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. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• Muhammad Akram vs DCO, Rahim Yar Khan & others2016 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-10-17
  service lawdepartmental appeallimitation periodwrit jurisdictionconversion of proceedingsdismissal from serviceex debito justitiae
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Junior Clerk, challenged his dismissal from service for misconduct. After failing to file a departmental appeal under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, he filed a writ petition in the High Court within the limitation period. The High Court ordered this petition to be treated as a departmental appeal and remitted it to the District Coordination Officer (DCO). The DCO decided the matter on merits but simultaneously observed that no formal departmental appeal had been filed, a finding that led the Punjab Service Tribunal to dismiss the petitioner's subsequent service appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order converting the writ petition into a departmental appeal was valid and that the time spent pursuing the writ petition should have been reckoned as the date of the departmental appeal. The Court established that courts possess the authority to convert proceedings to ensure justice and that a petition filed within the limitation period for an appeal should be treated as such for all practical purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court convert a writ petition into a departmental appeal?
  • Should a writ petition filed within the limitation period for a departmental appeal be treated as such for all practical purposes?
  • Does a Service Tribunal err by dismissing an appeal on limitation grounds when the underlying writ petition was filed within the statutory period for an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Chatta vs Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema and others2016 P.S.C. 536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-25
  election petitionnomination papersnon-disclosure of assetsreturned candidatecorrupt practiceselection tribunalfemale inheritance rightsdisclosure of spouse's assets
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an election petition challenging the victory of the respondent in the 2013 general elections. The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to disclose his spouse's properties and several of his own bank accounts in his nomination papers, thereby violating mandatory disclosure requirements. The Election Tribunal had dismissed the petition, citing a lack of mens rea and financial loss. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent deliberately concealed material assets. The Court established that candidates are strictly obligated to provide accurate declarations of assets for themselves and their spouses under the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Court clarified that the absence of mens rea or lack of direct financial loss to the state does not validate the submission of incorrect or incomplete nomination papers. Additionally, the Court rejected reliance on customs regarding the surrender of female inheritance rights, affirming that such practices are contrary to Islamic injunctions and the Constitution of Pakistan. Consequently, the election of the returned candidate was declared void.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to disclose assets in nomination papers constitute a ground for declaring an election void under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Is the absence of mens rea a valid defense for a candidate's failure to disclose assets in their nomination papers?
  • Are candidates legally required to disclose the assets of their spouses in their nomination papers?
  • Can customs regarding the surrender of female inheritance rights be recognized by courts in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmeen Bibi vs Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan and others2016 SCP 51, 2016 PLD Supreme Court 613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-28
  Family Court jurisdictiondowermaintenanceterritorial jurisdictiondowry articlesWest Pakistan Family Courts Actmatrimonial disputesremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a matrimonial dispute where the petitioner sought recovery of maintenance, dower (including 200 Kanals of land), and dowry articles. The District Appeal Court and the High Court had partially set aside the Trial Court's decree, holding that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction over the landed property situated in a different district. The core legal question was whether the Family Court, where the wife resides, has exclusive jurisdiction over all matrimonial disputes listed in the Schedule, regardless of the location of the property or traditional territorial limitations under the CPC. The Supreme Court held that the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, is a special law intended for the expeditious disposal of family affairs. By virtue of Section 17, the application of the Civil Procedure Code (except Sections 10 and 11) is expressly excluded. The Court ruled that the Family Court where the wife resides possesses exclusive jurisdiction over all matrimonial matters, including personal property and dower, to prevent the mischief of multi-jurisdictional litigation. The case was remanded to the High Court for a decision on merits.

  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmeen Bibi vs Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan & others2016 SCP 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-28
  Family Court jurisdictionmatrimonial disputesdower recoveryterritorial jurisdictionNikah Namadowry articlesmaintenance allowanceexpeditious disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the scope of the Family Court's jurisdiction over matrimonial disputes, specifically regarding dower, maintenance, and dowry articles. The petitioner challenged the High Court's decision, which limited the Family Court's authority to adjudicate certain claims. The Supreme Court examined the legislative intent behind the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, noting that it was enacted to provide an expeditious, specialized forum for family matters, thereby excluding the cumbersome procedures of civil courts. The Court held that the Family Court possesses exclusive jurisdiction over all matrimonial disputes, including the transfer of property stipulated in a Nikah Nama. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Family Court where the wife resides maintains territorial jurisdiction, and that the procedural constraints of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are largely inapplicable to Family Court proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments that restricted the Family Court's jurisdiction, emphasizing that the legislative scheme aims to protect the rights of wives and prevent unnecessary litigation delays. The appeals were allowed, and the matters were remanded for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Family Court have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate all matrimonial disputes, including the recovery of dower and dowry articles?
  • Does the Family Court where the wife resides have exclusive territorial jurisdiction over matrimonial disputes?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Can a Family Court decree the transfer of landed property stipulated in a Nikah Nama as part of the dower?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tanveer Bibi vs SHO Police Station Mandi Bahauddin and others2016 SCMR 1287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-05-26
  habeas corpusminor custodyguardianshipwelfare of minorstender agecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner mother seeking the recovery and custody of her two minor children, aged six and four years, which was dismissed by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned the rightful interim custody and welfare of the minor children whose father was residing abroad and whose mother alleged maltreatment and forceful separation from them by the paternal grandfather and uncle. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the mother is legally entitled to the custody of her minor children of tender age in the absence of their father, particularly when the children appeared happy and contented with her and it serves their welfare and best interest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mother is legally entitled to the custody of minor children of tender age in the absence of their father?
  • Can a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be utilized for the recovery and custody of minor children?
  • What considerations govern the delivery of custody of minors in habeas corpus petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saadia vs Mst. Gul Bibi2016 P.S.C. 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-15
  gift deedhibaconcurrent findingsmisreading of evidencedelivery of possessiondeclaration suitunregistered document
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from concurrent findings of three lower courts which had decreed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent against the appellant regarding a residential house. The respondent claimed ownership based on two unregistered gift deeds executed in 1986 and 1995. The core legal question centered on whether the respondent successfully proved the execution, validity, and genuineness of the un-registered gift deeds and fulfilled the mandatory prerequisites of a valid gift under the law. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the concurrent findings, holding that the lower courts suffered from patent misreading and non-reading of evidence. The Court laid down that the execution of a gift must be independently proven by fulfilling the essential conditions of offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession, and that unverified, unregistered, and withheld documents coupled with the failure to examine proper attesting witnesses cannot establish valid title.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts can be set aside by the Supreme Court on grounds of misreading and non-reading of evidence?
  • Can an unregistered gift deed establish valid title without independent proof of offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession?
  • Does the failure to produce original documents along with the plaint pursuant to procedural rules vitiate the claim of the plaintiff?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Bibi vs Nazir Akhtar2016 P.S.C. 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-03-02
  pre-emptionTalb-i-Ishhadattesting witnessesburden of proofright of pre-emptioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for possession through pre-emption, where the respondent claimed a superior right of pre-emption over the appellant regarding a property sale. The core legal question was whether the respondent had satisfied the mandatory requirement of proving 'Talb-i-Ishhad' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, specifically regarding the production of two truthful attesting witnesses. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit, but the Appellate Court and the High Court subsequently decreed it in favor of the respondent. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to produce the required two truthful attesting witnesses to prove the 'Talb-i-Ishhad' as mandated by Section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. One witness did not support the case, and the other was not produced without explanation. The Court reaffirmed that non-production of the requisite witnesses is fatal to a pre-emption claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower appellate judgments, and restored the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is the production of two truthful attesting witnesses mandatory to prove Talb-i-Ishhad under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to produce the required attesting witnesses for Talb-i-Ishhad in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Bibi and another vs Ghulam Qamar and another2016 P.S.C. 1010, 2016 SCP 42, 2016 SCMR 1195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-17
  Shia law of inheritancechildless widowimmovable propertyinheritance mutationcivil revisionagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had set aside concurrent findings of the two courts below and decreed the respondents' suit for a declaration and change of mutation regarding agricultural land. The core legal question was whether a widow who is a mother with surviving children from her deceased husband is disqualified from inheriting immovable property under the Shia law of inheritance, specifically being equated with a 'childless widow'. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the concurrent findings of the courts below. The ratio laid down is that under Shia personal law, a widow who has surviving children from the deceased husband is not a 'childless widow' and is therefore fully entitled to her legal share in both the movable and immovable property (including agricultural land) of the deceased. The key principle established is that the legal disability excluding a widow from inheriting immovable property under Shia jurisprudence strictly applies only to a childless widow.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a widow having surviving children from her deceased husband is entitled to a share in immovable property under the Shia law of inheritance?
  • Does the disqualification of a widow from inheriting land under Shia jurisprudence apply to a widow who is not childless?
  • What constitutes a 'childless widow' for the purpose of succession under the Shia Fiqah?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Zahra Government of the Punjab Throughsecretary2016 NLR Revenue 66 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitioncompensationstatutory interestcollector's dutymandatory paymentcompulsory acquisitionaward
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the acquisition of land for the Multan Bye-Pass project, which involved protracted litigation regarding compensation and interest payments. The central legal question was whether the landowner, Mst. Nasreen Zahra, was entitled to statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, given that the compensation awarded by the Collector was neither tendered to her nor deposited in the Referee Court. The Supreme Court held that the Collector’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894—which requires the Collector to tender compensation or deposit it in court upon making an award—triggered the penal consequences of Section 34. The Court rejected the argument that the release of funds to the executing agency absolved the government of this liability. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the landowner is entitled to interest at the statutory rate from the time possession was taken until the compensation is paid or deposited. The principle laid down is that the payment of interest under Section 34 is mandatory when the Collector fails to tender or deposit compensation as prescribed by law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a Land Acquisition Collector to tender or deposit compensation as required by Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 entitle the landowner to interest under Section 34?
  • Is the release of funds by the government to an executing agency sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of tendering compensation to the landowner?
  • Can the government be held liable for compensation and interest in land acquisition proceedings where it was the primary beneficiary of the acquisition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naila Kausar and anothers vs Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh and otherss2016 SCMR 1781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-05-04
  power of attorneygift mutationfiduciary dutydeclaration suitprincipal and agentkith and kinrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute over a gift mutation executed by an attorney in favor of his own daughter, using a power of attorney granted by the original owner, Mst. Fatima Jan. The legal heirs of the deceased owner challenged the gift through a suit for declaration and possession. The core legal question was whether an attorney can transfer the principal's property to himself or his kith and kin via gift without specific authorization. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that an attorney is prohibited from utilizing delegated powers to transfer property to themselves or their close relatives unless special and specific consent is granted by the principal. The Court held that the intention to gift must be explicitly proved and cannot be inferred from a general power of attorney. Finding no evidence of specific written permission or a relationship justifying such a gift to a stranger, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the attorney failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving the principal's consent.

  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulshan Bibi, etc. vs Muhammad Sadiq, etc_2016 P.S.C. 924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Illegal Dispossession Actland grabbingstatutory interpretationQabza Mafiacriminal liabilitypreamble of statutelegislative intent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the scope and applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the Act is restricted to prosecuting only those individuals who possess the established credentials of a 'land grabber' or 'Qabza Mafia,' or if it applies to any person who commits the offence of illegal dispossession. The Court held that the Act is not restricted to a specific class of offenders. It determined that the legislature used broad terms like 'no one' and 'whoever' in Section 3, indicating an intent to cover any person who illegally dispossesses another, regardless of their past history or status as a professional land grabber. The Court clarified that the preamble cannot be used to restrict the clear and unambiguous substantive provisions of the statute. The key principle laid down is that in proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the court need only determine whether the alleged offence occurred and whether the accused committed it without lawful authority; no prior history of land grabbing is required for prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply only to professional land grabbers or Qabza Mafia?
  • Can the preamble of an enactment be used to restrict the scope of its clear and unambiguous substantive provisions?
  • Is it a prerequisite for prosecution under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 that the accused must have a prior record of land grabbing?
  • What is the scope of the term 'whoever' as used in Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulshan Bibi etc (In CP 41_2008) (2) Federation of Pakistan thr_9fb198742016 SCP 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  illegal dispossessionland grabbersQabza Mafiascope of statutepreamble interpretationspecial lawcriminal prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan resolves a conflict regarding the scope and applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether prosecution under Section 3 of the Act is restricted exclusively to individuals possessing the credentials and antecedents of professional land grabbers or Qabza Mafia, or if it extends to anyone who commits the prohibited act of illegal dispossession. The Court held that the Act applies to any person ("no one" or "whoever") who illegally dispossesses, grabs, controls, or occupies property without lawful authority, regardless of whether the accused has a prior history or record as a professional land grabber. The ratio established is that a trial under the Act must be strictly confined to the specific property and incident forming the subject matter of the complaint, and a complainant is not required as a precondition to prove that the accused belongs to a Qabza Group or land mafia. Consequently, the Court overruled previous judgments that had restricted the statute's scope to known property grabbers and reaffirmed earlier rulings that gave the statutory language its broad, literal meaning.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the scope and applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is restricted only to those persons who hold the credentials and antecedents of a land grabber or Qabza Mafia?
  • Must a complainant establish as a precondition that the accused belongs to a land mafia before a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is maintainable?
  • Can the preamble of a statute be used to curtail or enlarge the clear and unambiguous meaning of its substantive provisions?
  • Does Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 categorize any specific class of offenders who alone can be prosecuted for the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulshan Bibi and others vs Muhammad Sadiq and otherss2016 PLJ SC 776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Illegal Dispossession Act 2005land grabbingstatutory interpretationpreamblecriminal liabilityQabza Mafiascope of enactment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the scope and applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, specifically whether prosecution under the Act is restricted to individuals with established credentials as 'land grabbers' or 'Qabza Mafia'. The Court addressed conflicting precedents, examining whether a complainant must prove the accused belongs to a professional land-grabbing group as a condition precedent for maintainability. The Court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 does not categorize offenders or restrict its application to a specific class of 'land grabbers'. By interpreting the plain language of Section 3, which uses the terms 'no one' and 'whoever', the Court determined that the Act applies to any person who illegally dispossesses, grabs, controls, or occupies property without lawful authority. The Court established the principle that the preamble cannot be used to curtail the clear, unambiguous substantive provisions of an enactment. Consequently, the Court ruled that a complainant is not required to prove the accused's past history or status as a professional land grabber; the trial must focus solely on whether the specific offence of illegal dispossession occurred.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 require an accused to be a professional 'land grabber' or member of a 'Qabza Group' to be prosecuted?
  • Can the preamble of a statute be used to restrict the scope of its clear and unambiguous substantive provisions?
  • Is it necessary for a complainant to prove the past criminal history of an accused to maintain a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What is the scope of the term 'whoever' as used in Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulshan Bibi and others vs Muhammad Sadiq and others2016 P.S.C. 924, 2016 PLD Supreme Court 769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Illegal Dispossession Actland grabbersQabza Mafiastatutory interpretationpreambleproperty rightscriminal prosecutionlarger bench
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter was brought before a larger bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to resolve a conflict in judicial interpretations regarding the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the Act applies to any person who illegally dispossesses an owner or occupier, or if it is restricted to a specific class of offenders known as 'land grabbers' or 'Qabza Mafia'. The Court examined two sets of conflicting precedents: one advocating for broad application and another requiring the complainant to prove the accused's credentials as a professional property grabber. The Court held that Section 3 of the Act uses the terms 'no one' and 'whoever', indicating the widest possible application to all offenders without distinction. It further clarified that the preamble cannot be used to curtail the clear language of substantive provisions. The Court concluded that the Act aims to provide a speedy remedy against all illegal dispossessions, regardless of the accused's past record. Consequently, the restrictive interpretation was declared bad law, and the cases were remanded for fresh decisions on merit.

  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Basharat Jehan vs Director General, Federal Government2016 NLR Service 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service appealage relaxationvested rightlocus poenitentiaetermination of servicerecruitment advertisementadministrative oversight
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges the removal of the appellant from her position as an Assistant Librarian (BPS-09) on the grounds of being over-age at the time of appointment. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having been appointed following a competitive process where the advertisement specified an age limit she met, could be terminated due to the government's subsequent claim that the advertised age limit was a typographical error. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not over-age and that the government could not benefit from its own administrative oversight or negligence. The Court affirmed that once an appointment is made after fulfilling all codal formalities, a vested right is created in favor of the employee. Invoking the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, the Court ruled that such an appointment cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn. Consequently, the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal was set aside, and the appellant was ordered reinstated with seniority from the original date of appointment, though back benefits were denied for the period she remained out of office.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department terminate an employee on the ground of being over-age when the employee met the age criteria specified in the official recruitment advertisement?
  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae prevent the withdrawal of an appointment letter once an employee has joined service after fulfilling all codal formalities?
  • Can the government rely on its own administrative oversight or errors in an advertisement to justify the removal of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• MS. Shamuna Badshah Qaisarani--Appellant vs Khuwaja Muhammad2016 NLR Civil 583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  election petitionnon-disclosure of assetsnomination papersbye-electionElection Tribunalcorrupt practicesreturned candidate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against an Election Tribunal's decision declaring the appellant's election to the Punjab Assembly void. The appellant's election was challenged via an election petition alleging corrupt practices. During proceedings, the Tribunal exercised powers under Section 76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, finding that the appellant failed to disclose significant assets belonging to herself and her spouse in her nomination papers. The appellant challenged the constitutionality of Section 76A, arguing it conflicted with Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which mandates that elections can only be questioned via election petitions. The Supreme Court held that Section 76A is not unconstitutional, as Article 225 allows Parliament to determine the manner in which elections are challenged, and the Representation of the People Act, 1976, is the valid legislative instrument for such procedures. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal possesses the authority to declare an election void upon discovering non-disclosure of assets, regardless of whether the initial allegations of corrupt practices were proven. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is Section 76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, unconstitutional for being contrary to Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does an Election Tribunal have the power to declare an election void based on the non-disclosure of assets discovered during the pendency of an election petition?
  • Can an election be challenged on grounds other than corrupt and illegal practices if the Election Tribunal invokes its powers under Section 76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Shamuna Badshah Qaisarani vs Khuwaja Muhammad Dawood and others2016 PLJ SC 719, 2016 SCP 178, 2016 SCMR 1420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-05-09
  Election PetitionRepresentation of the People Act 1976Article 225 ConstitutionSection 76ANon-disclosure of assetsNomination papersDeclaration of election void
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged an Election Tribunal order declaring the election of the appellant (returned candidate for constituency PP-240 D.G. Khan-I) void under Section 76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The respondent had filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices and subsequently moved an application under Section 76A bringing on record the non-disclosure of certain properties owned by the appellant and her spouse in her nomination papers. The appellant contended that Section 76A was ultra vires Article 225 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 76A is entirely consistent with Article 225, which empowers Parliament to determine the manner of challenging elections. The Court ruled that Section 76A confers jurisdiction upon the Election Tribunal to declare an election void if material from any source establishes that the returned candidate submitted a false or incorrect statement of assets and liabilities. The failure to disclose revenue-recorded properties justified declaring the election void.

  Questions settled

  • Is Section 76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 contrary to or ultra vires Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can an Election Tribunal declare an election void under Section 76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 based on information regarding non-disclosure of assets received from any source during an election petition?
  • Does the failure of a candidate to disclose properties standing in their name or their spouse's name in revenue records on nomination papers justify declaring the election void?
  Read full judgment →
• MS. Shamuna Badshah Qaisar.Ani vs Khuwaja Muhamm.Ad Dawood2016 PLJ SC 719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  election petitionnon-disclosure of assetsbye-electionreturned candidateelection tribunalconstitutional validitynomination papers
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a decision by an Election Tribunal declaring the appellant's election to the Punjab Assembly void. The core legal question was whether Section 76-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, which empowers an Election Tribunal to declare an election void for non-disclosure of assets, is unconstitutional as being contrary to Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The appellant argued that Article 225 restricts election challenges solely to election petitions based on corrupt practices. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 76-A is a valid legislative provision enacted by Parliament, which defines the manner in which elections may be challenged, consistent with the mandate of Article 225. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal possesses the authority to declare an election void upon receiving information regarding the non-disclosure of assets by a candidate or their spouse, regardless of whether corrupt practices were established. The judgment reinforces that statutory mechanisms for election scrutiny provided by Parliament are constitutional and operate within the framework of the Election Tribunal's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is Section 76-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, unconstitutional for being contrary to Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does an Election Tribunal have the power to declare an election void based on the non-disclosure of assets by a candidate or their spouse?
  • Can an Election Tribunal entertain an application regarding non-disclosure of assets during the pendency of an election petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Shabnam Irshad Ahmed and others vs Muhammad Muneer Malik and others2016 PLJ SC 793, 2016 SCMR 2017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-07-29
  constitutional jurisdictionservice appointmenteligibility criteriaselection boardleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal arose from the judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Director due to a lack of the requisite 12 years of experience in the field of production as mandated by the relevant statutes and advertisement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria for the post of Deputy Director Production and whether the High Court could interfere with the selection board's decision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's experience in the field of Design could not be treated as production experience, her certification failed to establish the mandatory 12-year experience, and the High Court rightly intervened as the selection board's conclusion was based on a flawed assessment and wrong reckoning. The court affirmed that while a constitutional court cannot substitute its own view for that of a selection board, it can turn down conclusions based on erroneous evaluations. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether experience in the field of design can be treated as equivalent to experience in the field of production for the post of Deputy Director?
  • Can a constitutional court interfere with the decision of a selection board regarding candidate evaluation?
  • Whether a candidate lacking the mandatory 12 years of relevant experience prescribed by the statute is eligible for appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Shabnam Irshad Ahmad and others vs Muhammad Muneer Malik and otherss2016 PLJ SC 793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service mattereligibility criteriajudicial reviewselection boardappointmentstatutory interpretationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Director at a university. The core legal question was whether the petitioner met the mandatory statutory eligibility criteria for the post, specifically regarding the required twelve years of experience in the field of production, and whether the High Court could interfere with the Selection Board's decision. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's experience in the field of 'Design' was distinct from 'Production' and did not satisfy the statutory requirement of twelve years of experience in production. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that while a court generally should not substitute its view for that of a Selection Board, it is empowered to intervene when a selection is based on erroneous factual premises or incorrect arithmetical calculations regarding eligibility. The principle laid down is that judicial review is permissible when a selection body deviates from clear statutory criteria to favor an unqualified candidate based on subjective or obscure assessments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with the decision of a Selection Board regarding the appointment of a candidate?
  • Does experience in the field of 'Design' satisfy a statutory requirement for twelve years of experience in 'Production'?
  • Is a court empowered to set aside a selection board's decision if it is based on incorrect factual or arithmetical calculations regarding eligibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Mr. Nayyab Hassan Gardezi, Standing Counsel vs Mr. Shehryar Qazi, Addl.2016 SCP 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-09-06
  suo motupublic procurementstatus quo orderhospital administrationessential servicesjudicial intervention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a suo motu action concerning the operational status and supply chain management of four public health institutions, specifically focusing on the shortage of nitrogen gas at the Poly Clinic. The core legal question involves the obstruction of public procurement processes due to a status quo order issued by an Additional District Judge, which prevented the opening of a new tender. The Court held that the pending litigation regarding the tender must be expedited to resolve the impasse. Consequently, the Court directed the Additional District Judge (or the vacation Judge in their absence) to finally dispose of the matter on a specific date. Furthermore, the Court mandated the Secretary of the Capital Administration and Development Division (C.A.D.D.) to ensure uninterrupted nitrogen gas supply at the Poly Clinic in accordance with applicable rules. Additionally, the Court ordered the Advocates General of the Provinces to submit comprehensive reports regarding the operational status of machinery and equipment in District Headquarters (DHQ) Hospitals, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining essential public health infrastructure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court direct the expedited disposal of a pending civil matter involving public procurement to prevent the disruption of essential hospital services?
  • Does the Secretary of a government division have the authority and obligation to ensure the supply of essential medical gases despite pending litigation regarding procurement contracts?
  Read full judgment →
• Mr. Khalid Anwar, Sr. Asc Mr. M. S. Khattak, Aor vs Mr. Najam-ul-Hassan2015-SCP-136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evacuee propertysettlement schemepermanent transfer certificateprovisional transfer orderinherent powerfraudmisrepresentationlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property in Lahore. The Appellant purchased the 'Nedous Hotel' property (situated on Khasra No. 1047) through a public auction in 1961, receiving a Permanent Transfer Certificate for 96 kanals, 1 marla, and 12 square feet. The Respondent was provisionally transferred two properties, including a service station on Khasra No. 1047, under a single application form. The Settlement Department subsequently cancelled the Respondent's allotment of the disputed service station on the grounds of illegal multiple transfers and misrepresentation. The High Court's Division Bench reversed this, holding that the Settlement Department lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter after the omission of Section 20(2) and (4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 by Ordinance II of 1962. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Settlement Department possessed inherent power to recall orders obtained via fraud or misrepresentation. Furthermore, the Respondent had no locus standi to challenge the Appellant's long-settled title, and statutory limits strictly prohibited non-claimants from obtaining more than one property.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Settlement Department retain an inherent power to cancel or recall a transfer order if it was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, notwithstanding the omission of statutory revision powers?
  • Can a non-claimant displaced person legally obtain the transfer of more than one evacuee property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Does a party whose own allotment has been legally cancelled have the locus standi to challenge the validity of a third party's long-settled title to adjacent evacuee property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mr. Justice Amir Hani MuslimMr. Justice Umar Ata Bandialpartly .2015.(On2016 NLR Revenue 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Ali vs The State and others2016 SCMR 1529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-03
  post-arrest bailleave to appealmurderprohibitory clausemedical evidenceinvestigation report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail in a murder case. The core legal question revolves around whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the petitioner is connected to the offence, given his specific nomination in the FIR, attribution of firearm injuries, and corroboration by the post-mortem examination report and eye-witness accounts, despite a contrary opinion by the investigating agency. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner remains prima facie implicated by solid material on record, and since the offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code attracts the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petition must be dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the opinion of the investigating agency regarding the nature of involvement is not binding when the record prima facie discloses sufficient incriminating material linking the accused to the crime, especially where trial has already commenced.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the opinion of the investigating agency regarding the role of an accused is binding on the court during bail adjudication?
  • Does an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused when an accused is specifically nominated in the FIR with a distinct attribution supported by medical and ocular evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ijaz and another vs Muhammad Shafi (decd.) through L.Rs,2016 PLJ SC 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pre-emptionlimitationpresentation of plaintactus curiae neminem gravabitcivil procedureco-ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from two pre-emption suits filed by the respondents on May 30, 1963. Due to the temporary absence of the local Civil Judge at Narowal, the plaints were presented to the local Tehsildar, who subsequently transmitted them to the Civil Judge on June 5, 1963. The appellants contended that the suits were time-barred as they were not presented to a competent court within the limitation period. The trial court decreed the suits, but the appellate court reversed this, holding that the first suit was time-barred and that the appellants had consequently become co-owners, defeating the respondents' superior pre-emption right in the second suit. The High Court restored the trial court's decrees. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the Tehsildar was authorized to receive plaints in the Civil Judge's absence. Invoking the maxim 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit', the Court ruled that litigants cannot be penalized for court-related administrative omissions or the absence of presiding officers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the presentation of a plaint to a Tehsildar in the temporary absence of the Civil Judge constitutes valid presentation for the purposes of limitation?
  • Does the legal maxim 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit' protect a litigant from being penalized or having their suit barred by limitation due to the absence of a presiding officer?
  • How does Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply when a court is closed or the presiding officer is away on tour on the final day of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Umar Ikram-ul-Haque vs Dr. Shahida Hasnain and another2016 SCP 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-10-10
  landlord-tenant relationshiprent tribunal jurisdictionjurisdictional facteviction applicationstatutory interpretationagreement to sellinterim rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns whether a Rent Tribunal can order a respondent to deposit rent under Section 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, when the respondent denies the landlord-tenant relationship. The appellant, facing an eviction application, denied being a tenant, asserting possession via an agreement to sell. The High Court had ordered the deposit of rent, ruling that the Act's scheme required such deposits regardless of the denial. The Supreme Court set aside this judgment, holding that the Rent Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 24 until it positively determines the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Court emphasized the doctrine of jurisdictional fact, noting that the Tribunal's authority is contingent upon establishing this relationship. It clarified that the term "tenant" in Section 24 is distinct from "respondent," and the legislature’s use of these terms is deliberate. Furthermore, Section 10 of the Act, regarding agreements to sell, applies only where a tenancy already exists, not where the relationship is denied from the outset. Consequently, the Tribunal must first resolve the jurisdictional issue of tenancy before ordering rent deposits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Tribunal pass an order for the deposit of rent under Section 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, when the respondent denies the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship?
  • Does the term 'tenant' in Section 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, include a respondent who denies the tenancy?
  • Does Section 10 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, apply to cases where the occupant claims possession via an agreement to sell that predates any alleged tenancy?
  • Is the determination of the landlord-tenant relationship a jurisdictional fact that must be established before a Rent Tribunal can order the deposit of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Umar Ikram-U1-Haque vs Dr. Shahida Hasnain and another2016 SCP 86, 2016 SCMR 2186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-10-10
  landlord and tenant relationshipinterim rentjurisdictional facteviction applicationagreement to sellleave to contestPunjab Rented Premises Act 2009
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed a pivotal question of law: whether a Rent Tribunal can pass an order for the deposit of interim rent under Section 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, when the respondent denies the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The appellant claimed possession of the property based on an agreement to sell, denying the tenancy agreement cited by the respondent. The High Court had previously held that Section 24 mandates rent deposits regardless of such denial. However, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal is contingent upon the 'jurisdictional fact' of a tenancy relationship. The Court ruled that because Section 24 specifically uses the term 'tenant' rather than 'respondent,' an order for rent deposit cannot be issued against a party whose status as a tenant is yet to be determined. The Court further clarified that Section 10 of the Act, which preserves tenancy despite subsequent agreements to sell, only applies where a valid tenancy existed prior to such agreements.

  Read full judgment →
• Mian Saqib Nisar, Ejaz Afzal Khan, Mushir Alam and Manzoor Ahmad Malik Jjyounas Abbas and others vs Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others2016 PLD Supreme Court 581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Justice of Peace powersSection 22-A Cr.P.C.Vires of lawConstitutional validityQuasi-judicial functionsInterference with investigationSeparation of powersNon-registration of criminal caseTransfer of investigationJudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses appeals and petitions challenging the vires and application of Sections 22-A and 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly Section 22-A(6), which empowers Ex-officio Justices of Peace to issue directions regarding non-registration of criminal cases, transfer of investigation, and police misconduct. The core legal questions revolved around whether these provisions are ultra vires the Constitution, specifically Article 175(3), by conferring executive powers on judicial officers, and if they interfere with police investigation. The Supreme Court held that the functions performed by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. are quasi-judicial, not executive or administrative. The Court further ruled that these provisions are not ultra vires the Constitution, as they facilitate expeditious and inexpensive justice, empower the public, and do not impinge on judicial independence or separation of powers. The Court affirmed that these functions are complementary to police duties and do not amount to undue interference in investigation, provided they are exercised within established judicial parameters. A concurring note emphasized the need for Ex-officio Justices of Peace to ensure prior recourse to the police hierarchy before issuing directions for case registration or investigation transfer to prevent misuse.

  Read full judgment →
• Mian Javed Amir and others vs United Foam Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore and others2016 CLD 393, 2016 PLJ Sc 160, 2016 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-06-18
  rectification of registerwinding upsummary procedurecompany jurisdictiontransfer of sharesappointment of inspectorfraudulent transfershareholder dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals arose from a dispute between shareholders of United Foam Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. regarding the alleged fraudulent transfer of shares. The appellants sought winding up of the company and rectification of the register of shareholders under Sections 305 and 152 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The Company Judge initially referred the matter to the SECP for the appointment of an inspector to investigate. However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside this order, ruling that the civil court was the appropriate forum for resolving factual disputes. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the Company Court possesses ample jurisdiction to record oral and documentary evidence to resolve factual controversies, including allegations of fraud. The Court clarified that the 'summary procedure' mandated by Section 9(3) of the Ordinance does not bar the Company Judge from conducting a full inquiry. The Court further held that the power to appoint an inspector under Sections 263 and 265 vests with the Commission, and the Company Judge should have adjudicated the rectification and winding-up issues directly rather than delegating them.

  Read full judgment →
• Mian Javed Amir and others vs United Foam Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore2016 PLJ Sc 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  company judgerectification of registerwinding upsummary procedureappointment of inspectorjurisdiction of civil courtcorporate disputerecording of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals against a High Court judgment that set aside a Company Judge's order referring a corporate dispute over share transfers and winding up to an Inspector appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), holding instead that a civil court was the proper forum. The core legal question was whether a Company Court exercising jurisdiction under the Companies Ordinance has the power to record oral and documentary evidence to resolve complex factual controversies and determine matters like share rectification and winding up, despite the statutory requirement to follow a 'summary procedure'. The Supreme Court held that the summary procedure mandated under Section 9(3) of the Companies Ordinance does not debar the Company Court from receiving evidence, framing issues, or conducting in-depth inquiries into factual disputes. The Court ruled that the Company Judge himself must adjudicate the issues of share rectification and winding up rather than delegating the core judicial function to an SECP-appointed Inspector, and that civil courts are not the exclusive or appropriate forum for matters specially provided for under the Companies Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of following a summary procedure under Section 9 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 debars a Company Court from recording oral and documentary evidence in disputed matters?
  • Can a Company Judge delegate the core task of investigating share ownership and corporate disputes to an Inspector appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan under Section 265 of the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Does the pendency of civil suits bar proceedings before a Company Judge under the Companies Ordinance 1984 for winding up and rectification of the register of shareholders?
  • Whether a Civil Court is the exclusive or appropriate forum for adjudicating disputes regarding the title and transfer of shares in a company governed by the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs X.E.N. Shahpur Division (LJC) Quarry Sub-Division, Sargodha vs The Collector Sales Tax (Appeals) Collectorate of Customs Federal Excise and Sales Tax Faisalabad and others2016 PLJ SC 606, 2016 P.S.C. 943, PTCL 2016 CL. 282, 2016 SCMR 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-01
  constitutional tax exemptionArticle 165sales taxprovincial government propertyno estoppel against the ConstitutionArticle 165A distinctiontaxable supply
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the levy of sales tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 on an Executive Engineer (XEN) of the Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab. The department quarried stones and spawl exclusively for flood protection and internal public works without commercial sales. The core legal questions were whether an Executive Engineer is an integral part of the Provincial Government; whether quarried stones constitute 'property'; whether such property is exempt from federal taxation under Article 165(1) of the Constitution; and whether past registration and payment created an estoppel against invoking constitutional immunity. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant acts directly as the Provincial Government and stones/spawl constitute provincial property under Articles 142(c), 172, and 260. Consequently, Article 165(1) prohibits the federal levy. The Court established that statutory definitions cannot circumvent constitutional exemptions, Article 165A applies only to statutory corporations and distinct bodies, and no estoppel operates against the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Executive Engineer performing official functions on behalf of a provincial government department exempt from federal sales tax under Article 165(1) of the Constitution?
  • Do minerals and materials such as stones or spawl quarried by a provincial department fall within the definition of 'property' for constitutional tax exemption purposes?
  • Does the prior voluntary registration, filing of returns, or payment of tax create an estoppel against claiming a constitutional tax exemption?
  • Does Article 165A of the Constitution apply to provincial government departments, or is it restricted strictly to corporations, companies, and separate statutory institutions?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs World Trans Logistics and others vs Silk Bank Limited and others2016 PLJ SC 425, 2016 P.S.C. 426, 2016 SCMR 800, 2016 CLD 895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-29
  pledgeconstructive possessionrecovery of financestandard of carebailee liabilityindemnity clausestocks-in-trade pledge
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from a recovery suit instituted by the respondent Bank under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which was decreed against the petitioners by the Banking Court and affirmed by the High Court. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent Bank could be held responsible for the alleged loss or misappropriation of pledged goods where the borrower claimed that the bank, as pledgee, had failed to account for them. Examining the letter of pledge, the Supreme Court observed that the agreement allowed the borrower to retain actual physical possession and deal with the goods in its ordinary course of business, requiring it to indemnify the bank against any loss. The Court held that a valid pledge can be created through constructive possession without transferring actual physical custody. Consequently, where actual custody remains with the pledgor under such an arrangement, the statutory standard of care under Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act rests entirely on the pledgor. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a valid contract of pledge be created by delivering constructive possession of goods rather than physical possession?
  • Does the statutory duty of care under Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act fall on the pledgor when actual custody and commercial use of the pledged goods are retained by the pledgor?
  • Is a lending bank liable to account for the loss or misappropriation of pledged goods if the pledge agreement stipulates that the borrower retains physical possession and holds the bank indemnified against loss?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Transglobe Shipping Service vs WAPDA and another2016 SCMR 2023 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-07-25
  mediationdismissal for non-prosecutionvoid ab initiolimitation periodrestoration of suitdispute resolution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legality of a trial court's order dismissing a suit for non-prosecution after the case had been referred to mediation. The petitioner's suit was referred to the Karachi Centre for Dispute Resolution (KCDR) under Section 89-A and Order X Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. While the matter was pending before the KCDR, the trial court dismissed the suit for non-prosecution due to the parties' absence. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was void ab initio because the court had directed the parties to appear before the KCDR for proceedings, effectively suspending the court's own hearing schedule. The Court ruled that the trial court failed to apply its mind and acted mechanically by dismissing the suit without notice or report from the mediator. Consequently, the Court determined that the limitation period for the restoration application was governed by the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 (three years) rather than Article 163 (30 days), rendering the restoration application timely.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court dismiss a suit for non-prosecution while the matter is pending before a mediator to whom it was referred?
  • Does the limitation period for an application to restore a suit dismissed for non-prosecution fall under Article 163 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is a dismissal order void ab initio if the court fails to apply its mind to the fact that the case was referred to mediation?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs The Board of Trustees, EOBI and others2016 SCMR 808 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-09
  Employees' Old-Age Benefits Actestablishment definitionfactory definitionmanufacturing processstatutory body exemptioncompulsory registrationPIAC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns whether the kitchen and engineering departments of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) constitute "establishments" under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, thereby requiring compulsory registration. The core legal questions were whether individual departments of a statutory corporation can be classified as separate establishments, whether these specific departments qualify as "factories" under the Factories Act, 1934, and whether they are exempt under Section 47 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that an "establishment" under the Act is not limited to an organization as a whole; sub-organizations carrying out distinct activities may qualify individually. The Court determined that the kitchen department, engaged in mass-scale food production, and the engineering department, engaged in repair and maintenance, function as "factories" under the Factories Act, 1934. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the engineering department does not qualify for the Section 47(f) exemption because it services third-party equipment, not just the appellant's. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the applicability of the Act to these departments.

  Questions settled

  • Can individual departments of a larger organization be classified as separate 'establishments' under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • Does a mass-scale flight kitchen constitute a 'factory' under the Factories Act, 1934?
  • Does the repair and maintenance of third-party equipment by a statutory body's engineering department disqualify it from the exemption provided in Section 47(f) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others vs The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others2016 PTD 2269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-18
  Federal GovernmentCabinet responsibilityexecutive authoritysubordinate legislationtax exemptionsRules of Businessconstitutional interpretationtrichotomy of powersultra viresfiscal notifications
  Summary & questions settled

  This landmark constitutional case involved appeals by importers challenging various notifications that withdrew sales tax exemptions or modified tax rates. The primary legal question was whether such notifications, issued by the Revenue Division or with the approval of the Prime Minister/Advisor alone, constituted valid acts of the 'Federal Government' under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the 'Federal Government' is a collective entity consisting of the Prime Minister and the Federal Ministers (the Cabinet). The Court ruled that neither the Prime Minister, nor a Minister, nor a Secretary can unilaterally exercise statutory powers vested in the Federal Government, particularly in fiscal matters or the initiation of legislation. The Court declared Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Business, 1973, which allowed the Prime Minister to bypass the Cabinet, as ultra vires. Key principles established include the mandatory nature of the Rules of Business, the requirement of collective Cabinet approval for all executive and legislative actions, and the rejection of a 'Prime Ministerial' form of government in favor of a Parliamentary one.

  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lafarge Pakistan Cement Company vs District Collector, Chakwal and others2016 P.S.C. 1322, 2016 PLD Supreme Court 604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-05-05
  stamp dutymortgage deedpossession of propertyimpounding of instrumentsrecovery of penaltiesCollector's powers
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals arose from a judgment dismissing a writ petition and a civil revision concerning the assessment of stamp-duty on a mortgage-deed. The appellant obtained a loan and hypothecated its machinery and mortgaged land. The District Collector issued a notice alleging evasion of stamp-duty and imposed a penalty. The appellant challenged the notice, arguing that possession was not transferred, making Article 40(b) read with Article 15 of the Stamp Act, 1899 applicable rather than Article 40(a), and that the Collector lacked recovery powers under Section 48 unless the instrument was produced or impounded under Section 33. The Supreme Court held that since the mortgage agreement stipulated that the mortgagor retained possession unless a default occurred, the case fell under Article 40(b) (charged as a bond under Article 15). Furthermore, the Court held that the phrase 'comes in the performance of his functions' in Section 33 empowers the Collector to examine and impound instruments coming before him in official functions, thus sustaining the duty assessment. However, the Court found the imposed penalty excessive and modified it to double the deficient duty.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mortgage deed where possession of the property is not immediately transferred fall under Article 40(a) or Article 40(b) of the First Schedule of the Stamp Act, 1899?
  • Can the Collector recover duties and penalties under Section 48 of the Stamp Act, 1899 when an instrument comes before him in the performance of his functions?
  • What is the proper measure of penalty when an instrument is found to be deficiently stamped?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Chiltan Ghee Mills, Quetta and others vs Deputy Collector of Sales Tax (Refund), Customs House, Quetta and others2016 SCP 88, 2016 SCMR 2183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-10-03
  sales tax refundinput tax adjustmentexempt suppliespromissory estoppeltax exemptiontin containersSales Tax Act 1990
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a manufacturer of ghee and its packaging tin containers, sought a refund of sales tax paid on raw materials (tin plates) used for manufacturing containers, arguing that since its finished supplies were exempt from sales tax under a specific notification, the input tax paid should be refunded based on the principle of promissory estoppel. The Sales Tax Department, Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court all rejected the claim. Upon petition before the Supreme Court, the core legal question was whether a registered person making exempt supplies is entitled to a refund or adjustment of input tax paid on raw materials under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under sections 7, 8(1)(a), and 13 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, input tax adjustment and refund are strictly restricted to 'taxable supplies' and are expressly barred for goods used in making exempt supplies. The Court laid down the principle that tax exemptions do not automatically entail refunds of input tax paid on raw materials unless explicitly provided by statute, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot override clear statutory prohibitions.

  Questions settled

  • Is a registered person entitled to claim a refund of input tax paid on raw materials used in the manufacture of supplies that are exempt from sales tax?
  • Whether the principle of promissory estoppel can be invoked to claim a refund of sales tax paid on raw materials when the final supplies are exempt under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Can input tax adjustment be claimed under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, in respect of goods that do not fall within the definition of taxable supplies?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Carpet Centre vs Mustafa Farabi Tapu Javeri and others2016 SCMR 1926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-30
  evictionpersonal needbona fide needlandlord and tenantcommercial premisescross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed against an eviction order passed by the High Court on the ground of personal bona fide need of the respondent-landlord. The petitioner argued that the respondent's personal need was not established in evidence, pointing to alleged contradictions where the respondent claimed photography was both a hobby and a profession, and noting that the respondent already ran a photo studio. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the respondent's personal need was categorically explained, as he intended to set up his own photo studio in a commercial premises. The Court noted that no cross-examination suggested the respondent already possessed another commercial premises for his studio. The Court held that in the absence of evidence establishing mala fides on the part of the landlord, the personal need was established. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord's statement of running a studio, without proof of owning another commercial premises, defeats a claim of personal bona fide need for commercial premises?
  • Does the failure of a tenant to establish mala fides on the part of the landlord justify an eviction order on the ground of personal need?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adil vs State, etc.2016 PLJ Sc 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-16
  criminal appealcompromisemurdersentence reductionperiod already undergoneparitydamancompoundable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the reduction of sentence for the appellant, Muhammad Adil, who was initially convicted under Sections 302(b), 337-F(vi), and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to a reduction of his remaining sentence to the period already undergone, on the principle of parity with his co-accused, given that the primary charge of murder under Section 302(b) had been compounded and the appellant acquitted thereof by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that since the main murder charge stood compounded and co-accused had already been granted reduced sentences to the period undergone, the appellant deserved equal treatment. The Court consequently allowed the appeal, reducing the appellant's sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the financial liability of Daman payable to the injured victim.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellant entitled to a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone on the basis of parity with co-accused when the main murder charge has been compounded?
  • Does the acquittal of an accused under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code pursuant to a compromise affect the remaining sentences for hurt under the same judgment?
  • Can the Supreme Court reduce the substantive imprisonment sentence of a convict while maintaining the payment of Daman to the injured victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bhanero Textile Mills Ltd. vs The Federation of Pakistan and 32016 SCMR 1531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-05-12
  customs dutyexemption notificationimport definitionex-bond bill of entryrural industrial development schemetariff exemption
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the appellant's intra-court appeal and maintained the refusal of duty exemption on imported textile machinery. The appellant imported machinery and filed an ex-bond bill of entry on November 18, 1990, claiming the benefit of an exemption notification (SRO No. 1284(I)/90 dated December 13, 1990) issued under the Rural Industrial Development Scheme. The Central Board of Revenue and the High Courts denied the benefit, holding that the date of import and the date of filing the bill of entry preceded the effective date of the exemption SRO. The core legal question was whether an importer who filed a bill of entry and warehoused goods prior to the issuance of an exemption notification can claim the benefit of duty exemption merely because the goods were ex-bonded after the notification's commencement date. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the crucial date for determining eligibility for an exemption SRO is the date of import or the filing of the bill of entry, not the date of ex-bonding. The Court laid down that exemption notifications must be construed strictly and cannot be applied retrospectively to consignments imported or declared via bills of entry prior to the specified qualifying date.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the date of import for claiming duty exemption under a statutory notification is the date of filing the bill of entry or the date of ex-bonding?
  • Can an exemption notification issued under the Customs Act be applied to goods imported prior to the commencing date specified in the notification?
  • What is the legal definition and connotation of the word 'import' in the context of customs legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Member Bor, Punjab and Another vs Mst. Siddiqan (Decd.) through L.RS., Etc2016 NLR Civil 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-07-24
  evacuee propertyland resumptionauction saleallotment orderjurisdiction of civil courtsrehabilitation authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the ownership of land in Multan, originally auctioned by the Provincial Government in 1946. The Government alleged the auction purchasers defaulted on the balance payment, leading to resumption, while the respondents claimed title as allottees of the land, which had been treated as evacuee property and transferred to their predecessor-in-interest in 1966. The core legal question was whether the Government could challenge the status and transfer of the land as evacuee property decades later without having contested it before the appropriate forums under the relevant evacuee laws. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Government failed to produce evidence of a valid resumption order or terms authorizing such action. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle that where property is treated and transferred as evacuee property, even if erroneously, the original owner's title is extinguished if they fail to challenge the treatment before the competent forum (the Custodian or Notified Officer) at the relevant time. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding no grounds for interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government challenge the status of land as evacuee property after it has been transferred to an allottee without having contested the matter before the competent forum at the relevant time?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to determine the evacuee nature of a property once it has been treated as such and transferred by the rehabilitation authorities?
  • Is the government entitled to resume auctioned land for non-payment of a balance installment without a clear legal basis or a formal order of resumption?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Khan and others (In CP 1774/14) Mir Maqbool Ahmed Lehri (In CP2015-SCP-25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -
  illegal land allotmentpublic purpose acquisitionmisuse of authorityQuetta Development AuthorityBaluchistan Land Lease Policyvoid sale deedproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions challenging a High Court judgment regarding the illegal allotment and sale of government land originally acquired for public bridge construction. The core legal questions involved whether the Quetta Development Authority (QDA) possessed the authority to sell land acquired for public purposes to a private individual, and whether such transactions violated statutory and constitutional mandates. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, declaring the allotment and subsequent sale void. The Court held that the transactions were executed through fraudulent machinations, bypassing mandatory statutory procedures such as public advertisement and the right of first refusal for original owners. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that land acquired for public purposes cannot be diverted for private commercial use, and that such disposal violates the Baluchistan Land Lease Policy 2000 and the constitutional protection of property rights under Article 24. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that public officials cannot misuse authority to facilitate the illegal transfer of state land for private enrichment, and ordered the refund of consideration paid for the void transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Can land acquired by a government authority for a public purpose be sold to a private individual?
  • Does the failure to follow statutory procedures for land disposal, such as public advertisement, render a sale deed void?
  • Is a government authority permitted to lease or sell land that is reserved for future public projects?
  • Does the sale of acquired land to a private party without offering it back to the original owners violate the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ali Bhatti vs The State and others2016 SCMR 1549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausepolice investigationpublic servantnarcotics caseprocedural lapses
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, a police inspector accused of intentional procedural lapses during the investigation of a narcotics case, specifically regarding the sampling of recovered heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the status of the investigation. The Supreme Court observed that the entire recovered substance had been re-tested and confirmed as narcotics, mitigating concerns regarding the alleged pilferage. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged intentional lapses required evidentiary proof at trial and might only constitute departmental irregularities. Emphasizing that the petitioner’s physical custody was no longer required for investigation, that he was a public servant with no flight risk, and that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that where the prosecution's case requires further inquiry and the accused is not a flight risk, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to follow standard sampling procedures in a narcotics case necessarily preclude the grant of bail to the investigating officer?
  • When does a criminal case qualify for 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is bail appropriate when the investigation is complete, the challan has been submitted, and the accused's physical custody is no longer required?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adil vs The State2016 PLJ Sc 390, 2016 P.S.C. 508, 2016 P.S.C. Crl. 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-16
  compromisesection 302 PPCsentence reductionparity in sentencingdamanhurtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the reduction of sentence for the appellant, Muhammad Adil, who was initially convicted under Section 302(b) and Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with other offences. During the pendency of his appeal before the High Court, a compromise was effected between the appellant and the legal heirs of the deceased, leading to his acquittal under Section 302(b), though his conviction under Section 337-F(vi) was maintained. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to a reduction of sentence for the remaining conviction at par with his co-accused, who had their sentences reduced to the period already undergone following the compromise. The Supreme Court held that since the main murder charge was compounded and co-accused received reduced sentences, the appellant was similarly entitled to a reduction of his imprisonment to the period already undergone, while keeping the payment of Daman intact. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is acquitted of the capital charge via a valid compromise and co-accused receive lenient treatment regarding remaining sentences, parity in sentencing should generally be extended to the remaining convictions arising from the same transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellant who has been acquitted of a murder charge on the basis of a compromise is entitled to a reduction of sentence for remaining convictions at par with his co-accused?
  • Does the compounding of an offence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically affect convictions under minor hurt sections like Section 337-F(vi)?
  • Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the imposition of Daman?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed Lehri and another vs NAB and another2016 SCMR 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-10-09
  National Accountability Bureaudouble jeopardypre-arrest bailillegal allotment of landpublic propertymisuse of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners assailed a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dismissing their constitutional petitions and recalling their ad-interim bail in a corruption reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) regarding the illegal sale of state land acquired for a public bridge project. The core legal questions involved whether the NAB reference was barred under the principle of double jeopardy due to prior closure of an investigation, and whether the petitioners made out a case for pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that the closure of a previous inquiry under Section 9(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 without a formal reference does not attract the bar of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution, especially when the subsequent reference pertains to a distinct transaction. The Court found a strong prima facie case of misuse of authority and dishonest intention against the first petitioner, refusing him leave to appeal, but granted relief to the second petitioner as no active wrongdoing or personal gain was established. The key principle laid down is that closure of an investigation without trial does not constitute an acquittal and cannot form the basis of a double jeopardy defense.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the closure of an investigation by the Chairman NAB under Section 9(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 operates as an acquittal so as to bar a subsequent reference on the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can land acquired for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act be legally alienated or sold to a private individual in contravention of statutory development rules and land lease policies?
  • Whether a public office holder who merely communicates administrative directives of a superior authority without exercising independent dishonest discretion can be held criminally liable for corruption under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Under what circumstances can pre-arrest bail be refused to a public functionary facing credible allegations of fraudulent land transactions and misuse of authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and others vs The State2016 SCMR 1426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-09
  dacoity with murderbenefit of the doubtidentification paraderecovery of weaponsocular accountcriminal appealsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, with leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants under sections 396 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity with murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the conviction of the appellants could be sustained when the ocular testimony attributing specific fatal and injury shots to co-accused had been disbelieved, resulting in the acquittal of those co-accused by the High Court, and whether identification parades and weapon recoveries in the absence of attributed roles and corroborative forensic evidence are sufficient to maintain a conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences, holding that once the ocular account attributing the fatal shots is disbelieved and the identification parade lacks specific roles ascribed to the appellants, identification loses its evidentiary value, and recoveries of weapons inconsistent with forensic reports or unsupported by material witnesses cannot sustain a conviction. The key principle laid down is that where the primary ocular testimony is discredited regarding the principal offenders and recoveries are contradicted by forensic evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the remaining accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the conviction of appellants for dacoity with murder be sustained when the prosecution witnesses attribute specific fatal shots to co-accused who were subsequently acquitted by the High Court?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade where witnesses identify the accused persons in court but fail to describe any specific role attributed to them during the parade?
  • Does the recovery of weapons alone connect the accused to the crime when the forensic science laboratory report does not match the crime empties with the recovered weapons?
  • Can reliance be placed on police recoveries when a material witness from whom a weapon was allegedly snatched is withheld by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muzaffar Ahmed vs Majlis-e-llmi Society through Muhammad Zubair2016 P.S.C. 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-15
  pre-emptionrejection of plaintstatutory interpretationlegislative omissioncharitable propertyPunjab Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside the trial court's order and rejecting the appellant's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a pre-emption matter. The core legal question was whether Section 23(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991, which exempts sales of waqf or charitable, religious, and public properties from pre-emption, also extends to properties purchased by such institutions despite the accidental omission of the word 'purchase' from the text. The Supreme Court held that the omission of the word 'purchase' was an inadvertent drafting error that created an absurdity and defeated the clear legislative intent to protect charitable and religious acquisitions from pre-emption. Applying the doctrine of secondary construction and the principle of supplying legislative omissions to preserve a statute's workability, the Court ruled that the word 'purchase' must be read into Section 23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's judgment upholding the rejection of the plaint was affirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of the word 'purchase' in Section 23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 can be supplied by the courts through the doctrine of secondary construction?
  • Does the right of pre-emption apply to properties purchased for charitable, religious, or public purposes under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
  • Can a court depart from the plain meaning of a statute to cure an inadvertent legislative omission that would otherwise defeat the intent of the legislature?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muzaffar Ahmed vs Majlis-E-Ilmi Society through Muhammad2016 PLD Supreme Court 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-15
  pre-emptionPunjab Pre-emption Actrejection of plaintstatutory interpretationlegislative omissioncharitable propertyWaqf propertySupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court rejecting the appellant's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. in a pre-emption matter. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of Section 23(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, which exempts sales of Waqf or charitable, religious, or public properties from the right of pre-emption, but omits the word 'purchase' which appears in parallel legislation. The Supreme Court held that the omission of the word 'purchase' in Section 23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, was an inadvertent drafting mistake that threatened to defeat the manifest legislative intent and object of protecting charitable and religious institutions from pre-emption. Laying down the principle of statutory interpretation regarding inadvertent legislative omissions and ellipsis, the Court affirmed that courts possess the power to supply such omissions to make a statute workable and sensible. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the High Court's rejection of the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of the word 'purchase' in Section 23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 defeats the exemption of charitable and religious properties from the right of pre-emption?
  • Can the superior courts supply an inadvertent legislative omission in a statute through necessary implication to carry out the true intent of the Legislature?
  • Does a property purchased by a trust or charitable institution for public or religious purposes enjoy immunity from the right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muzaffar Ahmed vs Majlis-e-Ilmi Society thr. Muhammad Zubair2015-SCP-139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-15
  pre-emptionrejection of plaintcharitable propertystatutory interpretationlegislative omissioncasus omissusWaqf property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court rejecting the appellant's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a pre-emption matter. The core legal question involved the interpretation of Section 23(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991, which exempts Waqf property or property used for charitable, religious, or public purposes from pre-emption, but textually omits the word 'purchase' alongside 'sale'. The Supreme Court held that the omission of the word 'purchase' was an inadvertent drafting mistake that created an absurdity and defeated the true intent of the Legislature to protect properties purchased by charitable or religious institutions from pre-emption. Affirming the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court laid down the principle that in cases of inadvertent legislative omissions or textual ambiguities that defeat the manifest purpose of an enactment, courts possess the inherent power of secondary construction to supply the missing words and fill the gap to make the statute workable, sensible, and aligned with legislative intent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of the word 'purchase' in Section 23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 can be supplied by the courts through secondary construction and interpretation?
  • Does the right of pre-emption exist in respect of properties purchased for charitable, religious, or public purposes under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  • Can a court depart from the plain meaning of a statute in cases of ambiguity, absurdity, or inadvertent legislative omission?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadrithe State vs (in )the State, Etc.(in )Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri2016 PLD Supreme Court 17, 2016 NLR Criminal 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-10-07
  blasphemyterrorismextra-judicial killingAnti-Terrorism Actgrave and sudden provocationburden of proofrule of lawcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the murder of the Governor of Punjab by his security guard, who claimed the victim committed blasphemy. The core legal questions were whether the appellant was legally justified in committing the murder based on religious motivation and whether the act constituted terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, maintaining the murder conviction, and allowed the State's appeal, restoring the conviction for terrorism. The ratio of the judgment is that no individual has the legal authority to act as judge and executioner based on unverified allegations. The court held that the murder of a public official to advance a religious cause or intimidate the public constitutes terrorism. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the burden of proving exceptions, such as grave and sudden provocation, lies on the accused, and failure to prove the factual basis for such claims renders them invalid. The judgment affirmed that religious motivation does not justify extra-judicial killing, and the rule of law must prevail over vigilantism.

  Questions settled

  • Does the murder of a public official to advance a religious cause constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can an accused claim legal justification for murder based on an unverified belief that the victim committed blasphemy?
  • Does the burden of proving grave and sudden provocation lie on the accused under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is a police officer justified in taking the law into their own hands based on personal religious beliefs?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri vs The State2016 PSC Crl. 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-14
  criminal reviewscope of reviewbench constitutionoral judgmentjurisdiction of supreme courtblasphemyadditional documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal judgment addresses a series of miscellaneous applications and review petitions filed against the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in a high-profile criminal case. The core legal questions involved whether a party can demand a larger bench for a review petition, whether new documents can be introduced at the review stage, the legality of pronouncing an oral order prior to a detailed written judgment, and the scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction regarding the interpretation of Islamic injunctions under the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that a party has no right to demand a specific bench or number of judges, that new evidence not part of the original trial record cannot be brought up in review, that oral announcement of a decision complies with procedural rules, and that interpretation of Islamic injunctions falls outside the court's core jurisdiction. The key principles laid down include that review jurisdiction is strictly confined to rectifying errors patent on the face of the record rather than serving as a re-hearing of the main case, and that a party cannot dictate the composition of benches.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party to a case claim or demand that its case be heard by a specific number of judges or a larger bench?
  • Whether new opinions, material, and documents not part of the original record can be introduced during a review petition?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to interpret the Injunctions of Islam regarding blasphemy and its punishment?
  • Can a review petition be treated as a rehearing of the main case on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri vs The State and others-2016 PLD Supreme Court 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-10-07
  extrajudicial killingblasphemyterrorismAnti-Terrorism Actmens rearule of lawcapital punishmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of a police officer for the murder of the Governor of Punjab. The appellant admitted to the killing, claiming justification based on the victim’s alleged blasphemous remarks. The core legal questions were whether the appellant had factual or legal justification for the murder, whether the act constituted terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and whether the death sentence was appropriate. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to prove any factual or legal justification, emphasizing that individuals cannot take the law into their own hands based on unverified hearsay or personal religious interpretations. The Court affirmed that extrajudicial killing is not permissible under the law. Furthermore, the Court held that the act constituted terrorism because it was designed to intimidate the public and advance a religious cause, regardless of whether fear was actually created. The judgment establishes that the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, focuses on the perpetrator's intent and design rather than the actual societal impact, and that police officers have a heightened duty to uphold the rule of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an act of murder committed to advance a religious cause constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, even if it does not create widespread public fear?
  • Can a person claim justification for extrajudicial killing based on a subjective, unverified belief that the victim committed blasphemy?
  • Does the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, require proof of actual societal fear, or is the perpetrator's intent sufficient?
  • Is a police officer entitled to a reduced sentence for murder if the act was motivated by personal religious belief rather than personal enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Aqeel Ahmed vs The State2016 P.S.C. Crl. 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-03-24
  murdersodomycircumstantial evidenceDNA profilingcriminal appealSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court which maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the Trial Court under Sections 302 and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the murder and sodomy of a five-year-old child. The core legal question involved the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, specifically the evidentiary value of a DNA profiling match linking the appellant's biological samples to the anal swab of the victim in an unseen occurrence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and unerringly pointed to the guilt of the appellant, establishing that the prosecution proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt. The key principle laid down is that scientific evidence such as DNA profiling, when corroborated by surrounding circumstances and the absence of mala fides, forms a reliable basis for conviction in capital cases involving unseen occurrences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder and sodomy be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence and DNA profiling in an unseen occurrence?
  • Whether DNA test results matching the accused's profile with the victim's swab constitute sufficient proof of the commission of sodomy?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on insufficient evidence vitiate the conviction of the main offender when robust circumstantial evidence exists against him?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Abid Hussain vs Returning Officer, Wards 1 to 47 Municipal Committee2016 SCP 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  local government electionsreserved seatworker definitionnomination paperselection eligibilitystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for a reserved 'worker' seat in the Municipal Committee, Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, an LPG distributor and businessman, satisfied the statutory definition of a 'worker' eligible to contest for such a reserved seat. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not qualify as a 'worker' because he was a businessman and trader, not a person directly engaged in physical work or dependent on personal labor for subsistence. The Court affirmed the lower authorities' findings, noting that the petitioner's status as a dealer and President of the LPG Union was undisputed. The key principle laid down is that the definition of 'worker' under Section 2(mmm) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, strictly requires direct engagement in physical work or reliance on personal labor for subsistence, thereby excluding businessmen and traders from contesting reserved seats intended for workers.

  Questions settled

  • Does a businessman or trader qualify as a 'worker' under the definition provided in the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013?
  • What is the legal criteria for a person to be classified as a 'worker' for the purpose of contesting a reserved seat in local government elections?
  • Can a nomination paper be rejected at the pre-election stage if the candidate fails to meet the statutory definition of the category for which they are contesting?
  Read full judgment →
• Majeed and Sons Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan through SecretaryMb o Economic Affairs, Islamabad and others2016 SCMR 655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-09-18
  customs dutiesregulatory dutymultilateral trade agreementsGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Tradestatutory interpretationtreaty enforcementmunicipal law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Sindh High Court judgment regarding the imposition of customs duties. The petitioners contended that the cumulative incidence of customs duties levied under subsections (1), (3), and (5) of section 18 of the Customs Act exceeded the rates agreed to by the Government of Pakistan under multilateral trade agreements, specifically invoking Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The core legal question was whether these duties violated the statutory proviso limiting cumulative incidence to agreed-upon rates. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the regulatory duties imposed did not exceed the rates specified in the relevant tariff tables. The Court affirmed that international agreements cannot override or alter express, unambiguous statutory provisions unless formally incorporated into domestic law through legislation. Additionally, the Court emphasized that it cannot supply omissions in a statute or interpret "rates agreed to" as a general reference to GATT clauses when the statute provides clear, specific mechanisms. Consequently, the impugned judgment was upheld as legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Can an international treaty or agreement override an express and unambiguous provision of a domestic statute?
  • Does the cumulative incidence of customs duties under section 18 of the Customs Act exceed the rates agreed to under multilateral trade agreements?
  • Can a court enforce rights arising from an international treaty that has not been incorporated into the domestic law of Pakistan?
  • Is the judiciary empowered to supply omissions in a statute to repair perceived legislative blunders?
  Read full judgment →
• Majeed and Sons Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M_o Economic Affairs, Islamabad and others2016 PTD 1655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-09-18
  customs dutiesmultilateral trade agreementsstatutory interpretationtreaty enforcementregulatory dutymunicipal lawGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the imposition of customs duties. The petitioners contended that the cumulative incidence of customs duties levied under subsections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969, exceeded the rates agreed upon by the Government of Pakistan under multilateral trade agreements, specifically referencing Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The Court held that the proviso to Section 18(5) of the Customs Act, 1969, is clear and unambiguous, and the 'rates agreed to' are those reflected in the relevant tariff tables. The Court emphasized that international treaties or agreements, whether bilateral or multilateral, cannot override or alter express statutory provisions unless they have been incorporated into municipal law through domestic legislation. Furthermore, the Court declined to read 'bilateral' into the statute where it was omitted by the legislature. Consequently, the Court found that the duties imposed did not exceed the agreed rates and dismissed the petitions, affirming the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can an international treaty or agreement be enforced by a court if it has not been incorporated into domestic law through legislation?
  • Does the term 'rates agreed to' in Section 18(5) of the Customs Act 1969 encompass duties existing prior to the execution of a multilateral trade agreement?
  • Can a court read the word 'bilateral' into a statute where the legislature has deliberately omitted it?
  • Does the cumulative incidence of customs duties under Section 18 of the Customs Act 1969 violate multilateral trade agreements if it remains within the limits of the relevant tariff tables?
  Read full judgment →
• Majeed and Sons Steel (Pvt.) Ltd. and 53 others vs Federation of Pakistan2016 P.S.C. 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  customs dutiesmultilateral trade agreementsregulatory dutytariff ratestreaty enforcementmunicipal lawstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sindh High Court dismissing petitions filed by the petitioners regarding the cumulative incidence of customs-duties. The core legal question was whether the cumulative incidence of customs-duties levied under subsections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 18 of the Customs Act exceeded the rates agreed to by the Government of Pakistan under multilateral trade agreements, and whether international treaties or bilateral agreements can override clear statutory provisions without domestic municipal legislation. The Supreme Court held that the cumulative incidence of customs-duties did not exceed the bound rates and final bound duties prescribed in the relevant tariff tables under multilateral agreements, and that international treaties or bilateral agreements cannot alter or override unambiguous domestic statutory provisions unless formally incorporated into municipal law through legislation. The Court established that clear and unambiguous statutory provisions must be enforced as written, courts cannot supply omissions or read unexpressed terms into statutes, and unincorporated international treaties do not create enforceable municipal rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the cumulative incidence of customs-duties under Section 18 of the Customs Act 1969 exceeds the rates agreed under multilateral trade agreements?
  • Can an international treaty or bilateral agreement alter or override an express and unambiguous provision of domestic statute without legislative incorporation?
  • Do unincorporated international treaties create enforceable rights that can be invoked in municipal courts of law?
  • Whether courts can supply omissions or read unexpressed terms into clear and unambiguous statutory provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• M.C.B. Limited, Karachi vs Abdul Waheed Abro, etc.K.L.R. 2016 S.C. 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-09-30
  domestic inquiryright of cross-examinationfair trialreinstatementindustrial relationsrepleal of statutegeneral clauses actpetiton for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to set aside a High Court order upholding concurrent judgments of the lower fora. The respondent, employed as a cashier, was dismissed from service following a domestic inquiry into alleged cash misappropriation. He challenged his dismissal via a grievance application under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement without back benefits, a decision modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal to a penalty of stoppage of increments for three years while maintaining reinstatement. The High Court affirmed these concurrent findings. The core legal questions involved whether a domestic inquiry violating natural justice by denying the right to cross-examine witnesses vitiates dismissal, whether a fresh inquiry should be ordered after protracted litigation, and the applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, upon the repeal of labor legislation. The Supreme Court held that the failure to afford the worker an opportunity to cross-examine management witnesses violated due process, fair trial principles under Article 10A of the Constitution, and natural justice. The Court further held that ordering a de novo inquiry after prolonged litigation was unjustified and that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, preserved pending proceedings upon the repeal of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide an accused employee the opportunity to cross-examine management witnesses vitiate a domestic inquiry?
  • Can a de novo inquiry be ordered after a protracted period of litigation causing undue hardship to the employee?
  • Does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, save pending legal proceedings initiated under the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Whether the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• M.C.B. Bank Limited, Karachi vs Abdul Waheed Abro, etc.2016 PLJ SC 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-09-30
  domestic inquiryright to cross-examinationdue processreinstatementfair trialrepeal of statuteGeneral Clauses Actlabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged concurrent findings of the Labour Court, the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court, which ordered the reinstatement of the respondent, a bank cashier dismissed for alleged misappropriation. The core legal questions concerned whether the domestic inquiry was vitiated by the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses, whether a fresh inquiry should have been ordered, and the impact of the repeal of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, on pending proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was unlawful because the inquiry officer failed to provide the respondent a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court declined to order a fresh inquiry due to the protracted nature of the litigation. It affirmed that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, preserves pending legal proceedings following the repeal of a statute. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, maintaining the respondent's reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses during a domestic inquiry violate the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial?
  • Does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, preserve pending legal proceedings upon the repeal of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to order a fresh inquiry after a significant delay in litigation where the initial inquiry was procedurally flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• M.C.B. Bank Limited, Karachi vs Abdul Waheed Abro and others2016 PLC 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-09-30
  domestic inquiryright of cross-examinationfair trialreinstatementindustrial relationsgeneral clauses actleave to appealmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an order of the High Court of Sindh which upheld concurrent judgments of the lower fora reinstating the respondent-employee into service. The respondent, a bank cashier, was dismissed following a domestic inquiry concerning a cash shortage. He challenged his dismissal via a grievance application under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement without back benefits. The Labour Appellate Tribunal modified the penalty to stoppage of increments for three years while maintaining reinstatement, which the High Court subsequently upheld. The core legal questions involved whether a domestic inquiry violating due process by denying the right to cross-examine witnesses is sustainable, whether a fresh inquiry should be ordered after prolonged litigation, and the applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 upon the repeal of labour laws. The Supreme Court held that failure to afford an opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses violates natural justice and the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, vitiating the inquiry. Furthermore, ordering a de novo inquiry after protracted litigation spanning over a decade is unjustified, and pending proceedings are protected under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide an accused employee the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during a domestic inquiry violate the principles of natural justice and Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether an appellate court or Supreme Court should order a de novo inquiry after a prolonged period of litigation for which the employee is not responsible?
  • How does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 apply to pending legal proceedings upon the repeal of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 by a subsequent Central Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Nazir Ahmed vs Syed Shamas-Ul-Abbas and others2016 PSC Crl. 213, 2016 PLD Supreme Court 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-22
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcriminal investigationrecovery of evidencedishonestly issuing a cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against an order of the Lahore High Court granting pre-arrest bail to respondent No. 1 in a case registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail can be granted as a general rule merely because no recovery is to be effected from the accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view—that an accused cannot be refused pre-arrest bail if no recovery is required—militates against the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as arrest during investigation is also meant for investigating circumstances and collecting evidence. The Court laid down the principle that investigation is not solely for effecting recovery, and physical custody may be required for ascertaining circumstances or verifying defenses. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted solely on the ground that no recovery is to be effected from the accused?
  • Is the arrest of an accused person during the investigation of a criminal case meant exclusively for effecting recovery?
  • Does the absence of a requirement for recovery preclude the refusal of pre-arrest bail in serious criminal offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Lucky Cement Ltd., Having Its Offices Atlakki Marwat, Dera Ismail KhanNLR 2016 Tax 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  income from other sourcesbusiness incomesurplus fundsmemorandum of associationtax assessmentpre-commencement expensesinterest income
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax reference matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether interest and profits earned by a public limited company from investing its surplus funds in banks and financial institutions during the pre-commencement or construction phase of its cement manufacturing plant constitute business income or income from other sources under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The appellant company argued that such investments were authorized by its Memorandum of Association and constituted part of its business activities. The assessing officer and tribunal treated the returns as income from other sources under Section 30(2)(b), a view upheld by the High Court. A three-member bench heard the matter, resulting in a split decision. The majority (Sh. Azmat Saeed and Mushir Alam, JJ.) held that despite provisions allowing investments, a prohibitory clause in the Memorandum of Association alongside the fact that the primary business had not yet commenced meant such returns could not be classified as normal business income, thus dismissing the appeals and affirming that the income falls under 'other sources'.

  Questions settled

  • Whether income earned from the investment of surplus funds in financial institutions during the construction phase of a manufacturing plant amounts to business income or income from other sources?
  • How should the Memorandum of Association of a company be construed when resolving conflicts between empowering clauses and restrictive or prohibitory clauses regarding investments?
  • Does the investment of idle capital in profit-bearing schemes prior to the commencement of a company's primary commercial operations constitute carrying on a business under Section 22 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. Nasir Malik vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and otherss2016 SCMR 1821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-07-14
  maintenance allowanceenhancement of maintenanceFamily CourtWest Pakistan Family Courts ActLimitation Actcondonation of delayex parte proceedingsconcurrent findings of factpetition for leave to appealconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the enhancement of maintenance allowance for minors. The core legal questions involved whether maintenance allowance could be enhanced through an application under Section 151 CPC or required a fresh suit, and the validity of dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the provisions of the C.P.C. are not strictly applicable to proceedings under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and thus, a Family Court is competent to entertain an application for enhancement of maintenance without requiring a fresh suit. The Court further affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, not suffering from illegality or perversity, warrant no interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. It was also held that a significant delay in filing an appeal, such as 144 days, must be explained for each day, and a counsel performing Hajj is not a plausible ground for condonation.

  Read full judgment →
• lqbal Hussain vs The General Manager, Southern Telecom Region-II2016 P.S.C. 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-08-06
  service lawstatutory rulesprivatizationleave to appealemployment statusFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, originally appointed to the Pakistan Telegraph & Telephone Department in 1963, challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding his employment status following the department's privatization. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner remained governed by statutory rules despite the privatization and conversion of the department into a company, thereby entitling him to specific service remedies. The Court noted the petitioner's reliance on a recent consolidated judgment of the Supreme Court dated 12.6.2015, which addressed similar issues of statutory service rules post-privatization. Finding that the contentions raised required deeper consideration, the Court granted leave to appeal. The Court directed the petitioner to submit all documentation pertaining to his appointment and continuous service since 1963 and ordered the office to relist the appeals for hearing within six months. The decision establishes that the applicability of statutory rules to employees of privatized entities is a matter requiring judicial review in light of established precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee appointed to the Pakistan Telegraph & Telephone Department prior to its privatization remain governed by statutory rules?
  • Can the conversion of a government department into a company divest an employee of the protection of statutory service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• lqbal Hussain vs The General Manager, Southern Telecom Region-II and others2016 P.S.C. 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-08-06
  service lawstatutory rulesprivatizationleave to appealemployment statusFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the service status of the petitioner, who was initially appointed to the Pakistan Telegraph & Telephone Department in 1963. The core legal question is whether an employee originally appointed under statutory rules in a government department remains governed by those statutory rules for the purpose of seeking legal remedies following the department's privatization and conversion into a corporate entity. The petitioner contends that despite the privatization, his employment status remains protected by the original statutory rules, challenging the contrary conclusion reached by the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court, finding that the contentions raised require detailed consideration, granted leave to appeal. The Court directed the petitioner to submit all documentation pertaining to his appointment and continuous service record since 1963 to substantiate his claim. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing within six months, thereby keeping the legal question regarding the applicability of statutory rules post-privatization open for final adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee originally appointed under statutory rules in a government department continue to be governed by those rules after the department's privatization?
  • Can a former government employee seek remedies based on original statutory rules after the department is converted into a company?
  Read full judgment →
• lqbal Ahmed vs Managing Director Provincial Urban Development Board, NWFP, Peshawar and others2016 P.S.C. 5 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  plot allotmentcancellation of allotmentdefault in installmentspublic utility plotoutright salerevisional jurisdictioncivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby a civil revision filed by the respondents was accepted, setting aside the appellate court's decree and restoring the trial court's dismissal of the appellant's suit for declaration. The appellant was allotted a plot in Bannu Township for a school and contended that the allotment was an outright sale and could not be cancelled for delayed payments. The core legal question concerned the legality of the cancellation of the plot allotment due to repeated defaults in installment payments and failure to abide by the allotment terms. The Supreme Court held that the appellant defaulted on payment schedules, failed to finalize terms, and sought reductions long after accepting the allotment price, thus justifying the cancellation. The Court ruled that under the Allotment Regulations Bannu Township Scheme, public utility plots are disposed of through outright sale with lump sum payments, and the authorities acted lawfully in cancelling the allotment and forfeiting the specified percentage upon persistent default.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an authority is justified in cancelling a plot allotment when the allottee persistently defaults on installment payments and fails to finalize allotment terms?
  • Does the scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit interference where subordinate forums commit jurisdictional errors or misread evidence?
  • Whether an allottee who accepts a plot allotment and deposits an advance amount can subsequently challenge the fixed price of the land after a prolonged delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority through Director-General, Lahore and others vs Sahibha Khanam2016 SCMR 2143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-11
  land acquisitionexempted plothousing schemevested rightallotment policysupreme court petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court dismissing an intra-court appeal and upholding an order directing the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) to allot an exempted plot to the respondent in Block-D, Mohlanwal Housing Scheme, corresponding to the land acquired from her, or alternatively to assess a fair price and allocate a plot of her choice with differential compensation. The core legal question was whether the landowner was entitled as a matter of vested right to an exempted plot within the specific block where her land was originally acquired pursuant to the applicable allotment policy. The Supreme Court held that the policy and the LDA's own determination required allocation in the same area and the petitioners failed to show any rule permitting displacement to another block. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that a vested right accrued under the exemption policy cannot be arbitrarily denied.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landowner is entitled to an exempted plot in the same block where their land was originally acquired under the housing scheme policy?
  • Can the Lahore Development Authority allot an exempted plot in a different block without justification when the policy mandates allocation in the acquired area?
  • Does a policy for residential plots create a vested right for the ex-landowner regarding the location of the exempted plot?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Bachao Tehrik vs Dr. Iqbal Muhammad Chauhan etc2016 PLJ SC 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  public interest litigationpublic trust doctrineenvironmental lawheritage parktraffic congestionconsent orderjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application by the Government of Punjab seeking permission to further widen the Lahore Canal Bank Road, involving the removal of trees and encroachment on greenbelts, following a 2011 Supreme Court judgment that declared the area a Public Trust and Heritage Urban Park. The core legal questions were whether the proposed widening violated the previous consent judgment and the Lahore Canal Heritage Park Act, 2013, and whether the Court could revisit its prior order in public interest litigation. The Supreme Court held that the project was permissible, finding that the proposed works were necessary to alleviate acute traffic congestion and safety hazards, thereby serving a public purpose. The Court clarified that its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) is inquisitorial and allows for the revisiting or clarification of orders to address evolving public needs, notwithstanding the consent nature of the previous judgment. Furthermore, the project was found compliant with the Act, having satisfied environmental impact assessments and expert committee approvals. The key principle established is that public trust resources may be utilized for essential public purposes, provided procedural safeguards are strictly followed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court revisit or clarify a previous consent order in public interest litigation under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  • Does the doctrine of public trust absolutely prohibit the use of a heritage park area for infrastructure development?
  • Are the prohibitions on construction within a heritage park under the Lahore Canal Heritage Park Act 2013 absolute or subject to procedural exceptions?
  • Does the widening of a public road to alleviate traffic congestion constitute a valid public purpose under the public trust doctrine?
  Read full judgment →
• Kuhammad Nawaz Chandio vs Muhammad Ismail Rahu and others2016 PLJ Sc 441, 2016 P.S.C. 886, 2016 SCMR 875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-10
  Civil AppealElection PetitionRe-electionPartial Re-pollNADRA VerificationThumb ImpressionsBogus VotesStatutory InterpretationRepresentation of the People ActElection TribunalMaterially AffectedPrinciple of SeverabilityOmne Majus Continent in Se Minus
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Appeal, filed under Section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA), challenged an Election Tribunal's judgment that allowed an election petition and directed re-election in 37 polling stations for a Provincial Assembly seat. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the election petition due to alleged non-compliance with verification requirements under Section 55(3) ROPA read with Order VI, Rule 15, C.P.C.; the legality of allowing NADRA verification of thumb impressions under Section 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; the admissibility of the NADRA report; and crucially, the Election Tribunal's power under Sections 67 and 70 of ROPA to order a re-poll in only a part of the constituency. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the election petition was duly verified in essence. It found the NADRA report admissible and reliable, establishing over 5,000 bogus votes, which exceeded the appellant's lead. The Court affirmed that an Election Tribunal, applying the principle that 'the greater includes the less' (omne majus continent in se minus) and the principle of severability, possesses the jurisdiction to declare an election void in specific polling stations and order a re-poll there, rather than being restricted to declaring the election 'as a whole' void, especially when illegal practices materially affect the result and a partial re-poll ensures the will of the people is respected.

  Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad through L.Rs, and others vs Mst. Fazal Bibi and others-2016 SCP 61, 2016 PLD Supreme Court 872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-16
  Condonation of delayLimitationSufficient causeWrong forumMistaken advice of counselActus curiae neminem gravabitAppealsJurisdictionCivil procedureDiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses the condonation and exclusion of time spent pursuing an appeal before a wrong forum. The Supreme Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is exclusively restricted to suits and does not directly apply to appeals, as explicitly defined in Section 2(10) of the Act. However, the principles enshrined in Section 14, such as due diligence and good faith, can be considered when determining "sufficient cause" under Section 5 for condonation of delay in appeals. The Court clarified that wrong advice of counsel, inadvertence, negligence, or ignorance of law, *per se*, does not constitute sufficient cause. Instead, specific, bona fide reasons, like ambiguity in law or clerical errors in a decree, that genuinely misled the counsel must be clearly stated and proven. The principle of *actus curiae neminem gravabit* (an act of the court shall prejudice no man) does not apply to condone delay where a litigant approaches a wrong forum, even if entertained by court staff or admitted for hearing, as it would impair the vested rights of the opposing party. Higher courts will not interfere with a lower court's discretionary order of condonation unless it is exercised arbitrarily, whimsically, or perversely.

  Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs. (in C.A.2564_2001) and 7 others vs Mst. Fazal Bibi etc. (in C.A.2564_2001)and 7 others2016 SCP 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  limitationcondonation of delaysufficient causepecuniary jurisdictionwrong forumstatute of reposelegal adviceappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses whether time spent pursuing an appeal before a wrong forum due to counsel's advice can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies exclusively to suits and not appeals. However, the principles of due diligence and good faith underlying Section 14 may be considered when determining "sufficient cause" under Section 5. The Court ruled that mere mistaken advice of counsel or the pendency of an appeal before a wrong forum does not automatically constitute "sufficient cause" for condonation. Each case must be decided on its own merits, requiring the appellant to prove that they were misled by specific factors, such as ambiguities in law or clerical errors in court records. Furthermore, the Court rejected the application of the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit to cases where a litigant approaches a wrong forum, emphasizing that the court's entertainment of such an appeal does not absolve the litigant of their duty to file in the correct forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to appeals?
  • Can the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 be applied to determine 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 for condoning delay in appeals?
  • Does the entertainment of an appeal by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction protect an appellant from the bar of limitation under the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit?
  • Is the discretion exercised by lower courts in condoning delay immune from interference by higher courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad and others. Deputy Admin Evacuee Trust Property Board2015-SCP-19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evacuee trust propertyouster of jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictioncharitable trustSection 12(2) CPCrevenue recordscoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil appeals arising from a property dispute where the status of land as 'evacuee trust property' was contested. The core questions were whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the nature of the property, or if such jurisdiction was ousted by the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act 1975, and whether the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board had exclusive authority to determine if property is attached to a charitable, religious, or educational trust. The Supreme Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, as Section 14 of the Act expressly bars Civil Courts from entertaining matters determinable by the Chairman under Section 8. The Court found the property was indeed evacuee trust property based on historical revenue records. The Court established that the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board holds plenary jurisdiction to determine the status of evacuee property, and such determinations are final and immune from civil challenge. Furthermore, revenue entries designating property for charitable purposes are sufficient evidence of a religious trust without requiring a formal written deed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Civil Court have jurisdiction to determine whether a property is an evacuee trust property?
  • Is the decision of the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board regarding the status of property as a charitable or religious trust final and immune from challenge in a Civil Court?
  • Can revenue records designating property for charitable purposes serve as sufficient evidence of a religious trust in the absence of a formal trust deed?
  • Does Section 14 of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act 1975 bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters determinable by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad and others vs Rana Mumtaz Ahmad and others2016 P.S.C. 554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-13
  Evacuee Trust PropertyCivil Court jurisdictionOuster of jurisdictionSpecific performanceSection 12(2) CPCCharitable trustGaoshala
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil appeals challenging the jurisdiction of Civil Courts regarding property disputes involving the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The core legal question was whether Civil Courts possess jurisdiction to adjudicate the status of property as "Evacuee Trust Property" or whether such authority is exclusively vested in the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act 1975. The Supreme Court held that the Civil Court acted coram non judice by entertaining the suit and the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as Section 14 of the 1975 Act expressly bars Civil Court jurisdiction in matters determinable by the Chairman. The Court established that the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board is the sole competent authority to decide whether property is attached to a charitable, religious, or educational trust. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that revenue entries designating property as a "Gaoshala" are sufficient evidence of its charitable nature, precluding the need for a formal trust deed, and that such determinations by the Chairman are final and immune from Civil Court interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to determine whether a property is an Evacuee Trust Property?
  • Is the decision of the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board regarding the status of a property final and immune from challenge in a Civil Court?
  • Can a property be considered attached to a charitable trust based on revenue records without a formal trust deed?
  • Does Section 14 of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act 1975 bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters determinable by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshed Ali and others vs Abdul Hameed2016 SCMR 2055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-07
  pre-emptionright of pre-emptioncontiguityAks Shajracertified copyrevisional jurisdictionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil appeal arising from a suit for pre-emption, where the respondent/plaintiff sought to enforce a right of pre-emption based on the contiguity of his land to the property sold to the appellants/defendants. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the Appellate Court subsequently set aside this decree. Upon revision, the High Court restored the Trial Court's judgment, prompting the present appeal. The core legal question was whether the respondent had sufficiently proven his superior right of pre-emption, specifically regarding the proof of contiguity through the Aks Shajra and the alleged evasive denial of the right in the written statement. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to rebut the certified copy of the Aks Shajra (Ex.P-13) and did not challenge the superior right of pre-emption during testimony. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Revisional Court. The principle established is that a certified copy of a revenue document like an Aks Shajra is admissible, and the burden to rebut such evidence lies with the party disputing its accuracy.

  Questions settled

  • Is a certified copy of an Aks Shajra admissible in evidence without the production of the Patwari who prepared it?
  • Does a general denial in a written statement constitute an admission of a superior right of pre-emption?
  • What is the burden on a defendant seeking to rebut a certified copy of a revenue document produced by the plaintiff?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda-E-Noor vs The State2016 PLD Supreme Court 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-11
  honour killingterrorismAnti-Terrorism Courtjurisdictionmens readesign and purposecriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from orders passed by the Sessions Judge, Mastung and the High Court of Balochistan, which had transferred a murder case to an Anti-Terrorism Court on the premise that honour killing constitutes terrorism. The core legal question was whether all cases of honour killing automatically fall within the definition of "terrorism" under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thereby attracting the exclusive jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court. The Supreme Court held that an action specified under section 6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 does not constitute terrorism unless it is accompanied by the specific design or purpose (mens rea) contemplated under section 6(1)(b) or (c) of the Act. The Court ruled that a private murder committed without such statutory design or purpose is an ordinary crime and not an act of terrorism, regardless of whether it involves an honour killing. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and it was directed that the case be tried by a court of ordinary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether all cases of honour killing automatically fall within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does an action specified under section 6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 constitute terrorism without being accompanied by the design or purpose mentioned in section 6(1)(b) or (c)?
  • Does a private murder committed within a home without terrorist intent attract the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda-E-Noor vs State2016 PLD Supreme Court 195, 2016 PLJ Sc 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-11
  honour killingterrorismAnti-Terrorism Courtjurisdictionmens readesign or purposecriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from orders passed by the Sessions Judge, Mastung and the High Court of Balochistan, which had transferred a murder case to an Anti-Terrorism Court on the premise that honour killing constitutes terrorism under Section 6(2)(g) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether all cases of honour killing automatically fall within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 without establishing the requisite design or purpose under Section 6(1)(b) or (c). The Supreme Court held that an action specified in Section 6(2) cannot be termed terrorism unless it is accompanied by the specific mens rea, design, or purpose provided in Section 6(1). The Court ruled that the High Court's earlier view in Gul Muhammad v. The State was incorrect, set aside the impugned orders, and directed that the case be tried by an ordinary court of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether all cases of honour killing automatically constitute terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does an action falling under Section 6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 qualify as terrorism without the accompanying design or purpose specified in Section 6(1)?
  • Was the Sessions Judge justified in transferring a murder case involving private motives to an Anti-Terrorism Court based solely on the allegation of honour killing?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Farooq Ahmed vs Tufail Ahmad, etc.2016 SCMR 171, 2016 P.S.C. Crl. 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-08-18
  murderconversion of sentenceinjured witnessappreciation of evidencestatement of accusedself-defence pleacommon intentioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the death sentence of the respondent under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code was converted to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 302(c), and another respondent was acquitted. The core legal question revolved around the appreciation of ocular evidence, the credibility of an injured witness, the acceptance or rejection of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the determination of whether the offence fell under premeditated murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court of Pakistan partly allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in converting the conviction to Section 302(c), as the prosecution witnesses remained consistent and reliable, and the accused's self-defence plea was an afterthought. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conversion, convicted the main respondent under Section 302(b), but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment due to unestablished motive, while modifying the sentence of the co-accused. The key principle laid down is that the inculpatory part of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be used to support the prosecution's case when the prosecution evidence is reliable and the exculpatory part is proven false.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the inculpatory part of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be used in support of the prosecution's case?
  • Can the testimony of an eye-witness be discarded solely on the basis that the witness is a close relative of the deceased?
  • Whether minor discrepancies in medical evidence and time of examination are sufficient to disbelieve a natural and injured eye-witness?
  • Does the failure to establish an alleged motive automatically warrant the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Farooq Ahmed and another/Petitioner vs Tufail Ahmed and2016 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-08-18
  murderocular evidenceSection 342 statementself-defenceinculpatory statementappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that converted a death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 302(c) and acquitted a co-accused. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the validity of the accused's self-defence plea, and the proper application of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the accused's statement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in disbelieving consistent eyewitness accounts and misapplying the law regarding the accused's statement. The Court affirmed that while an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected in its entirety, the inculpatory part may be used to support the prosecution's case if the exculpatory part is proven false. Consequently, the Court restored the conviction of the primary accused under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment due to the unproven motive, while modifying the co-accused's conviction to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Can the inculpatory part of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to support the prosecution's case?
  • Does the testimony of a witness lose credibility merely because they are a close relative of the deceased?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 appropriate when the prosecution fails to establish a motive?
  • Can an appellate court reject an accused's plea of self-defence if it is not supported by any evidence and contradicts the prosecution's reliable ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Toti and others vs Govt. of NWFP through Secretary Finance and others2016 P.S.C. 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  separation of judiciarydistrict judiciary staffcivil servantsservice tribunal jurisdictionselection gradefundamental rightsequality before lawSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition questioning the legality of a Peshawar High Court judgment regarding the entitlement of certain ministerial and paralegal staff (Readers, Moharars, Examiners) attached to the District Judiciary to financial benefits and selection grades granted via government notification, and whether such staff fall under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Service Tribunal or civil courts. The core legal questions involve the constitutional separation of the judiciary from the executive, the jurisdictional competence of Service Tribunals versus civil courts regarding judicial staff, and whether the withdrawal of financial benefits constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the ministerial staff of the District Judiciary are part of the judicial organ and are not ordinary civil servants amenable to the Provincial Service Tribunal. The Court laid down that actions denying such judicial employees financial benefits extended to others similarly situated violate the equality command of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and restrained authorities from making deductions from their salaries or pensions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ministerial and paralegal staff of the District Judiciary fall within the definition of civil servants amenable to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Service Tribunal?
  • Does the withdrawal of financial benefits previously extended to judicial staff constitute unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can convert a petition into an appeal and grant relief under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in matters involving public importance and fundamental rights enforcement?
  • What is the effect of the constitutional separation of the judiciary from the executive on the administrative and financial control over the subordinate judiciary's establishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Toti and others vs Govt. of NWFP thr. Secretary Finance and others2016 P.S.C. 1048, 2016 SCMR 1206, 2016 SCP 33, 2016 NLR Civil 490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-16
  separation of judiciaryministerial staffservice tribunal jurisdictioncivil servantsdiscriminationselection gradefundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition questioning the legality of a Peshawar High Court judgment regarding service benefits and selection grades for ministerial staff (Readers, Moharars, Examiners) attached to the District Judiciary, who were denied benefits granted to other employees under a government notification. The core legal questions involve whether the ministerial staff of the District Judiciary are civil servants amenable to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Service Tribunal, and whether denying them financial benefits granted to others constitutes unconstitutional discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the judiciary stands separated from the executive under Article 175(3) of the Constitution, and subordinate judicial staff are not civil servants under the exclusive domain of the Provincial Service Tribunal. The Court ruled that denying these benefits was discriminatory and violated Article 25 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that the ministerial establishment of the subordinate judiciary falls outside the service tribunal's jurisdiction, and executive actions treating them discriminatorily violate fundamental rights under Article 25, warranting direct interference under Article 184(3).

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ministerial staff of the District Judiciary fall within the definition of civil servants amenable to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Service Tribunal?
  • Does the separation of the judiciary from the executive under Article 175(3) of the Constitution place the subordinate judiciary's staff outside the purview of provincial service tribunals?
  • Whether the withdrawal of financial benefits and selection grades from judicial staff while retaining them for others constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to grant relief against discriminatory executive actions affecting terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Toti and others vs Government of NWFP through Secretary Finance2016 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-16
  separation of judiciaryparalegal staffcivil servantsservice tribunal jurisdictionselection gradediscriminationfundamental rightspublic interest litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses a petition filed by court staff (Readers, Moharars, Examiners) of the District Judiciary against the withholding and recovery of financial benefits and selection grades granted via notifications. The core legal question was whether the paralegal staff of the District Judiciary constitute civil servants amenable to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Service Tribunal, and whether denying them financial benefits given to equivalent executive staff constitutes unconstitutional discrimination. The Court held that the judiciary stands completely separated from the executive under Article 175(3) of the Constitution and landmark jurisprudence, meaning ministerial and paralegal staff of the District Judiciary are not civil servants under the executive provincial service tribunals, and further held that recovering financial benefits previously extended to them violates the principle of equality under Article 25. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal under Article 184(3), set aside the High Court's judgment, restrained the authorities from making salary deductions, and ordered the refund of all deducted amounts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ministerial and paralegal staff of the District Judiciary fall within the definition of civil servants amenable to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Service Tribunal?
  • Does the complete separation of the judiciary from the executive under Article 175(3) of the Constitution exclude judicial establishment staff from executive service tribunals?
  • Whether withdrawal of financial benefits and allowances previously granted to court employees amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can the Supreme Court convert a petition into an appeal under Article 184(3) to grant relief against discriminatory executive actions affecting public good?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Nazir Ahmed vs Syed Shamas-ul-Abbas, etc.2016 PSC Crl. 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-22
  pre-arrest bailinvestigationrecoverymala fidescriminal procedurebail criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a case involving Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had granted bail primarily on the reasoning that since no recovery was required from the accused, pre-arrest bail could not be refused. The Supreme Court addressed the legal question of whether the absence of a recovery requirement automatically entitles an accused to pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the High Court's generalization was erroneous and militated against the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. It clarified that arrest during investigation serves purposes beyond recovery, including evidence collection and verification of circumstances. The Court disapproved of the precedent relied upon by the High Court, noting it improperly eliminated the consideration of mala fides, a prerequisite for pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits, while maintaining the respondent's ad-interim bail pending that decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a requirement for recovery from an accused person automatically entitle them to pre-arrest bail?
  • Is the arrest of an accused person during investigation limited solely to the purpose of affecting recovery?
  • Must the consideration of mala fides be addressed when deciding an application for pre-arrest bail in a non-bailable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain Magsi vs Mir Abdul Rahim Rind and others2016 PLJ SC 575, 2016 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-02
  election petitionverification on oathNADRA biometric verificationriggingreturned candidatevoid electionvoting patternForm XVI
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Election Tribunal whereby an election petition challenging the election of the returned candidate from National Assembly constituency NA-267 Kachi-cum-Jhal Magsi was allowed and a fresh election was ordered. The appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the election petition for lack of proper verification on oath under Section 63 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976. The Supreme Court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that the endorsement and stamp of the oath commissioner sufficiently demonstrated proper verification. Upon examining the merits, the Court analyzed the consolidated results from Form XVI and the NADRA biometric verification report, which cast doubt on thousands of votes exceeding the winning margin, alongside highly abnormal voting patterns across specific polling stations. The Court held that the election was not conducted fairly and upheld the decision to declare the election void as a whole under Section 70(b) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976. The key principle laid down is that glaring statistical anomalies in polling data, coupled with substantial NADRA verification discrepancies exceeding the winning margin, provide sufficient grounds to invalidate an election for lack of fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an election petition is liable to be dismissed for want of proper verification on oath where the oath commissioner's stamp and endorsement appear on the memo of petition?
  • Can unusual voting patterns and statistical anomalies in Form XVI data serve as a basis for declaring an election void?
  • Whether biometric verification reports from NADRA casting doubt on votes exceeding the winning margin justify setting aside an election?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Ali vs The Judge, Anti-Terrorism, Court No. II, Lahore and others2016 PLJ SC 785, 2016 PLD Supreme Court 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-15
  Anti-Terrorism ActJurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism CourtInterpretation of "design"Section 6 ATA, 1997Transfer of casePersonal enmityTerrorismFIRSupplementary statementTarget killing
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that allowed a writ petition, setting aside an Anti-Terrorism Court's order dismissing an application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The application sought to transfer a murder case, involving Sections 302/324/34 PPC read with Section 7 of the Act, to an ordinary criminal court. The core legal question was the interpretation of "design" in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and whether an act motivated by personal enmity could still fall within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court if it was designed to create fear or insecurity in society. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the High Court's judgment, transferring the criminal case back to the Anti-Terrorism Court. The Court held that "design" in Section 6 has a wider scope than "intention" or "motive," meaning a pre-conceived plan. Personal enmity does not exclude a case from Section 6 if the act, by its nature and circumstances (e.g., pre-planned target killing of an election candidate on polling eve in a public place), was designed to create fear or insecurity, or if such an effect was an inevitable consequence. Supplementary statements contradicting the FIR, recorded much later, have little legal value.

  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Ali vs Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No. II, Lahore and otherss2016 PLJ SC 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-15
  Anti-terrorism jurisdictionpersonal enmityterrorism definitionstatutory interpretationelection violencecriminal proceduredesign
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that transferred a criminal case from an Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary criminal court. The core legal question was whether an offence, specifically the murder of a political candidate on the eve of an election, falls under the definition of "terrorism" under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, when personal enmity is also alleged. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in its interpretation. The Court ruled that the term "design" in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, shifts the focus from the accused's motive or intent to the objective effect of the act. Consequently, if an act is planned to create fear, panic, or a sense of insecurity in society, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court, regardless of whether a personal vendetta exists. The Court emphasized that the surrounding circumstances, such as the timing and nature of the violence, are critical in determining jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of personal enmity exclude an offence from the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What is the significance of the term 'design' in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, regarding the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Courts?
  • Can a supplementary statement recorded long after an FIR be used to determine the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Does the murder of a political candidate on the eve of an election constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Kareem Nawaz Khan vs The State through Pop and another2016 P.S.C. 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-06-01
  anti-terrorismcompromiseqatl-i-amdnon-compoundable offencecriminal petitionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition, which had challenged an Anti-Terrorism Court order maintaining his conviction and sentence under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 despite a post-conviction compromise between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner had been convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and his convictions had attained finality up to the Supreme Court. Subsequently, he sought acquittal based on a compromise under Section 338-E of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether compounding an offence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 ipso facto dilutes or affects a conviction under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 when the conviction has already attained finality. The Supreme Court held that offences under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 are independent and non-compoundable, and a subsequent compromise on murder charges does not impact or set aside the independent conviction and sentence under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether compounding an offence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 with the legal heirs of the deceased ipso facto dilutes the effect of a conviction under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Does a subsequent compromise after a conviction has attained finality up to the Supreme Court have any bearing on a non-compoundable sentence under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Are offences under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 independent of compoundable sentences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Kareem Nawaz Khan vs The State through PGP and another2016 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-06-01
  Anti-Terrorism Act 1997CompromiseQatl-i-AmdNon-compoundable offencesFinality of judgmentCriminal appealIndependent conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition, which challenged the refusal to set aside his conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 following a compromise with the victims' legal heirs. The petitioner had been convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Sections 7(a) and 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, with the conviction attaining finality up to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether a compromise in a compoundable offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 ipso facto dilutes or invalidates a conviction under the non-compoundable provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The Supreme Court held that the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 remains valid and independent. The Court affirmed that offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 are non-compoundable and independent of other charges. Consequently, a compromise regarding a compoundable offence does not affect the finality of a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and the trial court's refusal to set aside the anti-terrorism conviction was legally correct.

  Questions settled

  • Does a compromise regarding a compoundable offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically invalidate a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Are convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 independent of convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction that has attained finality up to the Supreme Court be set aside based on a subsequent compromise with legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Kareem Nawaz Khan vs State through PGP & another2016 P SC 516, 2016 SCMR 291, 2016 PLJ SC 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-06-01
  anti-terrorismcompromiseqatl-i-amdcompoundable offencesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed against an Anti-Terrorism Court order. The petitioner, convicted of qatl-i-amd under Section 302 PPC and under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, sought acquittal based on a post-conviction compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased after his convictions had attained finality up to the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether compounding an offense under Section 302 PPC ipso facto dilutes or nullifies a conviction under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 once it has attained finality. The Supreme Court held that offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act are independent and non-compoundable, and a subsequent compromise regarding compoundable PPC offences has no bearing on a final conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The key principle laid down is that the statutory bar against compounding non-compoundable offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act remains intact despite a compromise and acquittal regarding concurrent murder convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code.

  Questions settled

  • Does compounding an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code dilute the effect of a conviction under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can a subsequent compromise with the legal heirs of a deceased affect a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act that has already attained finality up to the Supreme Court?
  • Are offences under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 independent and non-compoundable despite a compromise on other sentences?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan alias Dana vs State, etc.2016 PLJ Sc 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-08-19
  surrender to imprisonmentmaintainabilitysuspension of sentenceSupreme Court Rulesabsconding convictnarcotics control
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the dismissal of an application for suspension of sentence by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner had been convicted under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and had absconded upon the announcement of the judgment, resulting in perpetual non-bailable warrants of arrest. The core legal question was whether a criminal petition seeking leave to appeal against a conviction and sentence is entertainable by the Supreme Court when the petitioner has failed to surrender to the outstanding order of imprisonment pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The Supreme Court held that surrender to an order of imprisonment is a strict condition precedent for the entertainment of a criminal petition involving imprisonment under Order XXIII Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The Court laid down the principle that a convict must surrender to custody in compliance with the judicial order of imprisonment before seeking relief from the Supreme Court, and surrendering merely before a higher court without undergoing imprisonment does not satisfy this mandatory requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Is surrender to an order of imprisonment a condition precedent for the entertainment of a criminal petition under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
  • Can a criminal petition involving an order of imprisonment be entertained when the petitioner has absconded and failed to surrender?
  • Does surrendering before a higher court without actual imprisonment satisfy the requirement of surrender under Order XXIII Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Dock Labour Board vs M/s. Quality Builders Ltd.2016 P.S.C. 657 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-10-02
  arbitration awardsole arbitratorrule of courtjurisdictionwaiveracquiescenceappointment of arbitrator
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the validity of an arbitration award made by a sole arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the respondent. The appellant contended that the appointment was made in violation of the Arbitration Act 1940, as the arbitration clause did not provide for two arbitrators, thereby ousting the application of Section 9 and requiring recourse to Section 8 or Section 20 of the Act. The respondent argued that the appellant had waived its jurisdictional objections by not participating in the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that where an arbitration agreement does not specify the number of arbitrators, Section 3 read with Paragraph 1 of the First Schedule of the Act implies a reference to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by mutual consent. Consequently, Section 9(b) was inapplicable, and the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator was invalid. The Court further ruled that an inherent defect in jurisdiction cannot be cured by waiver or acquiescence, and the Court is duty-bound to examine the validity of an award before making it a rule of the court. The appeal was allowed, and the award was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 8 or Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1940 applies when an arbitration clause is silent on the number of arbitrators and the manner of their appointment?
  • Can a party unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1940 if the arbitration agreement does not expressly provide for two arbitrators?
  • Does a party's failure to participate in arbitration proceedings under protest constitute a waiver of its right to challenge the arbitrator's inherent lack of jurisdiction?
  • Is the Court duty-bound to independently examine the validity and legality of an arbitration award before making it a rule of the Court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Dock Labour Board vs Mis. Quality Builders Ltd.2016 NLR Civil 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-10-02Read full judgment →
• Justice Raja Jilal-ud-Din, Chief Judge, Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit2016 P.S.C. 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  original jurisdictionpublic importancejudicial independencefundamental rightsservice tenureGilgit-Baltistan judiciarymaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated Constitution Petitions filed by the Chief Judge and a Judge of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan, invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The petitioners challenged the tenure provisions stipulated in Article 60(8) of the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, arguing that the fixed term of office, subject to government discretion for extension, undermines judicial independence and violates fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether this challenge constituted a matter of public importance involving the enforcement of fundamental rights sufficient to invoke the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable. It reasoned that the grievance pertained to the personal service conditions of the petitioners rather than a matter of public importance affecting the community at large. The Court affirmed that Article 184(3) jurisdiction is reserved for issues of public importance involving the violation of fundamental rights, and personal service disputes do not satisfy this threshold. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute regarding the service tenure of a judge constitute a question of public importance under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the Supreme Court of Pakistan exercise original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) where no fundamental right of the public at large is infringed?
  • Is the tenure of a judge of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan governed by the Constitution of Pakistan or the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009?
  Read full judgment →
• Justice Raja Jilal-Ud-Din and another vs Federation of Pakistan2016 PLD Supreme Court 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-26
  original jurisdictionpublic importancefundamental rightsindependence of judiciaryGilgit-Baltistanservice tenureSupreme Appellate Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two consolidated constitution petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan by the sitting Chief Judge and a Judge of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan, challenging the three-year tenure provision contained in Article 60(8) of the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance Order, 2009) as being ultra vires the Constitution and violative of the independence of the judiciary. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court of Pakistan can exercise its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to review the service tenure of judges of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan on the ground that it involves a question of public importance relating to the enforcement of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the grievance pertained to the personal terms of office of two individuals rather than a question of public importance affecting the public at large, and that no infraction of any fundamental right was established to warrant the invocation of original jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) requires a genuine question of public importance concerning the community at large alongside the enforcement of fundamental rights, and cannot be invoked to redress individual service grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court of Pakistan can exercise original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to challenge the tenure of judges appointed under the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance Order, 2009)?
  • Does a challenge to the service tenure of specific judges constitute a question of public importance under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  • What are the prerequisites for invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  • Are the service security and removal procedures for judges of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan comparable to those of superior courts in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Justice Raja Jilal-Ltd-Din, Chief Judge Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit2016 PLD Supreme Court 269, 2016 P.S.C. 545, 2016-SCP-49, PLJ 2016 SC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-26
  original jurisdictionpublic importancefundamental rightsindependence of judiciaryGilgit-Baltistan judiciarytenure of judgesSupreme Appellate Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved two consolidated Constitution Petitions filed by the Chief Judge and a Judge of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the tenure provisions of Article 60(8) of the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance Order, 2009). The petitioners argued that fixed three-year tenures dependent on the Government's discretion violate the independence of the judiciary and fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether the service tenure of judges of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan raises a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights warranting the invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 184(3). The Supreme Court held that the grievances related to the personal service terms of individual office-holders rather than a question of public importance affecting the public at large, and that no infraction of fundamental rights was established. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a challenge to the service tenure of judges of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan raise a question of public importance under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  • Can the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) be invoked for the redressal of personal grievances regarding the terms of office of individual judges?
  • Whether the tenure provisions for judges under Article 60(8) of the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance Order, 2009) violate the fundamental right to an independent judiciary?
  Read full judgment →
• Jubilee General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ravi Steel Company2016 CLD 2003, 2016 SCMR 1979, K.L.R. 2016 S.0 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-06-29
  limitation periodcertified copyinsurance tribunaltime-barred appealexclusion of timespecial law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges a High Court judgment dismissing an appeal as time-barred. The core legal question is whether the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of an Insurance Tribunal's decision can be excluded under Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act 1908 when filing an appeal under Section 124(2) of the Insurance Ordinance 2000, given that the Ordinance does not mandate the filing of a certified copy. The Supreme Court held that since the Insurance Ordinance 2000 does not require a certified copy to be filed with the appeal, the petitioner could not rely on Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act 1908 to extend the limitation period after having already filed an appeal using an uncertified copy. The Court affirmed that the limitation period commenced from the date the petitioner received the Tribunal's decision. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of excluding the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy under Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act 1908 is unavailable where the special law governing the appeal does not mandate the filing of such a certified copy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for an appeal under Section 124(2) of the Insurance Ordinance 2000 commence from the date of the Tribunal's decision?
  • Is the time taken to obtain a certified copy of an order excludable under Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act 1908 if the governing statute does not require the filing of a certified copy?
  • Can a party rely on Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act 1908 to extend the limitation period after having already filed an appeal using an uncertified copy?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal, etc (in Crl.a-24/2010) Khizar Hayat, etc (in Crl.a-25/2010) vs2015-SCP-55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -
  anti-terrorismbenefit of doubtcross firingcommon intentionmurdercriminal appealpolice encounterblasphemy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of twenty-seven accused persons tried by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, for offenses including murder, rioting, use of firearms, and blasphemy-related charges under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, following an armed procession proclaiming one of the accused as 'Imam Mehdi'. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the attribution of fatal firearm injuries and specific acts to the accused in the backdrop of cross-firing involving the police, whether general convictions under anti-terrorism laws were sustainable without specific evidence, and the applicability of procedural bars. The Supreme Court of Pakistan partly allowed the appeals, holding that the prosecution failed to prove individual liability, specific terror offenses, and murder charges against the co-accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given evidence of police firing and material contradictions. The Court set aside the murder and anti-terrorism convictions for the co-accused, extending the benefit of the doubt, while upholding convictions under certain other provisions based on admissions, thereby laying down principles regarding the standard of proof in cross-firing incidents and the evaluation of collective liability in large-scale public disturbances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the bar contained in section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to proceedings before an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can multiple accused persons be convicted under section 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when evidence indicates a cross-firing incident involving police and the specific attribution of the fatal shot is doubtful?
  • Does the absence of independent corroborative evidence and unexplained delay in sending crime empties to the forensic laboratory entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Whether convictions under sections 7 and 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 can be sustained upon general and vague allegations without proof of specific terrorist intent.
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal and others vs The State2016 SCMR 787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-22
  benefit of doubtanti-terrorismcommon intentionpolice firingcriminal appealmurderblasphemy charges
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves criminal appeals arising from an incident where a large procession was taken out by several persons proclaiming one Shahbaz Ahmed as 'Imam Mehdi', leading to a confrontation with the police, firing, and the death of one person along with injuries to others. The core legal questions centered on whether the fatal and firearm injuries resulted from police firing rather than the accused, whether common intention could be attributed to all 27 accused for the various offences, and the validity of their convictions under anti-terrorism and penal laws. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the case of the self-proclaimed Imam Mehdi, Shahbaz Ahmed, was distinguishable, but for the remaining appellants, the prosecution failed to conclusively establish individual culpability for murder and specific anti-terrorism charges amidst mutual cross-firing and flawed investigations. Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of the doubt, partly allowing the appeals by setting aside convictions under sections 302(b), 324, 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sections 7(a) and 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for the co-accused, while upholding their convictions under other charges based on their own admissions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar against taking cognizance under section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to proceedings before Anti-Terrorism Courts under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can a mass conviction for murder and terrorist acts be sustained when evidence indicates mutual cross-firing by police and demonstrators and the specific attribution of fatal injuries is lacking?
  • Whether the benefit of the doubt should be extended to co-accused when the prosecution fails to rule out that casualties resulted from police action?
  • Does an admission made under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding specific penal provisions suffice to sustain convictions under those charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Javaid Akbar vs Muhammad Amjad and Jameel @ Jeela and another2016 P.S.C. 359, 2016 P.S.C. Crl. 359, 2016 SCMR 1241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-18
  murderacquittalocular accountmedical evidenceinterested witnessesdelayed FIRsafe administration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the acquittal of two respondents by the Lahore High Court, who were previously sentenced to death for murder under Section 302 PPC. The prosecution alleged that the respondents intercepted the deceased on a motorcycle and opened fire with rifles, resulting in two deaths. The Supreme Court, upon reappraisal of the evidence, upheld the acquittal. The Court observed that the eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased and their presence at the crime scene was doubtful due to their residence in far-flung areas and lack of documentary proof for their travel. Furthermore, their conduct was deemed unnatural as they failed to transport the injured to the hospital despite having a vehicle. Significant contradictions between ocular account and medical evidence, material improvements in trial statements, and a delay in post-mortem examination suggesting deliberated FIR registration further weakened the case. The Court reaffirmed the principle that it will not interfere in an acquittal unless the judgment is perverse, shocking, or based on a complete misreading of evidence.

  Read full judgment →
• JavaId Akbar vs Muhammad Amjad & Jameel and another2016 P.S.C. 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-18
  criminal appealacquittalre-appraisal of evidenceinterested witnessocular accountmedical evidenceFIR delaymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal, based on a re-appraisal of evidence, warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court’s judgment was sound and free from misreading of evidence. The Court found the prosecution's eye-witnesses unreliable due to their status as interested and inimical witnesses, their unexplained absence from the scene, and material improvements made during trial. Furthermore, the Court noted that the ocular account contradicted the medical evidence, and the FIR appeared to be the result of consultation and deliberation rather than a prompt report. The key principle laid down is that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must not interfere if the acquittal is a reasonably possible conclusion. Interference is only justified in exceptional cases where the acquittal is artificial, shocking, or based on a conclusion that no reasonable person could conceivably reach, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment in a criminal appeal?
  • Is the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular account and medical evidence justify the rejection of eye-witness testimony?
  • What is the effect of material improvements in the statements of eye-witnesses during trial on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• JavaId Akbar vs Muhammad Amjad & Jameel @ Jeela and another2016 P.S.C. Crl. 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-18
  appeal against acquittalre-appraisal of evidencemurdereye-witness credibilitymedical contradictioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents of murder charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court's acquittal of the respondents was based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence warranting interference by the Supreme Court in an appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's judgment was reasonably possible, well-reasoned, and free from any egregious error or misreading of evidence. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with a judgment of acquittal unless the conclusion reached by the acquitting court is impossible, artificial, shocking, or one that no reasonable person could conceivably reach, particularly given the high threshold for disturbing an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Whether contradictions between ocular account and medical evidence justify the rejection of eye-witness testimony?
  • Does the failure to produce independent corroboration affect the reliability of interested witnesses in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →