over three and a half years and the delay is not attributable to her. The Islamabad High Court held that since the petitioner has been detained for a period exceeding two years without her trial concluding, and the delay in the trial was occasioned by the prosecution and its witnesses rather than any act or omission of the accused, she is entitled to bail as a matter of right. The court laid down the principle that the right to bail on statutory grounds under the third proviso of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. is absolute once the statutory period has expired and the delay is not caused by the defence, and such right cannot be defeated by the discretionary powers of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail as a matter of right under the third proviso of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when incarcerated for over two years without conclusion of trial?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce witnesses within the statutory period constitute a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can the right to bail on statutory grounds under section 497(1) Cr.P.C. be defeated by the discretionary power of the court when the delay is not attributable to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Minhaaj Saqib and others vs Najam-Us-Saqib and others2018 CLC 506 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-11-16
  intra-court appealmaintainabilityinterim maintenancewrit petitionjurisdictionfamily courtadjudication on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal impugned a judgment of a learned Single Judge-in-Chambers in a writ petition to the extent of a modification made to an interim maintenance order passed by a Family Court. The Family Court had fixed interim maintenance at Rs. 50,000/- per month for each of the two minor children, which was challenged through a writ petition. The learned Single Judge-in-Chambers held that the writ petition against an interim maintenance order was not maintainable, yet proceeded to modify and reduce the quantum of interim maintenance to Rs. 25,000/- per month. The core legal question was whether a court, after holding a petition to be not maintainable, can legally interfere with the impugned order and adjudicate upon the merits of the case. The Islamabad High Court held that once a court determines a petition is not maintainable or lacks jurisdiction, it has no power to delve into the merits or interfere with the impugned order, rendering any such adjudication without jurisdiction and void. The appeal was accordingly allowed, restoring the original interim maintenance amount.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an interim maintenance order passed by a Family Court?
  • Can a court make observations or interfere with an impugned order on merits after holding that the petition before it is not maintainable?
  • Does a court lacking jurisdiction or finding a lis not maintainable have the power to decide the matter on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The State through Chairman, National2018 KLR Criminal Cases 154, 2018 P Cr. L J 521 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-04
  joinder of chargesconsolidation of referencesNational Accountability Ordinanceinterlocutory orderconstitutional petitioncorruption and corrupt practicesassets beyond known sources of income
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses petitions challenging the dismissal of applications for the consolidation of charges and references filed against the petitioner by the National Accountability Bureau under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal questions involved whether section 17(d) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 mandates the joint trial of offences of the same kind, whether an accused can claim joinder of charges as a matter of right, and whether constitutional petitions are maintainable against interlocutory orders in accountability matters. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the provisions regarding joinder of charges under section 17(d) are directory and enabling, rather than mandatory, vesting discretion in the trial court. The court established that an accused cannot demand joinder of charges as a vested right unless actual prejudice resulting in illegality is shown, and that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 should be exercised sparingly against interlocutory orders lacking patent illegality or jurisdictional defects.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 17(d) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 makes joinder of charges mandatory or discretionary for the trial court?
  • Can an accused person claim the consolidation of multiple references or joinder of charges as a matter of right?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by an Accountability Court?
  • Does a separate trial of multiple references inherently prejudice the accused by disclosing the defence to common witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The State through Chairman, National2018 KLR Criminal Cases 154 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The State through Chairman, National2019 PLD Islamabad 38, 2018 PLJ Islamabad 491, 2018 IHC 115 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-19Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The State through Chairman, NAB and another2018 PLJ Islamabad 284, 2018 PLD Islamabad 148 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-02-08
  fair trialvideo link testimonyaccountability courtconstitutional petitionwitness examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Accountability Court, which permitted the recording of statements of two foreign witnesses via video link in a corruption reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau. The core legal question addressed is whether recording prosecution witnesses through video link without allowing the presence of the accused's authorized counsel or representative at the witness location compromises the right to a fair trial. The Islamabad High Court held that to ensure a fair trial, the petitioners must be granted access to have an authorized attorney, counsel, or representative present as an observer at the Pakistan High Commission in London during the video-link testimony. The key principle laid down is that the fundamental right to a fair trial under criminal jurisprudence encompasses the right of the accused to have legal representation or an authorized representative present during the examination of witnesses, even when conducted remotely via video link.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recording witness statements through video link without the presence of the accused's counsel violates the right to a fair trial?
  • Can an accused person be permitted to have an authorized representative present during the recording of video-link witness testimony abroad?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs State through Chairman NAB and another2018 PLJ Islamabad 284 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-02-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sis Corporation (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and others2018 PLD Islamabad 150, 2018 CLD 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-09-29
  public procurementtender evaluationalternative remedygrievance redressal committeelocus standijudicial reviewconstitutional petitiontechnical and financial bids
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Islamabad High Court addresses two consolidated writ petitions challenging the tender bidding process for the "Supply of e-Passport Personalization System on Turn-Key basis" initiated by the Directorate General, Immigration and Passports. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of writ petitions in light of alternative remedies under Rule 48 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004, the locus standi of a local representative to file a petition on behalf of a foreign principal, and the scope of judicial review over technical evaluations and tender conditions. The court held that the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under Rule 48 did not provide an adequate or efficacious alternative remedy due to its delayed formation, lack of independence, and absence of power to grant injunctive relief. However, the local representative lacked locus standi as a "bidder" to challenge the process independently without joining the foreign principal. Furthermore, the court established that terms of a tender and technical scoring by expert committees are not open to judicial interference unless tainted by patent illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural irregularity, as High Courts exercise review over the decision-making process rather than acting as appellate courts on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the availability of a remedy before a Grievance Redressal Committee under Rule 48 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 acts as an absolute bar to invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does a local representative or agent have the locus standi to independently institute a writ petition challenging a tender bidding process on behalf of a foreign principal without joining the principal as a party?
  • To what extent can a High Court interfere with the technical evaluation and scoring of bids conducted by expert committees in public procurement matters?
  • Whether minor non-conformities, such as an unsealed outer envelope containing properly sealed technical and financial bids, warrant the outright disqualification of a bidder under the Public Procurement Rules, 2004?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs SHV Energy Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Appellate Tribunal Inland2018 PTD 767 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-02-07Read full judgment →