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. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Rana Karamat vs Farhan Haider and 6 others2024 CLC 563 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-10Read full judgment →
• Rana Abid Hussain and others vs National Highway Authority and others2024 YLR 1784 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-07Read full judgment →
• Raja Zulfiqar Ali vs Muhammad Sadiq & others2024 LHC 3726 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-02Read full judgment →
• Raja Safeer Akbar vs Returning Officer Na-60 Jhelum-I., Returning Officer2024 LHC 17, 2024 PLJ Lahore 78 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Khubaib vs Addl. District Judge, Lahore & others2024 LHC 3171, 2024 CLC 1888 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-05Read full judgment →
• Raja Ahmed Aziz Bhatti vs The Returning Officer, etc.2024 LHC 32 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-04Read full judgment →
• Raja Abdul Ghafoor vs Province of Punjab through District Collector, Rawalpindi2024 LHC 3855, 2024 MLD 1995 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-04Read full judgment →
• Rais Munir Ahmed vs Women Ombudsperson Punjab, Lahore and others2024 MLD 822 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
• Rai Muhammad Usama vs District Police Officer, etc2024 LHC 5547, 2025 PCRLJ 541, 2025 PLJ Lahore 392 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-08
  quashing of FIRconstitutional petitionfreedom of assemblywrongful restraintmens reamalafide investigationpublic order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 16 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 and Section 341 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from allegations that the petitioner and others participated in a motorcycle rally celebrating Independence Day and disturbed public order. The core legal questions concerned whether the ingredients of the alleged offenses were made out from the FIR contents, whether the investigation was marred by a lack of mens rea, and whether the peaceful assembly was protected under fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court held that neither the dissemination of alarming rumors nor wrongful restraint of a human body was established, that mens rea was patently missing, and that the gathering constituted a lawful peaceful assembly under Article 16 of the Constitution. The petition was allowed and the impugned FIR was quashed, laying down the principle that High Courts may interfere under Article 199 to quash criminal proceedings launched without lawful justification, where essential ingredients of offenses are absent, or where fundamental rights to peaceful assembly are infringed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can quash an FIR in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 where the ingredients of the alleged offenses are missing?
  • Does the mere disruption of traffic flow by a gathering without obstructing a specific human body constitute wrongful restraint under Section 341 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an offense under Section 16 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 be sustained when the nature of the alleged slogans or words chanted is conspicuously missing from the FIR?
  • Does the peaceful celebration of Independence Day by citizens without arms fall within the protection of the fundamental right to peaceful assembly under Article 16 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Rai Muhammad Aslam vs Additional Sessions Judge, etc2024 LHC 4993, 2025 PLD Lahore 405, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 181 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-28
  exemption from personal appearanceSection 540A CrPCvirtual attendanceupdating constructioncriminal trialexpeditious justicevideo link
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order granting an accused permanent exemption from personal appearance in a criminal trial on the grounds that he was earning his livelihood abroad. The core legal question was whether residing abroad for employment qualifies as being "incapable of remaining before the Court" under Section 540A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether virtual attendance via modern technology is permissible. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 540A is an enabling provision intended to facilitate the trial process rather than punish the accused. It affirmed that "incapable of remaining before the Court" encompasses earning a livelihood abroad. The Court further laid down the principle of "updating construction," holding that procedural laws must evolve with social realities. Consequently, it ruled that courts may permit the virtual presence of an accused via video link to ensure expeditious justice, provided the presiding judge maintains control over the proceedings to preserve decorum. This approach aligns with fundamental rights and the constitutional duty to provide inexpensive and expeditious justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does "incapable of remaining before the Court" under Section 540A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include earning a livelihood abroad?
  • Can a court permit an accused to attend trial proceedings via video link?
  • Is the principle of "updating construction" applicable to the interpretation of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of an accused during trial invalidate a judgment under Section 366(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheem Ahmad vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 LHC 5414 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-26Read full judgment →
• Rahat Caf, Rawalpindi vs Government of Punjab and Punjab Revenue2024 LHC 1664, 2024 PTD 989, PTCL 2025 CL. 558 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-01Read full judgment →
• Rahat Abbas & another vs The State & another2024 LHC 3574 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-29
  post-arrest baildelayed investigation reportSection 173 Cr.P.C.fair trialjudicial remandprosecution servicecriminal justice system
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in connection with FIR No. 370 of 2022 registered at Police Station City Taunsa Sharif, District Dera Ghazi Khan. During the proceedings, the Court took serious notice of the prolonged and persistent delay in the submission of the police investigation report under Section 173 of the Code. The core legal question addressed was the systemic failure and statutory obligations concerning the timely submission of investigation reports, the misuse of provisions regarding defective reports, and the respective roles of stakeholders in the criminal justice system. The Court held that delayed submission violates constitutional due process and fair trial guarantees under Articles 4, 9, 10, and 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, and clarified the scope of powers under Section 173 of the Code and Section 9 of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions, and Powers) Act 2006. Ultimately, the bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn upon the petitioners' request, while comprehensive directions were issued to various state functionaries to ensure strict compliance with statutory timeframes for submitting investigation reports.

  Questions settled

  • Can a prosecutor return a completed investigation report under the guise of a defective report to order reinvestigation?
  • Whether the delayed submission of an investigation report violates the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • What are the statutory duties of an Area Magistrate under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding judicial remand when an investigation report is delayed?
  • What remedies are available when investigating agencies and prosecutors fail to submit investigation reports within the timelines stipulated by Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz deceased son of Abdul Haq through his legal heirs etc vs Mst.2024 LHC 3495, 2025 MLD 286 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-12Read full judgment →
• Qatar Lubricants Company W.L.L. ("Qalco") & another vs Atif Naeem Rana2024 LHC 3709, 2025 CLD 78 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-24Read full judgment →
• Qamar Masih vs The State2024 LHC 4381, 2025 YLR 333, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 99 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-09
  narcoticschain of custodysafe custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the unbroken chain of custody for the recovered narcotic substance from the point of seizure to the Chemical Examiner’s office and subsequently to the court. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the case property. Specifically, the evidence did not explain how the samples reached the Excise and Taxation Officer or who retrieved them for submission to the Chemical Examiner. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to account for the return of the case property from the laboratory for its production in court. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that any break in the chain of custody renders the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable and vitiates the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to prove the unbroken chain of custody for recovered narcotics vitiate the conviction?
  • Is the report of a Chemical Examiner admissible if the safe transmission of the sample from the police station to the laboratory is not established?
  • Must the prosecution prove the safe custody of the case property from the time of recovery until its production in court to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Iqbal and others vs Collector of Customs (Preventive), Lahore2024 PTD 340 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-14Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Ali etc vs Province of Punjab etc2024 LHC 2661, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1167 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-20
  regularization of servicecontract employeesdevelopment projectsjudicial reviewpublic recruitmentexecutive policycivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the regularization of contract employees serving in government projects, specifically Panah Gah and Old Age Home, which were transitioned from development to non-development budgets. The core legal question was whether such employees are entitled to regularization as a matter of right upon the conversion of their projects. The Court held that regularization is not an automatic right but a policy matter falling within the executive's domain. Rejecting the petitioners' reliance on the precedent in Maqsood Ahmed, the Court clarified that there is no conflict with the judgment in Muhammad Younas, as the latter applies where specific recruitment policies exist. The Court affirmed that it cannot exercise judicial overreach to mandate regularization without competitive recruitment. Instead, it directed the respondents to adhere to the government's 2022 policy, which provides specific safeguards, including age relaxation and experience credits, for existing project staff. The Court further ordered that the petitioners be allowed to continue their service until the competitive recruitment process is finalized, ensuring operational continuity while upholding the requirement for merit-based selection.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of a project converted from development to non-development status entitled to regularization as a matter of right?
  • Does a conflict exist between the Supreme Court judgments in Maqsood Ahmed and Muhammad Younas regarding the regularization of project employees?
  • Can a High Court, in exercise of judicial review, mandate the regularization of contract employees without following the prescribed competitive recruitment process?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Mashhad Meat Complex and another vs Mashhad Meat Industrial2024 LHC 1538, 2024 CLD 1040 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-16Read full judgment →
• Punjab Group of Colleges vs Province of the Punjab through Chief2024 LHC 6083, 2025 CLC 928 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-16Read full judgment →
• Punjab College Multan vs Commissioner Wages Court, Multan, etc2024 LHC 5966 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-12
  trans-provincial institutionjurisdictionpayment of wagesconstitutional petitiondisputed factscoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition calls in question an order passed by the Commissioner Wages Court, Multan, which dismissed the petitioner's application for rejection of a wage claim filed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The core legal question was whether Punjab College, Multan functions as a trans-provincial institution, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of provincial authorities in favor of the National Industrial Relation Commission under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and whether a plea of jurisdiction can be raised at a belated stage. The Lahore High Court held that while a pure question of jurisdiction regarding coram non judice can generally be raised at any stage, where determining jurisdiction depends upon unresolved disputed questions of fact requiring deeper appreciation of internal corporate affairs, such an issue cannot be summarily addressed in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court established that because the petitioner failed to conclusively establish on record that it was an integral branch of a trans-provincial entity rather than a locally engaged establishment, the petition was devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a question of jurisdiction based on coram non judice be raised at any stage of proceedings?
  • Whether the National Industrial Relation Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over employees of trans-provincial organizations?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the organizational status of an institution be determined summarily in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab, etc. vs Muhammad Yousaf2024 LHC 1262, 2024 PLJ Lahore 550 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-19Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab, etc vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, etc2024 LHC 5376 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-27
  work-charge employeesregularization of serviceslabour court jurisdictionadministration of the Stateper incuriamindustrial establishmentcivil servant status
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions filed by the Government of the Punjab challenging orders from the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the regularization of work-charge employees. The core legal questions addressed whether government departments constitute commercial or industrial establishments under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether such employees are employed in the administration of the State, thereby excluding them from the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Court held that the previous judgments in Sajjad Naseem and Farzana Basharat were per incuriam for failing to follow the Supreme Court’s dictum in Abdul Aziz, which established that work-charge employees are not necessarily employed in the administration of the State. The Court ruled that Labour Courts and the Appellate Tribunal exceeded their jurisdiction by ordering the preparation of service books and treating employees as civil servants. Consequently, the impugned decisions were set aside, and the cases were remanded for fresh determination, emphasizing the necessity of distinguishing between the status of permanent workmen and civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Are work-charge employees in government departments considered 'employed in the administration of the State' under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Do Labour Courts have the jurisdiction to direct the preparation of service books for employees regularized as permanent workmen?
  • Is the status of a 'permanent workman' under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 distinct from that of a 'civil servant'?
  • Can a Labour Court or Appellate Tribunal treat an employee as a civil servant when adjudicating a grievance under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Dor/Adc & others vs Firm Friends & Engineers2024 LHC 1582, 2025 PLJ Lahore 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through District Collector, Jhang and another vs Allah2024 CLC 1193 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Ch. Abdul Hameed2024 LHC 5621 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-29Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Sheikh Asrar Ahmad vs Government of Punjab through Secretary High Education, etc2024 LHC 4583 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Shazia Arshad and others vs Governor Punjab and 04 others2024 LHC 4000, 2024 PLJ Lahore 806, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 398 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-23
  appointment of deanschancellor circularpublic sector universitiesstatutory backingdelegated legislationuniversity of engineering and technologyuniversity of the pocas
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses petitions challenging a circular dated 29.12.2008 issued by the Governor of Punjab in his capacity as Chancellor, which prescribed a multi-factor criteria for appointing Professors as Deans of Public Sector Universities (PSUs), alongside petitions challenging specific appointments made under or against such criteria. The core legal question was whether the Chancellor can unilaterally impose an appointment criteria without incorporating it into the statutory framework of the respective universities. The court held that the circular has no statutory backing and lacks legal force because the governing legislative instruments—such as the University of Engineering & Technology Act, 1974 and the University of the Punjab Act, 1973—mandate that any criteria must be formally adopted through proper delegated legislation (Statutes, Regulations, or Rules). The ratio is that executive circulars cannot override express statutory provisions regarding the appointment of Deans, which must strictly follow the governing statutes. The key principle laid down is that while discretionary powers can be structured, no administrative policy can acquire the force of law without proper statutory adoption.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Governor of Punjab as Chancellor unilaterally prescribe a binding criteria for the appointment of Deans without amending the relevant university statutes or regulations?
  • Whether the appointment of a Dean made in accordance with the seniority provisions of the First Statutes of the University of Engineering & Technology Act, 1974 is lawful?
  • Does an administrative circular lacking statutory force create enforceable legal rights for the appointment of university officers?
  • What is the legal status of executive policy directives issued to Public Sector Universities in the absence of incorporation into statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Syed Ghulam Samdani & another vs Chief Administrator Auqaf & 032024 LHC 5831 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pervez Akhtar vs Ali Salman and another2024 CLC 1558 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-14Read full judgment →
• Parvez Elahi vs Additional Sessions Judge and 3 others2023 LHC 4588, 2024 PCRLJ 55, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 66 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-18
  physical remandrevisional jurisdictionjudicial orderSpecial JudgeCode of Criminal Procedureremand refusalsupervisory jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order by an Additional Sessions Judge that had set aside a Magistrate’s refusal to grant physical remand. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate’s order was not a judicial order subject to revision and that, alternatively, only a 'Special Judge' appointed under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 possessed revisional jurisdiction. The Court held that an order refusing physical remand constitutes a judicial function, rendering it amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions under Sections 435 and 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the jurisdiction of a 'Special Judge' under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 pertains to proceedings initiated after the submission of a charge-sheet or complaint, and does not exclude the supervisory powers of the Court of Sessions over remand proceedings conducted by ordinary Magistrates. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Court of Sessions correctly exercised its revisional powers to correct the Magistrate's order.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed by a Magistrate refusing physical remand a judicial order subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions?
  • Does the Court of Sessions have jurisdiction to revise an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the jurisdiction of a 'Special Judge' under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 exclude the revisional powers of the Court of Sessions regarding pre-trial remand proceedings?
  • What is the scope of the term 'proceedings' under Section 6 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 regarding the jurisdiction of a Special Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railway, etc vs Abdul Rasheed, etc2024 LHC 5745, 2025 PLC 106 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-12
  regularization of serviceworkmandaily wagersPakistan RailwaysLabour Court jurisdictioncivil servantinterim injunctionStanding Orders Ordinanceconcurrent findings of factconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Pakistan Railways challenging the concurrent judgments of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had accepted the grievance petition of respondents No. 1 and 2, directing their regularization in service. The petitioners primarily argued that the respondents were governed by service tribunal jurisdiction, worked on Ministry of Defence Lines, and were dis-entitled to regularization because their services had already been dispensed with prior to the final decision. Dismissing the petition, the Lahore High Court held that daily wage and work-charge employees of Pakistan Railways do not fall within the definition of 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and instead qualify as workmen in an industrial establishment, conferring valid jurisdiction upon the Labour Court. The Court further ruled that terminating the employees' services during the subsistence of interim injunctive orders and while working against permanent posts without following the procedure under Standing Order 12 was unlawful and could not obstruct their regularization. Concurrent findings of fact were maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether daily wage or work-charge employees of Pakistan Railways qualify as civil servants so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
  • Can an employer rely on the termination of an employee executed during the subsistence of an interim injunctive order to deny them the benefit of regularization?
  • Whether daily wage employees serving against permanent posts for an extended duration can have their services dispensed with without complying with Standing Order 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by labour fora be interfered with by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in the absence of perversity or arbitrariness?
  Read full judgment →
• Pak Gulf Construction (Private) Limited vs Govt. of Punjab etc2024 LHC 3253, 2025 PTD 255 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-13Read full judgment →
• Packages Limited vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal & another2024 LHC 4875, 2025 PLC 1, 2025 PLJ Lahore 289 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-30
  workmanmisconductdismissal from serviceindustrial relationsproportionality of penaltygrievance petitionlabour appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a service dispute wherein the petitioner-company challenged the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal of respondent No.2 and accepted his grievance petition. The core legal questions involved were whether an employee performing manual duties holding the designation of Operator qualifies as a 'workman' under relevant labour laws, and whether raising legitimate operational grievances during a management meeting constitutes 'misconduct' under the law. The Lahore High Court held that respondent No.2 was indeed a workman, both by virtue of his actual duties and the employer's own admissions during the proceedings, and that voicing operational difficulties does not amount to wilful insubordination or misconduct. The court affirmed that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate and unjustified given his unblemished service record of twenty-three years and the discriminatory nature of the disciplinary action. The key principles laid down include that the nature of duties performed determines a worker's status regardless of designation, that disciplinary penalties must strictly commensurate with the gravity of established allegations, and that an employer cannot approbate and reprobate regarding a worker's statutory status.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee designated as an operator who performs manual duties qualify as a workman under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Whether raising operational problems or grievances during a meeting called by management constitutes misconduct under Standing Order 15 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can an employer approbate and reprobate by treating an employee as a workman during disciplinary proceedings while denying such status in subsequent judicial forums?
  • Is the quantum of penalty imposed by a competent authority open to judicial review if it is disproportionate to the gravity of the established allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Nooruddin Feerasta & others vs Lahore Development Authority (LDA) &2024 LHC 812, 2024 PLJ Lahore 284, 2025 CLC 121, 2025 CLD 184 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-29Read full judgment →
• Noora (deceased) through L.Rs vs Province of Punjab, etc2024 LHC 5203, 2025 PLJ Lahore 177, 2025 YLR 566 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan vs The State, etc2024 LHC 3500, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1202, 2025 YLR 62 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-27
  Illegal Dispossession Actpreliminary inquirypolice investigationnon-cognizable offenceproperty grabbingcriminal revisionlocal inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the dismissal of a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. The core legal question concerned the procedural requirements for courts when handling complaints of illegal dispossession. The High Court held that the lower court erred by dismissing the complaint based solely on a revenue report without conducting a proper inquiry or investigation as mandated by the Act. The court clarified that under Section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, courts are empowered to direct police investigations or local inquiries by revenue officers or magistrates to ascertain the truth of allegations. The ratio established is that trial courts must not rely merely on cursory statements or uncertified documents but must actively utilize the statutory mechanisms for inquiry and investigation to determine the validity of a complaint. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint was remanded for proceedings in accordance with the law, emphasizing that inquiry and investigation are not mutually exclusive and may be employed sequentially to ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Are inquiry and investigation mutually exclusive proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a court direct a police investigation for a non-cognizable offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Is a trial court required to conduct an inquiry or investigation before dismissing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does the report of a revenue officer or magistrate in a local inquiry constitute evidence in proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs Inspector General of Police, etc2024 LHC 4861, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 450, 2025 PLJ Lahore 316 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-05
  regularization of contract employeesdirect recruitmentHead Constablepolice service rulesconstitutional petitionscrutiny committee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an ex-Army man, challenged the rejection of his request for reinstatement and regularization of his service as a Head Constable in the Punjab Constabulary, which followed the termination of his contract and subsequent litigation. The core legal question was whether a contract employee directly appointed as a Head Constable is eligible for regularization under the government policy and relevant police laws, particularly when direct recruitment to that rank is not sanctioned. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under the Police Order, 2002 and the Police Rules, 1934, direct recruitment is not permissible for the post of Head Constable, which is filled solely by promotion. The Court established that executive appointments made contrary to statutory recruitment rules confer no vested right to regularization, and a Scrutiny Committee is fully competent to verify whether initial contract appointments complied with service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether direct recruitment is permissible against the post of Head Constable under the Police Order, 2002 and the Police Rules, 1934?
  • Can a contract employee directly appointed against a post not meant for direct recruitment claim regularization under the Government's contract regularization policy?
  • Whether the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 can be invoked to regularize an appointment made in violation of applicable service rules?
  • Does a Scrutiny Committee have the authority to verify whether initial contract appointments were made in accordance with prescribed service rules regarding age limit, qualification, and experience?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain vs StatePLJ 2024 Cr.C. 306 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-11
  criminal appealmurderchance witnessesunnatural conductnocturnal identificationrecovery of weaponbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, awarded by the trial court for committing murder. The primary legal questions before the High Court were whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of chance eye-witnesses, uncorroborated nocturnal identification, delayed recovery of the crime weapon, and an unsubstantiated motive. The High Court accepted the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses who failed to provide plausible reasons for their presence at a deserted crime spot at night. Furthermore, their unnatural conduct in failing to intervene or apprehend a single assailant armed only with a knife rendered their testimony unreliable. The Court additionally found the identification in darkness doubtful, the recovery of the blood-stained knife suspect due to unexplained delay, and the alleged motive unproven.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a chance witness can be relied upon without independent proof establishing a valid reason for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the failure of multiple adult witnesses to intervene or apprehend a single assailant armed with a non-firearm weapon render their conduct unnatural and their presence doubtful?
  • Can identification of an accused in nocturnal darkness based on motorcycle lights be accepted when the motorcycle is neither described in the FIR nor seized by the police?
  • Whether recovery of a blood-stained weapon from the house of an accused several days after the incident is reliable where ample opportunity existed to clean it?
  Read full judgment →
• Niagara Mills (Pvt) Limited and others vs Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation (PCBL) and others2024 LHC 3953, 2025 PLD Lahore 79, 2025 PLJ Lahore 371 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-20Read full judgment →
• Netherlands Financierings Maatschappij Voor Ontwikkelinglanden N. V.2024 PLD Lahore 315, 2024 CLD 685 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-20
  company winding upcorporate mediationalternative dispute resolutionEarly Neutral Evaluationforeign investment protectionsettlement agreementCompanies Act 2017
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a winding-up petition filed in 1989 by a Dutch bilateral financial institution against a domestic company following the non-payment of a foreign currency loan executed in 1982. A winding-up order was passed in 2003, but execution stalled for decades without repayment. The core legal issue before the Lahore High Court was whether the court could initiate and facilitate Early Neutral Evaluation and mediation under company laws to resolve long-standing corporate debt disputes instead of proceeding with liquidating the company. The High Court disposed of the petition in terms of a mutually executed settlement agreement after the parties successfully resolved their debt claims through court-directed mediation supervised by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. The court held that winding up is a remedy of last resort and established that Company Judges possess the authority under Sections 6, 276, and 277 of the Companies Act, 2017 to initiate mediation and alternate dispute resolution, thereby protecting corporate viability, safeguarding investor confidence, and ensuring expeditious resolution of commercial disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court may initiate mediation amongst parties to a lis for the resolution of a corporate dispute?
  • Is winding up a company considered a remedy of last resort when corporate debt disputes can be resolved through alternate dispute resolution?
  • Can the Company Judge invoke Sections 276 and 277 of the Companies Act, 2017 to initiate Early Neutral Evaluation and mediation?
  Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan Limited etc vs The Province of Punjab etcPTCL 2024 CL. 67 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-09Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed Langah vs Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar2024 LHC 1798, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1566 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-24
  proforma promotionpensionary benefitspending disciplinary proceedingscivil servantvested rightback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed by the appellant assailing an order whereby his request for the grant of proforma promotion as District and Sessions Judge to the extent of pensionary benefits was declined. The core legal question was whether a civil servant whose disciplinary proceedings and adverse remarks were subsequently resolved or set aside is entitled to proforma promotion and consequential pensionary benefits after retirement. The court held that all hurdles and impediments that previously justified deferring the appellant's promotion had vanished, and a civil servant has a vested, inalienable right to be considered for promotion when fulfilling the criteria. The court further held that promotion cannot be deferred solely due to pending disciplinary proceedings that ultimately end in the employee's favor. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant is entitled to proforma promotion after the removal of impediments such as pending disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can promotion be deferred solely on the ground of pending departmental proceedings if the employee ultimately fulfills the eligibility criteria?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to be considered for promotion along with his batchmates as an inalienable right?
  Read full judgment →
• Nayyar Abbas vs The State etc2024 LHC 3449, 2025 YLR 75, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 207 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-13
  recovery memocontrol of narcotic substancesbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealsearch and seizurefair trialpolice rulesnarcotics possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 2250 grams of charas. The core legal question revolved around the authenticity and evidentiary value of the recovery memo when vital particulars such as the FIR number, date, and police station name were missing from it, and whether its preparation post-dated the registration of the FIR. The Lahore High Court held that serious doubts were cast on the recovery proceedings because the testimonies and record confirmed the recovery memo lacked essential details and was prepared after the FIR was registered, thereby depriving it of legal sanctity. Consequently, the Court laid down that a foundational recovery memo lacking contemporaneous preparation and essential particulars creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, entitling the accused to an acquittal on the basis of the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of the FIR number, date, and police station name on a recovery memo destroy its authenticity?
  • Is a recovery memo prepared after the registration of the FIR considered a tainted document lacking legal sanctity?
  • Does a single reasonable doubt arising from flaws in the prosecution's recovery proceedings entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Tariq and another vs The State etc2024 LHC 3326, 2025 PCRLJ 627 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-25
  post-arrest baildead meatPunjab Food Authority ActPunjab Animals Slaughter Control Actoffence against societyprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving the transportation of unverified and unfit meat under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011. The core legal question is whether bail should be granted to accused persons charged with transporting a large quantity of dead meat, which constitutes an offence against society, even though the offences do not strictly fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the offences are grave and pose a serious threat to public health, and that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause do not entitle the accused to bail as a matter of right when the acts are detrimental to society. The court laid down the principle that the gravity of the offence and its impact on public health constitute exceptional grounds to decline bail, notwithstanding that the punishment does not fall within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be refused in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause when the act is considered against the society?
  • Can the court presume the commission of an offence under the Punjab Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963 regarding meat found without a slaughter-house stamp?
  • Does the absence of sale and purchase records during the transportation of meat establish prima facie criminal liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Mushtaq Abbasi vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 4155, 2024 CLC 171 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-19Read full judgment →
• National Rural Support Program (NRSP), etc vs National Industrial Relation2024 LHC 4543, 2024 PLJ Lahore 876, 2025 PLC 54 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-24
  Industrial RelationsTrans-provincial establishmentNIRC jurisdictionWorkman definitionNon-profit organizationIndustrial disputeStanding Orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged concurrent decisions by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) regarding the status of a non-profit organization (NPO) registered under the Companies Ordinance 1984. The core legal question was whether such an entity constitutes an "establishment" under the Industrial Relations Act 2012 and whether a dismissed employee of said entity qualifies as a "workman" entitled to seek redress under the Act. The Court held that the petitioner, being a trans-provincial entity employing workmen, falls within the definition of an "establishment" under Section 2(x) of the Industrial Relations Act 2012. Consequently, the Court affirmed the NIRC's jurisdiction, ruling that the respondent, as a dismissed workman, was entitled to pursue his grievance under the Act. The key principle laid down is that the Industrial Relations Act 2012 possesses an overriding effect by virtue of Section 87, and an organization’s status as an NPO does not exempt it from being classified as an "establishment" if it employs workmen for the purpose of carrying on business.

  Questions settled

  • Does a non-profit organization registered under Section 42 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 qualify as an 'establishment' under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act 2012 have an overriding effect regarding the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission over labor disputes?
  • Does an office attendant or telephone operator qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act 2012 and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority, Islamabad through its Project Director Zafar2024 LHC 2886, 2024 CLC 1246 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-03Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority, etc vs Mehmood ul Hassan, etc2024 LHC 4456 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-21Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority through its Chairman vs Mubashar Hussain2024 LHC 4940 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Highway Authority through Director vs Bashiran Bibi and others2024 MLD 1590 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• National Database and Registration Authority vs Khan Agha and six others2024 LHC 3142 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-13Read full judgment →
• National Command Authority Foundation (Ncaf) Through its authorized2024 LHC 2365, 2024 CLD 938 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs M/s Salman Noman Enterprises Ltd. etc2024 LHC 3125 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-13Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan and 04 others vs Mumtaz Ahmad2024 LHC 2943 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-04Read full judgment →
• National Accountability Bureau vs Ch. Parvez Elahi etc2024 LHC 5682 · Lahore High Court · 2024-08-21Read full judgment →
• Nasir Sharif vs Sabeela Imtiaz And Another2024 LHC 5250, 2025 CLC 5 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs Mst. Raheela Mahdi2024 LHC 5787, 2025 CLC 885 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-27Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad vs Amanullah Khan Durani Saduzai etc2024 LHC 4786 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-21Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad Qadri vs Meer Muhammad Nawaz, Returning Officer and another2024 LHC 21, 2024 YLR 958 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-06Read full judgment →
• Naseem Bibi, etc vs Imran Qayyum, etc2024 LHC 4981, 2025 CLC 813 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
• Nafees Ahmad vs Zia-ud-Din2024 LHC 1554, 2024 CLD 776, 2024 MLD 1580 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-17Read full judgment →
• M/s. Wazir Cotton Ginners & Oil Mills, etc vs Bank of Punjab2024 LHC 4477 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited vs M/s. Bhatti Fabrics etc.2024 LHC 3160 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Mehr Dastgir Leather and Footwear Industries (Pvt) Limited vs2024 LHC 4061, 2025 PTD 16 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• M/s Z a Corporation vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 LHC 4073, 2025 PLD Lahore 200, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 476 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-01
  territorial jurisdictionquo warrantowrit petitionpublic officeNational Tariff Commissionmaintainabilitydominant object
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the appointment of respondent No.3 as a Member and Chairman of the National Tariff Commission (NTC) in Islamabad, along with an order passed under section 63 of the Anti Dumping Duties Act, 2015. The core legal question concerns the territorial jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court to entertain a writ of quo warranto against a federal officeholder stationed and performing duties outside its territorial jurisdiction. The court held that under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, a petition for quo warranto is only maintainable if the person holding or purporting to hold the public office does so within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Consequently, finding that respondent No.3 holds office in Islamabad and the dominant object of the petition relates to an authority outside its jurisdiction, the Lahore High Court returned the petition for presentation before the Islamabad High Court. The key principle laid down is that for a writ of quo warranto, the respondent must hold the public office within the territorial jurisdiction of the specific High Court whose jurisdiction is invoked.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Lahore High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ of quo warranto against a federal officeholder stationed and performing functions in Islamabad?
  • Does Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 require the person holding a public office to be within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court where a petition for quo warranto is filed?
  • What is the test for determining territorial jurisdiction when a constitutional petition involves multiple challenges including notifications issued at the federal capital?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Team Packages and others vs MCB Bank Limited2024 LHC 2677, 2024 CLD 839 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Staco Shahid Builders Joint Venture (JV). vs Lahore Cantonment2024 LHC 3838, 2024 PLJ Lahore 880, 2025 CLC 95, 2025 CLD 138 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Saeed Buksh (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Mst. Azra Bibi2024 LHC 889, 2024 PLJ Lahore 333 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
• M/s Sadiq Poultry (Private) Limited vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2024 LHC 4698, 2025 CLD 90 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-09Read full judgment →
• M/s Rafi Cotton Industries (Pvt). Ltd. etc vs Bank Al-Habib, etc2024 LHC 4800, 2025 CLD 517 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-22Read full judgment →
• M/s Rafhan Maize Products Co. Ltd vs The Appellate Tribunal Inland2024 LHC 4532, 2024 PLJ Lahore 846 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-15Read full judgment →
• M/s Radiant Medical (Private) Limited vs The Federal Board of Revenue2024 LHC 2795, 2024 LHC 2714, 2024 PTD 1017 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Phipsons Company (Pvt.) Limited vs Zahid Moyeen etc2024 LHC 3422, 2024 PLJ Lahore 652 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-11Read full judgment →
• M/s Medequips vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue and 3 others2024 LHC 4277, 2024 PTD 1566 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• M/s Mag Apartments Private Limited vs Lahore Development Authority &2024 LHC 5302, 2025 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
• M/s Madni Paper Mart, through its Proprietor Irshad Ahmad and another vs2024 LHC 3340, 2024 PLJ Lahore 661 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-05Read full judgment →
• M/s Khan Petroleum Services vs Government of the Punjab, etc2024 LHC 6021 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-05Read full judgment →
• M/s K&N's Foods (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 LHC 4192, 2024 PTD 1520 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
• M/s Honda Atlas Cars (Pakistan) Limited vs Additional Collector, Legal, Ltu,2023 LHC 4512, 2024 PTD 61, 2023 PTCL 761 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Future Vision Advertising (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2024 LHC 2869, 2024 CLD 890 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Five Star Steel Industry (Pvt.) Ltd., etc vs Federation of Pakistan, through2024 LHC 4642 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-28Read full judgment →
• M/s Fatima Sugar Mills Ltd vs Appellate Tribunal and 3 others2024 LHC 4394, 2025 PTD 148 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-08Read full judgment →
• M/s Bilawal Gull Builders vs Government of Punjab, etc2024 LHC 1028, 2025 PLD Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-05Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Harmain & Co. & others vs MCB Bank Limited2024 LHC 1518, 2025 CLD 543 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-16Read full judgment →
• M/s Ag Signs (Pvt.) Ltd vs Gashoo Advertiser2024 LHC 2894, 2024 CLC 1486 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-08Read full judgment →
• M/s a & a Pipe Industries, etc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 LHC 2046, 2024 PTD 1051, 2024 PLJ Lahore 485 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• M/s 7sky Digital Marketing Pvt. Limited vs M/s Asr Builders and another2024 LHC 4069, 2025 CLD 537 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muzammal Rafiq vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 LHC 3875, 2024 PLD Lahore 680 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and others vs The Province of Punjab2024 CLC 597 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad etc vs Allah Ditta etc2024 LHC 5612 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-19Read full judgment →
• Musarrat Bivi vs Additional District Judge, Bhowana and another2024 YLR 652 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-20Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussain Shah, The State vs The State etc, Munir Hussain Shah2024 LHC 5665, 2025 YLR 1001 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-02
  murdercapital punishmentmitigating circumstancesocular accountmedical evidencerigor mortisunproved motiveprompt FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 302(b) and 458 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence and a murder reference. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, the promptness of the First Information Report, the evidentiary value of medical evidence regarding rigor mortis, the effect of unproved motive, and the quantum of sentence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent and confidence-inspiring eye-witness accounts supported by prompt registration of the FIR and medical evidence, notwithstanding that the alleged motive remained unproved and the weapon recovery was inconsequential. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but converted the capital sentence to imprisonment for life, noting mitigating circumstances such as the unproved motive.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conviction for murder can be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony when the alleged motive remains unproved?
  • Does the absence of rigor mortis at the time of autopsy necessarily falsify the time of death stated by eye-witnesses?
  • Can an unproved motive serve as a mitigating circumstance warranting the conversion of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does the non-recovery or inconsequential recovery of the weapon of offence affect the substantive ocular evidence of a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee etc. vs Jam Brothers2024 LHC 1152, 2025 PLJ Lahore 216 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muneeb Riaz vs The State, etc2024 LHC 5566 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-30
  post-arrest bailelectronic crimesnon-prohibitory offencesdigital harassmentjudicial discretionbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muneeb Riaz, who is charged under Sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, following a divorce, edited photographs of the complainant's sister and mother into nude images and distributed them via WhatsApp with threats of further dissemination. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail despite the offences charged not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that while bail is generally granted as a rule for non-prohibitory offences, it is not a universal compulsion and remains subject to the facts and circumstances of each case. Finding that the petitioner’s actions severely compromised the dignity and privacy of the victims, the Court deemed the case exceptional and refused bail. The key principle laid down is that bail for non-prohibitory offences is discretionary and may be denied in extraordinary circumstances where the accused's conduct poses a grave threat to societal values or individual dignity.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail for offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a universal rule?
  • Can a court refuse bail for non-prohibitory offences based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case?
  • Does the distribution of edited nude photographs constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying the refusal of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain Toori vs Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad through its Secretary & others2024 LHC 1625, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 129 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-17
  equality clausediscrimination in payNIRC member perksconstitutional petitionreasonable classificationlegitimate expectancyservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, by the petitioner, a Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), seeking directions to the respondents to pay perks, privileges, pay, and allowances equivalent to those being paid to other NIRC Members, particularly retired District and Sessions Judges serving in other provinces. The core legal question revolved around whether differential treatment in the matter of perks and allowances among similarly placed members of the same tribunal violates the equality clause enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that public functionaries must act fairly and without discrimination, and that any differential treatment must be justified by a reasonable classification founded on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object sought. The Court found that the petitioner, appointed to a judicial post requiring similar qualifications, was unjustifiably discriminated against regarding his salary and allowances compared to his colleagues. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay the petitioner perks and privileges equal to those of similarly placed NIRC members, along with arrears.

  Questions settled

  • Whether differential treatment in pay and allowances among members of the same tribunal holding equivalent posts constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can public functionaries adopt an artificial grouping that causes injustice to similarly placed individuals without a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved?
  • Are contractual appointees to judicial posts entitled to the same perks and allowances as their regular or retired judicial counterparts performing identical functions?
  Read full judgment →
• Mujtaba Saleem Butt vs Incharge Investigation, etc.2024 LHC 771, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 532, 2024 PCRLJ 1568 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-20
  habeas corpuspre-arrest bailbail cancellationillegal arrestcriminal procedurefundamental rightsjudicial oversightpolice powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This habeas corpus petition, filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, challenged the arrest of a detenu who had previously been granted pre-arrest bail. The core legal question was whether an accused person, having secured bail, can be arrested in the same case upon the addition of new offences without the prosecution first obtaining a judicial order for bail cancellation. The Court held that the arrest was illegal, ruling that law enforcement agencies cannot circumvent judicial orders by adding new charges. It established that Rule 26.21(6) of The Punjab Police Rules, 1934, applies to both pre-arrest and post-arrest bail. Consequently, the prosecution must file an application under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to seek cancellation of bail before arresting an accused on newly added charges. This principle ensures judicial oversight, prevents arbitrary detention, and upholds the fundamental rights to life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by requiring the prosecution to justify the revocation of bail before a competent court.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be arrested in the same case for newly added offences after being granted bail without the prosecution seeking cancellation of that bail?
  • Does Rule 26.21(6) of The Punjab Police Rules, 1934, apply to cases involving pre-arrest bail?
  • Is it legally permissible for the police to arrest an accused on new charges without first obtaining an order from the court that granted the original bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali vs Rashid Mehmood Sidhu2024 LHC 1525, 2024 CLC 1468 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 LHC 4560, 2025 PTD 274 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zareen vs Learned Addl: Sessions Judge, etc2024 LHC 4274, 2025 YLR 616 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-11
  exhumationdisintermentpost-mortem examinationunnatural deathsection 561-A CrPCsanctity of gravelegal heir suspicion
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the petitioner to challenge the orders of the lower courts allowing an exhumation application regarding the petitioner's deceased wife. The core legal question was whether a close legal heir's suspicion of an unnatural death justifies exhuming a dead body for a post-mortem examination against claims of violating the sanctity of the grave. The Lahore High Court dismissed the application in limine and upheld the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that exhumation and post-mortem examinations are necessary tools to unearth the cause of death where a legal heir raises serious suspicion. The Court observed that while the sanctity of a grave is respected, protecting human life and investigating potential transgressions against it are paramount to advancing the cause of justice, rendering exhumation justified under such circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the suspicion of a legal heir regarding an unnatural death justifies the exhumation of a dead body for post-mortem examination?
  • Does exhuming a dead body to ascertain the cause of death unlawfully violate the dignity and sanctity of a grave when necessary to advance justice?
  Read full judgment →