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.

• NEWMazhar Ali Versus State2025 SCMR 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-24
  post-arrest bailabscondenceidentification paradeevidentiary valueacquittal of co-accuseddelay in FIRcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case involving charges under Sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought to set aside the High Court's order denying him bail in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps, the acquittal of co-accused facing identical allegations, and the petitioner's long-term abscondence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the FIR was delayed without sufficient explanation, the alleged eye-witnesses were not mentioned in the initial report despite being present, and the identification parade's sanctity was questionable given the petitioner's prior nomination. Crucially, the Court observed that the co-accused, facing the same evidence, had already been acquitted by the trial court. The Court reaffirmed the principle that mere abscondence, while a relevant factor, does not automatically disentitle an accused to bail if the case otherwise merits relief on its merits, particularly when the prosecution evidence has already been disbelieved against co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence entitle the remaining accused to bail?
  • Is mere abscondence of an accused sufficient ground to refuse post-arrest bail?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted after the accused has already been nominated in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMuslim Commercial Bank Limited Versus Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal through Chairman, Lahore2025 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-07
  trans-provincial establishmentjurisdictionIndustrial Relations ActNational Industrial Relations Commissioncoram non judiceprocedural lawretrospective operationchange of forum
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a service dispute concerning the dismissal of a bank cashier for misconduct, which led to protracted litigation spanning the Punjab Labour Court, Lahore High Court, and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question centered on whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal retained jurisdiction to decide an appeal concerning a trans-provincial establishment after the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction over such matters to the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that a change in the forum of appeal constitutes a procedural law operating retrospectively, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of provincial labour forums over trans-provincial entities. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Appellate Tribunal's order was rendered coram non judice and a nullity in the absence of jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that while substantive rights like the right of appeal remain unaffected by procedural changes, a change in the forum of appeal is purely procedural, operates retrospectively, and renders decisions by former fora without jurisdiction void.

  Questions settled

  • Does a change in the forum of appeal operate retrospectively as a matter of procedural law?
  • Whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain appeals concerning trans-provincial establishments after the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • What is the legal effect of an order passed by a court or tribunal acting without territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission exercise exclusive jurisdiction over trans-provincial industrial and commercial establishments under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWAbid Shahid Zuberi Versus Federation of Pakistan2025 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-17Read full judgment →
• NEWChaudhary Ghulam Hussain Versus Saudi Pak Commercial Bank Limited, Lahore2025 SCMR 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
• NEWAbdul Hayee and Abdullah alias Ghazali Versus State2025 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-21
  criminal appealchance witnessidentification paradebenefit of doubtSection 342 statementterrorismacquittalFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences imposed on the petitioners for the murder of eight police officials and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the subsequent identification of the petitioners relied on questionable evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The Court found that the FIR was registered with a fabricated time to suggest promptness, the eye-witnesses were "chance witnesses" who failed to provide a credible explanation for their presence at the crime scene, and the identification parades were procedurally flawed, particularly due to the joint identification of accused without specific roles attributed. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that recoveries not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used as evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the petitioners, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove the motive and the case beyond a shadow of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence, such as recoveries, to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render that evidence inadmissible?
  • Is an identification parade conducted jointly for multiple accused without attributing specific roles to each valid in the eyes of the law?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the FIR is found to have been registered with a fabricated time to create an impression of promptness?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWPakistan Tehreek-I-Insaf, through authorized person Versus Election Commission of Pakistan, through Special Secretary, Islamabad Nemo , Syed Ahmed Hassan Shah2025 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• NEWMuslim Commercial Bank Limited Versus The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore2025 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-24
  industrial relationsredress of individual grievancelimitationdelay in filing grievance petitiongrievance noticedismissal from servicereinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a 2016 Lahore High Court judgment that had reinstated a bank employee who was dismissed from service in 1976. The core legal question was whether a grievance notice and subsequent grievance petition filed after a lapse of 22 years from the date of dismissal were barred by limitation under Section 25-A of the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court held that the employee remained in deep slumber and that the grievance notice and petition were hopelessly time-barred, as a belated response from management cannot extend the statutory period of limitation. The ratio decidendi is that labour laws mandate strict compliance with timelines for redress of individual grievances, and courts are duty-bound to examine the question of limitation even if not raised by the opponent. The Court laid down that the law aids the vigilant and not the indolent, and that repeated grievance notices or employer replies do not extend limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a belated reply by an employer to a time-barred grievance notice extend the limitation period for filing a grievance petition?
  • Is it mandatory for a Labour Court to examine the question of limitation in a grievance petition even if the employer does not raise it as an objection?
  • Can a worker initiate legal action for the redress of an individual grievance after a lapse of twenty-two years from the date of dismissal without seeking condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWInter Quest Informatics Services Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax2025 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
• NEWThe Executive Director (P&GS) State Life, Principal Office Karachi Versus Muhammad Nisar, Area Manager, State Life Corporation of Pakistan, Peshawar Zone, Peshawar2025 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-16Read full judgment →
• NEWGovernment of Punjab through Secretary Irrigation and Power Versus Kunjah Textile Mills Ltd2025 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-08Read full judgment →
• NEWTassawar Hussain Versus The Regional Police Officer, Multan2025 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• NEWTaj Wali Khan Versus Hukam Khan2025 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
• NEWAyaz Versus Mustafa Saeed2025 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-07
  Sindh Public Service Commissionrecruitment processage relaxationre-advertisementdiscretionary powersproportionalitymeritocracyadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil Petitions for leave to appeal were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a High Court judgment declaring a recruitment process conducted by the Sindh Public Service Commission ('SPSC') for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests (BPS-17) null and void. SPSC had initially advertised two urban seats, but later issued an addendum bifurcating the quota into urban and rural, increasing vacancies from two to seven, extending deadlines without formal re-advertisement, failing to publicly display candidate marks, and granting a blanket upper age relaxation of up to 15 years under departmental notifications. The core legal questions pertained to the legality of altering advertisement terms mid-stream without re-advertising, non-transparency in SPSC selection processes, and the validity of excessive, unbridled executive age relaxation. Dismissing the petitions and upholding the High Court's direction to re-advertise afresh, the Supreme Court held that altering quotas and adding vacancies without re-advertisement violates recruitment regulations and fairness. Furthermore, it struck down the 15-year age relaxation notification, holding that administrative discretion must satisfy reasonableness, proportionality, and non-arbitrariness.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public service commission increase the number of advertised vacancies or alter quota distribution without issuing a fresh advertisement for the general public?
  • Can an extension of the application deadline be legally valid if it is made by an internal addendum rather than public re-advertisement?
  • Is a blanket executive notification granting an upper age relaxation of up to fifteen years legally sustainable under the doctrine of proportionality and reasonable administrative discretion?
  • Are selection commissions required to publicly display the marks obtained in written tests and viva voce interviews instead of merely publishing roll numbers?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWAmjad Ali Versus Anwar Shah2025 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-21Read full judgment →
• NEWBashir Ahmed Anjum Versus Province of Punjab through Chief Minister Punjab, Lahore2025 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-04
  proforma promotioncivil servantstatutory interpretationservice tribunaljudicial errorremandretirement benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim based on an incorrect version of Section 8(5) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, as published in certain law textbooks. The core legal question was whether a retired civil servant is eligible for proforma promotion, given the conflicting and erroneous statutory text relied upon by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s decision was based on a misinterpretation of the law caused by reliance on an incorrect, unofficial publication of the statute. The Court clarified that, under the correct version of Section 8(5) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, while a retired civil servant is ineligible for regular promotion, they may be considered for proforma promotion. The Court reaffirmed the legal maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit,' establishing the principle that no individual should suffer due to a court's mistake or procedural error, and that judicial bodies must ensure decisions are based on accurate, official statutory texts to prevent injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a retired civil servant eligible for the grant of proforma promotion under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Does the legal maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' require a court to remedy an injustice caused by its own reliance on an incorrect version of a statute?
  • What is the definition of 'proforma promotion' for a civil servant under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWDr. Khalid Iqbal Talpur Versus Province of Sindh2025 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
• NEWMuhammad Ramzan Versus Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore2025 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-16Read full judgment →
• NEWChairman/Dean Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore Versus Amjad Mehmood Khan2025 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• NEWNational Bank of Pakistan through President, Karachi Versus Roz-Ud-Din2025 SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12
  dismissal from servicedisciplinary proceedingsproportionality of punishmentdiscriminationequality before lawbank employeereduction in rank
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed by the National Bank of Pakistan against a High Court judgment that modified the disciplinary punishment awarded to the respondent, an Officer Grade-II, from dismissal from service to down-gradation by one step in his pay scale. The core legal issues concerned whether the respondent was subjected to discriminatory treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution when similarly placed co-accused employees facing identical allegations regarding ATM cash irregularities received lesser penalties, and whether the major penalty of dismissal was disproportionate where the respondent was not charged with fraud, corruption, or misappropriation, and the main culprit had confessed to full liability. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's modification. It held that the authority's disciplinary discretion must ensure punishment commensurates with the magnitude of guilt, and similarly placed employees cannot be treated arbitrarily or discriminately without justification.

  Questions settled

  • Does awarding a major penalty of dismissal to one employee while awarding lesser penalties to similarly placed co-employees facing identical charges violate Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can the major penalty of dismissal from service be sustained where no charge of fraud, embezzlement, or corruption is proven and the principal accused admits sole responsibility for the loss?
  • Must disciplinary authorities ensure that penalties awarded to employees strictly commensurate with the magnitude of the established guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSecretary, Ministry of Finance, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan Versus Muhammad Anwar2025 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-12
  civil servantproforma promotionservice tribunal jurisdictionfitness for promotioncompetent authoritysuperannuationterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal by the Ministry of Finance against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that declared a retired civil servant 'qualified for promotion' and directed the authority to consider him for proforma promotion. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to declare a civil servant 'qualified' for promotion, thereby substituting its own evaluation of fitness for that of the designated competent authority. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. While the Tribunal may review service terms and conditions, it cannot determine fitness or suitability for promotion, which remains the exclusive domain of the competent authority under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Court set aside the declaration of qualification but upheld the direction to consider the respondent for proforma promotion. The principle laid down is that promotion is not a vested right, and fitness for promotion involves subjective evaluation based on objective criteria that courts or tribunals cannot substitute. Statutory forums must follow prescribed procedures, and tribunals cannot bypass these by declaring a civil servant 'qualified' for promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to declare a civil servant 'qualified' for promotion?
  • Is the determination of fitness for promotion within the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent authority?
  • Can a Service Tribunal substitute its opinion for that of the competent authority regarding a civil servant's promotion?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to be considered for promotion after retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWAhmad Sikander Versus Commissioner Inland Revenue, Aeoi Zone, Lahore2025 SCMR 140 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NEWProvince of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore Versus Qasim Mehmood2025 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-09
  regularization of servicecontract employeesbeneficial legislationcivil servicescrutiny committeepublic employmentequal protection of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenged a High Court judgment directing the consideration of respondents—former District Teacher Educators—for regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018. The core legal question concerned whether these employees, whose program was discontinued, were entitled to regularization benefits despite the government's contention that they were project-based or already regularized. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly directed the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for a factual determination of the respondents' status and eligibility. The Court emphasized that beneficial legislation must be implemented across the board without discrimination, ensuring equal treatment for employees in similar circumstances. It established that the Scrutiny Committee, rather than summary dismissal by the executive, is the appropriate forum to verify credentials and determine if an employee qualifies for regularization under the Act. The judgment reaffirms the state's constitutional obligation to ensure equitable adjustment of rights and the fair application of beneficial statutes, preventing arbitrary exclusion from employment protections.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, mandate the non-discriminatory consideration of contract employees for regularization?
  • Is the Scrutiny Committee the appropriate forum to determine the eligibility of contract employees for regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018?
  • Can the government summarily deny the benefits of the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, to contract employees without a proper verification of their status by the Scrutiny Committee?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMuhammad Hassanullah (Omg/B-18), Acting Additional Secretary, Health Department, Balochistan Versus Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Quetta2025 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-13
  service tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of serviceouster of jurisdictionArticle 212civil servanttransfer and posting
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a challenge by civil servants against a government notification regarding the posting of an Additional Secretary. The respondents filed a constitutional petition in the High Court, despite having already invoked the jurisdiction of the Balochistan Service Tribunal regarding the same subject matter. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, given the constitutional bar imposed by Article 212. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction, as Article 212 provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of administrative tribunals over matters relating to the terms and conditions of service. The Court established that the non obstante clause in Article 212 ousts the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199, even where allegations of mala fide or violations of fundamental rights are raised. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, affirming that grievances concerning the terms and conditions of service, including postings and transfers, must be adjudicated exclusively by the relevant Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Can a civil servant bypass the Service Tribunal by invoking the High Court's jurisdiction on grounds of violation of fundamental rights?
  • Do questions regarding the transfer and posting of a civil servant fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 apply even if an order is alleged to be mala fide or passed without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWNaeem Sajid Versus State2025 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-17
  post-arrest bailQatl-i-Amdrule of consistencyprohibitory clausetentative assessmentcriminal procedurebail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail in a case of Qatl-i-Amd, where the petitioners were accused of murdering the complainant's father. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail, particularly in light of the rule of consistency and the existence of a cross-version. The Supreme Court, in this dissenting opinion, held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail. The Court observed that the petitioners were expressly nominated in the FIR with specific roles attributed to them, and the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case. The Court held that the rule of consistency is only applicable when the case of the accused is at par with a co-accused who has already been granted bail, which was not established here. Furthermore, the Court determined that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and no grounds for further inquiry existed. The principle laid down is that at the bail stage, the Court must tentatively assess evidence without conducting a deeper appreciation of merits, and bail should be refused where prima facie evidence connects the accused to a serious offence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the rule of consistency in bail matters applicable when the role of the accused is not identical to that of a co-accused who has been granted bail?
  • Does an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the scope of the Court's assessment of evidence at the bail stage?
  • Under what specific grounds can post-arrest bail be granted for offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWAdditional Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate of Appraisement (West), Custom House, Karachi Versus K. S. Sulemanji Esmailji and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. Karachi2025 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-18Read full judgment →
• NEWMohsin Raza Gondal Versus Sardar Mahmood2025 SCMR 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-13
  civil service regularizationcontractual appointmentFPSC jurisdictionCabinet Sub-Committeevoid ab initiopast and closed transactionrecruitment rulesmerit-based appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions challenging an Islamabad High Court judgment that set aside the regularization of various civil servants in the Bureau of Emigration and Overseas Employment (BE&OE). The core legal question was whether the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Regularization possessed the lawful authority to regularize contract employees in Basic Pay Scales (BS) 16 and above, bypassing the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the regularization of contractual employees constitutes a fresh appointment, which must strictly adhere to the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The Court ruled that the Cabinet Sub-Committee lacked the legal mandate to regularize appointments in BS-16 and above, as such appointments fall under the exclusive purview of the FPSC. The Court emphasized that executive authority, including that of the Cabinet, must be exercised within the limits of the Constitution and statutory law. Consequently, the Court affirmed that appointments made in violation of recruitment rules are void ab initio and cannot be protected under the doctrine of past and closed transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Regularization have the legal authority to regularize contract employees in BS-16 and above?
  • Is the regularization of a contractual employee considered a fresh appointment in the civil service?
  • Can an appointment made in violation of statutory recruitment rules be protected under the doctrine of past and closed transactions?
  • Are appointments to posts in BS-16 and above subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Public Service Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWZulfiqar Ali Versus State2025 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  embezzlementquantum of sentencereduction of sentencebreach of trustrestitutionjudicial discretioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Utility Stores Corporation, challenged his conviction and sentence for embezzlement under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. Following his conviction by the Trial Court and the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court, the petitioner sought a reduction in sentence, citing the restitution of the embezzled funds and personal hardship regarding his ailing wife. The core legal question was whether the Court could exercise its discretion to reduce the quantum of sentence despite the petitioner's conviction for breach of trust. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction was justified, the Court possesses the discretion to ensure complete justice based on the specific facts of a case. Given that the financial loss to the exchequer was repaired and the petitioner had served a significant portion of his sentence, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentences to the period already undergone and significantly mitigated the fines imposed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court exercise discretion to reduce a sentence where the embezzled amount has been fully deposited by the convict?
  • Does the deposit of embezzled funds and a plea of no-contest entitle a convict to a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone?
  • Is a court empowered to reduce the quantum of fine imposed under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWThe Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone, Large Taxpayers Office, Lahore Versus Mayfair Spinning Mills Ltd.2025 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NEWCommissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore Versus Eagle Cables (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore2025 PTD 635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-16Read full judgment →
• NEWCommissioner Inland Revenue, Corporate Zone, Rto Peshawar Versus Flying Kraft Paper Mills (Pvt.) Limited, Charsadda2025 PTD 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
• NEWBashir Ahmad Versus Director, Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs), FBR, Peshawar2025 PTD 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• NEWCommissioner Inland Revenue, (Special Zone for Builders and Developers) Regional Tax Office, Islamabad Versus Khudadad Heights, Islamabad2025 PTD 582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• NEWChawala Footwear, Lahore Versus Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore2025 PTD 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-14Read full judgment →
• NEWAdditional Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate of Appraisement (West), Custom House, Karachi Versus K.S. Sulemanji Esmailji and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. Karachi2025 PTD 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-18Read full judgment →
• NEWAhmad Sikander Versus Commissioner Inland Revenue, Aeoi Zone, Lahore2025 PTD 231 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NEWThe Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone, Large Taxpayers Office, Lahore Versus Mayfair Spinning Mills Ltd.2025 PTD 180 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NEWChairman, National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB, Islamabad Versus Adeel Ahmed2026 PLD 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-07-24
  Federal Constitutional Courtappellate jurisdictionNational Accountability Ordinancepost-arrest bailancillary jurisdictionconstitutional amendmentjurisdictional transferharmonious construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the jurisdictional competence of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to entertain criminal petitions for leave to appeal and bail applications in cases arising under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, following the enactment of the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025, and the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2026. The core legal question is whether the Supreme Court retains appellate and ancillary jurisdiction in NAB matters, or if such jurisdiction now vests exclusively in the newly established Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate these matters. The ratio decidendi is that the Constitution and the amended National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, have effectively transferred appellate jurisdiction to the FCC. Consequently, all pending petitions and appeals stand transferred to the FCC by operation of law. The Court affirmed that jurisdiction is not inherent but must be affirmatively conferred by the Constitution or statute; that appellate jurisdiction inherently includes ancillary powers like bail; and that the doctrine of harmonious construction precludes overlapping jurisdiction between apex courts. The Court emphasized that it cannot assume jurisdiction through consent or legislative silence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court retain jurisdiction to hear bail applications in NAB cases following the establishment of the Federal Constitutional Court?
  • Does the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the Federal Constitutional Court inherently include the power to adjudicate ancillary matters like bail?
  • Can the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction in a matter where the Constitution and statute have transferred such authority to another court?
  • Does the phrase 'subject to' in a constitutional provision establish a legal hierarchy?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWNazar Abbas, Additional Registrar (Judicial) Presently Osd Supreme Court of Pakistan Versus State2026 PLD 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-09-23
  contempt of courtjudicial immunitysitting judgesConstitutional Benches26th Constitutional AmendmentSupreme Judicial Councilesprit de corpsfunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal arose from contempt proceedings initiated by a regular three-member bench of the Supreme Court against the Additional Registrar (Judicial) for failing to fix part-heard petitions challenging the vires of Section 221-A(2) of the Customs Act, 1969. Although the regular bench subsequently discharged the notice against the official, it referred the matter to the Chief Justice to convene a Full Court for contempt proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution against members of the administrative and Constitutional Bench Committees (fellow sitting Judges). The core legal issues concerned whether sitting Judges of the Supreme Court can be proceeded against for contempt of court under Article 204 by fellow Judges, and whether a regular bench retains jurisdiction over matters transferred by operation of the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings, holding that judicial immunity and comity ('esprit de corps') bar a Judge from issuing contempt process or directions against fellow Judges of the same court. Allegations of misconduct against sitting Judges fall exclusively within the domain of the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 209(7). Furthermore, pursuant to Article 191A(3) and (5), petitions challenging statutory vires forthwith stand transferred to the Constitutional Benches, rendering regular benches functus officio.

  Questions settled

  • Can sitting Judges of the Supreme Court or a High Court be proceeded against under Article 204 of the Constitution for contempt of court by their fellow Judges?
  • Does Article 209(7) of the Constitution exclusively bar other forums, including benches of the same court, from inquiring into alleged misconduct of sitting superior court judges?
  • Whether, by operation of Article 191A(3) and (5) of the Constitution, constitutional matters pending prior to the 26th Constitutional Amendment automatically stand transferred to Constitutional Benches, rendering regular benches functus officio?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWGovernment of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and Ombudsperson, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Versus Shabeer Khan2026 PLD 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-01-02
  locus standiaggrieved personOmbudspersonquasi-judicial authorityfunctus officiopro forma partymaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal was instituted by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ombudsperson against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had converted a writ petition into a statutory appeal and set aside an order of the Ombudsperson under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Enforcement of Women Property Act, 2019. The Supreme Court considered the preliminary question of maintainability, specifically whether the statutory adjudicatory body and the provincial government possess the requisite locus standi to appeal an adverse judicial decision setting aside the Ombudsperson's order. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners were not 'aggrieved persons'. A quasi-judicial authority, such as an Ombudsperson, becomes functus officio after rendering a decision and cannot actively defend its determinations or assail judicial reversals before appellate courts without compromising its statutory neutrality and institutional impartiality. Furthermore, the provincial government, having no direct legal prejudice, proprietary interest, or vires challenge involved, lacks locus standi to revive an order arising out of a private dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ombudsperson or quasi-judicial authority possess locus standi to challenge a superior court judgment that sets aside its adjudicatory order?
  • Can a provincial government maintain an appeal merely to defend or revive an order passed by a statutory forum in a private dispute where no statutory vires are challenged?
  • Does the mere inclusion or retention of an entity as a pro forma respondent confer substantive standing to invoke appellate jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWQaiser Abbas Versus State2026 PLD 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-05-13
  consecutive sentencesconcurrent sentencesdouble murderSection 35 Cr.P.C.doctrine of precedentproportionality of punishmentSupreme Courtlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, convicted of two counts of murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to consecutive life imprisonments, sought to have the sentences run concurrently. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, concerning consecutive versus concurrent sentences, particularly the applicability of proviso (a) to sentences awarded by Sessions Courts, and the binding nature of conflicting precedents. The Court upheld the convictions and dismissed the petition for concurrent sentences. It was held that proviso (a) to Section 35(2) Cr.P.C. is confined to courts of limited sentencing jurisdiction and does not control sentences passed by a Sessions Court in an original trial; in such cases, Section 35(1) Cr.P.C. applies, and sentences run consecutively unless expressly directed otherwise. The Court reaffirmed the principle that punishment must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense, and multiple murders warrant independent penal recognition, rejecting the notion that an offender should "kill two or three, pay for one."

  Questions settled

  • Does proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to sentences awarded by a Sessions Court in an original trial?
  • When do sentences of life imprisonment run consecutively or concurrently in a single trial by a Sessions Court?
  • Can an observation in a later larger bench decision displace an earlier, consciously reasoned determination by another larger bench on the same statutory question if the earlier decision was not noticed or distinguished?
  • Does the principle of proportionality in sentencing require independent penal recognition for each life unlawfully taken in cases of multiple murders?
  • What constitutes a binding precedent under Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. Asma Begum Versus Abdul Hameed (deceased)2026 PLD 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-03-06
  execution of decreecompromise orderjudicial undertakingenforceability of orderscivil revisionexecuting court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the enforceability of a judicial order based on a compromise and an undertaking given before the High Court. The core legal question was whether an order disposing of proceedings in terms of a compromise, where no formal decree is drawn, is enforceable through execution proceedings, and whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Executing Court's order. The Supreme Court held that an order passed on the basis of a compromise remains binding and operative between the parties, possessing full legal force. It affirmed that, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the provisions relating to the execution of decrees apply equally to the execution of orders. The Court established the principle that a party who voluntarily undertakes an obligation before a court cannot subsequently resile from it, and the Executing Court cannot go behind the order sought to be executed. Consequently, the High Court's judgment dismissing the execution petition was set aside, and the Executing Court was directed to proceed with the execution.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed on the basis of a compromise, where no formal decree is drawn, enforceable through execution proceedings?
  • Does the Executing Court have the authority to go behind the order sought to be executed?
  • Can a party who voluntarily gives an undertaking before a court subsequently resile from that obligation?
  • Do the provisions relating to the execution of decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the execution of orders?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWAbbas Asif Zaman Versus State2026 PLD 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-10-15
  Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005intra-family disputepermissive possessionland grabbingcriminal trespassdomestic violencecivil remedymens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of a challenge to proceedings initiated under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant, a father, alleged his adult children unlawfully dispossessed him of his residence. The core legal question was whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is maintainable in a familial, permissive-possession setting absent clear evidence of forcible dispossession or criminal intent. The Supreme Court held that the complaint was not maintainable. It ruled that the Act is a special penal statute designed to curb land grabbing and forcible ouster, not to criminalize ordinary intra-family disputes or permissive occupation. The Court emphasized that the statutory requirement of "force" and "mens rea" to dispossess was absent, as the children’s residence originated in parental consent. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' orders and dismissed the complaint, directing that such familial disputes be resolved through civil forums or appropriate domestic-violence frameworks rather than special anti-land grabbing penal laws, which should not be weaponized in domestic settings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be maintained in a familial setting where possession was originally permissive?
  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to intra-family disputes involving the occupation of a shared household?
  • Is the element of 'force' a necessary ingredient for an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Should disputes regarding the residence of family members in a shared household be adjudicated under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 or through civil/family law forums?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWJamil Ahmed Versus Mst. Zarina Bibi2026 PLD 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-10-15
  leave to appealnon-party appeallis pendenstransfer pendente liteimpleadmentspecific performancelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from applications filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by non-parties seeking leave to appeal against a High Court revisional order that decreed a suit for specific performance based on a compromise. The applicants had entered into an agreement to sell pendente lite concerning the suit house without court permission, kept the transaction concealed during trial, and only sought impleadment at the appellate stage after filing a separate, belated suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether non-parties who purchased property pendente lite could be granted leave to appeal against an order passed in proceedings where they were not parties. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal by a non-party requires establishing that they could properly have been made a party. While transferees pendente lite may ordinarily be joined, joinder may be declined where alienation lacks bona fides or aims to undermine justice. Because the applicants concealed the transaction, were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, and based their claim on an ex-facie time-barred suit, they possessed no standing to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What test applies when determining whether a person who was not a party to the proceedings may be granted leave to appeal?
  • Can a transferee pendente lite be refused joinder in proceedings where the alienation lacks bona fides or is intended to defeat or undermine legal process?
  • Does a transferee pendente lite whose separate suit for specific performance is barred by limitation possess standing as a necessary or proper party entitled to seek leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWFederation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance, Finance Division, Islamabad Versus Farid Ullah2026 PLD 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-02-12
  condonation of delaylimitationservice tribunaladministrative inefficiencysufficient causeequal before the law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, the Federation of Pakistan, impugned a judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 26.06.2025 through a civil petition which was barred by 20 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed, attributing the delay to internal departmental procedures, administrative bottlenecks, committee scheduling constraints, and staff transfers. The core legal question was whether internal administrative delays and bureaucratic processes constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the application and the petition as time-barred, holding that internal administrative inefficiencies, bureaucratic red tape, and procedural inconveniences of State functionaries do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay. The Court established the principle that the State and its institutions must be held to the same standards of legal compliance and timeline adherence as ordinary litigants, and that administrative routine cannot override statutory limitation periods or undermine rule-based governance and the constitutional guarantee of equality.

  Questions settled

  • Does internal administrative delay or bureaucratic routine constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a petition?
  • Is the State required to meet the same standards of statutory limitation and timeline adherence as ordinary litigants?
  • Can administrative inconveniences and staffing shortages justify the failure to file a civil petition within the prescribed period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSajid Hussain Versus Additional District Judge, Vehari2026 PLD 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-10-27
  dowernikahnamabona fide purchaserfamily court decreefraudulent transferrecovery of dowerproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the dismissal of a writ petition regarding a family court decree for the recovery of dower. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who purchased land previously designated as dower in a Nikahnama, could claim the status of a bona fide purchaser to defeat the wife's claim. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not a bona fide purchaser, noting that he had knowledge of the wife's dower claim through the Nikahnama entries before completing the purchase of a significant portion of the disputed land. The court observed that the series of land transfers between the husband, his family members, and the petitioner appeared to be a collusive effort to deprive the wife of her rightful dower. The ratio established is that property designated as dower in a Nikahnama creates a binding obligation on the husband to reserve such property for the wife, and subsequent transfers made to defeat this claim are ineffective against the wife's rights, especially when the purchaser has notice of the encumbrance. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a purchaser of land claim the status of a bona fide purchaser if they had prior knowledge of a dower claim on the property?
  • Does the designation of property as dower in a Nikahnama create a binding obligation on the husband to reserve that property for the wife?
  • Are land transfers made between family members and third parties to defeat a wife's dower claim effective against the wife's rights?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWAllah Bakhsh Versus Muhammad Riaz2025 PLD 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• NEWGhulam Sarwar Versus Province of Punjab through District Collector, Lodhran2025 PLD 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
• NEWAurangzaib Alamgir Versus Muhammad Sajid2025 PLD 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-15
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powersabuse of processcognizanceillegal dispossessionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard an appeal arising from a criminal petition against the Sindh High Court's dismissal of a quashment application filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought quashment of proceedings initiated under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, arguing that civil litigation was pending over the property title and that the complaint was an abuse of process. The High Court summarily dismissed the application solely on the ground that the Trial Court had already taken cognizance. The legal issue was whether a quashment application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. can be dismissed merely because the trial court has taken cognizance without considering whether a prima facie case of abuse of process exists. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case, holding that the taking of cognizance by a trial court is neither a lawful justification nor a sufficient ground to dismiss a quashment application summarily without examining the substantive grounds raised to prevent an abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court dismiss a quashment petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground that the trial court has already taken cognizance of the case?
  • What constitutes an 'abuse of process' warranting the invocation of the High Court's inherent curative jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be directly filed without exhausting remedies under Section 249-A or Section 265-K of the Code in extraordinary circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWGul Sadem Khan Versus Mst. Halima2025 PLD 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-22Read full judgment →
• NEWSikandar Ahmed Ghouri Versus Syed Rafat Abbas Jafferi2025 PLD 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-21Read full judgment →
• NEWSultan Mahmood Versus Munir Ahmad2025 PLD 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
• NEWMuhammad Rajar Versus State2025 PLD 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-14
  direct complaintpreliminary inquirymala fideissuance of processquashment of complaintcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenges the order of the High Court of Sindh, which allowed a criminal revision application and set aside a trial court's order issuing bailable warrants against the respondents on a direct complaint filed by the petitioner. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court properly scrutinized the preliminary inquiry report and material under Sections 202 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, before issuing process against the accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the direct complaint was a calculated retaliatory measure filed with mala fide intentions following an earlier FIR registered against the petitioner's party, and that the preliminary inquiry failed to disclose sufficient grounds or prima facie evidence to proceed. The key principle laid down is that trial courts must diligently scrutinize complaints and preliminary inquiry reports under Sections 202 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to weed out frivolous, vexatious, or mala fide complaints at their inception and protect innocent persons from unnecessary harassment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is bound to consider a preliminary inquiry report before issuing process on a direct complaint?
  • Can a direct complaint filed as a retaliatory measure and without sufficient incriminating material be entertained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the scope and objective of conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWIqbal Ali Khan Versus Naseeb Ali Khan2025 PLD 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
• NEWAmeeruddin Versus State2025 PLD 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-04
  ocular testimonyvisual acuityreasonable doubtburden of proofwitness credibilityindependent corroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Ameeruddin, challenged his conviction for the murder of four individuals, which had been upheld by the High Court. The primary legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony where witnesses claimed to have observed the incident from a distance of approximately half a kilometer. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the credibility of these witnesses, noting that human visual acuity is insufficient to discern specific details of a crime at such a distance. Furthermore, the Court observed that the co-accused, who were attributed similar roles in the firing, had been acquitted by the Trial Court. Applying the principle that eye-witnesses disbelieved against some accused cannot be relied upon against others without independent corroboration—which was absent in this case—the Court found the prosecution's case suffered from reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can eye-witness testimony be considered reliable when the witnesses claim to have observed the incident from a distance of half a kilometer?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons attributed similar roles require independent corroboration to sustain the conviction of the remaining accused based on the same ocular evidence?
  • What is the impact of human visual limitations on the credibility of eye-witness accounts in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed Uzair Shah Versus Mst. Surriya Begum (late)2025 PLD 379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• NEWSecretary to Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Communication and Works Department, Peshawar Versus Parcon Associate Government Contractors through Muhammad Haroon2025 PLD 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-17Read full judgment →
• NEWMuhammad Irfan Versus Additional District Judge, Ferozwala, District Sheikhupura2025 PLD 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-18Read full judgment →
• NEWCommissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore Versus Azam Textile Mills Limited, Lahore2025 PLD 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-15Read full judgment →
• NEWMehar Badshah Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2025 PLD 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• NEWMuhammad Din Versus Province of Punjab through Secretary, Population Welfare, Lahore2025 PLD 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-12Read full judgment →
• NEWOil and Gas Regulatory Authority, Islamabad Versus Gas and Oil Pakistan Limited, Lahore2025 PLD 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-14Read full judgment →
• NEWAdil Khan Bazai Versus Election Commission of Pakistan2025 PLD 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-12Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. Sidra Hameed Versus Syed Abdul Mateen2025 PLD 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-30Read full judgment →
• NEWFaqir Syed Anwar Ud Din Versus Syed Raza Haider2025 PLD 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-22Read full judgment →
• NEWAhmed Ali Talpur Versus Sub-Registrar Latifabad, Hyderabad2025 PLD 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-24Read full judgment →
• NEWDr. Faryal Maqsood Versus Khurram Shehzad Durrani2025 PLD 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-23Read full judgment →
• NEWState Versus Chaudhry Mohammad Khan2025 PLD 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• NEWRaja Shahzad Ahmed Versus Incharge Baggage Routing Pakistan International Airline, Lahore2025 PLD 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
• NEWMalik Mahmood Ahmad Khan Versus Malik Moazam Mahmood2025 PLD 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-19Read full judgment →
• NEWMisree Khan Versus Abdul Ghafoor2025 PLD 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-14Read full judgment →
• NEWFederal Government Employees Housing Authority Versus Ednan Syed2025 PLD 11 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NEWMughals Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited Versus Employees Old Age Benefits Institution through Director Law, Lahore2025 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-06
  alternative dispute resolutionmediationarbitrationaccess to justicepro-mediation biascourt-annexed mediationcivil proceduredispute settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from appeals regarding a construction project dispute between Messrs Mughals Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited and Employees Old Age Benefits Institution, which had previously undergone arbitration and a subsequent challenge in the Lahore High Court. The core legal question centered on whether the pending dispute could be effectively resolved through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in light of mounting judicial backlog and modern legal frameworks. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by referring the parties to mediation, holding that courts must exhibit a pro-mediation bias as an essential tool to ensure timely and effective access to justice. The key principles laid down emphasize that mediation is a vital, complementary component of the justice system, serving to preserve relationships, reduce adversarial hostility, and alleviate court backlogs through structured, party-driven dispute resolution frameworks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether courts should exhibit a pro-mediation bias in resolving civil and commercial disputes?
  • Can pending appeals before the Supreme Court be referred to mediation with the consent of the parties?
  • What is the scope and definition of mediation under the applicable alternate dispute resolution statutes in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMuzammal Khan Versus Inspector General of Police, Lahore2025 PLC(CS) 767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-04
  absence from dutydismissal from servicedepartmental inquirydisciplinary proceedingsservice tribunalpolice forceconstitutional jurisdictionquantum of punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenges the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner police official's appeal against his dismissal from service for prolonged unauthorized absence. The core legal questions involved whether a regular departmental inquiry was mandatory where absence was admitted, and whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate. The Supreme Court held that a regular inquiry is not required when the absence from duty is an admitted fact and evident from the record, and that the Service Tribunal is the final forum for factual determinations including the review of quantum of punishment. The Court laid down that government servants in disciplinary forces who remain absent without sanctioned leave act at their own risk, and any justification such as loss of passport abroad must be promptly communicated to the department rather than raised as an afterthought. Furthermore, interference with departmental punishment requires clear perversity or disproportionality, and petitions under Article 212(3) must involve a substantial question of law of public importance rather than a purely factual controversy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a regular departmental inquiry is required in cases where absence from duty is an admitted fact?
  • Is the Punjab Service Tribunal considered the final forum for the determination of facts and appraisal of evidence in service matters?
  • Does a civil petition concerning the quantum of punishment for unauthorized absence raise a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWGovernment of Balochistan through Additional Chief Secretary Development, P&D Department, Quetta Versus Muhammad Akhtar2025 PLC(CS) 746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-03
  recruitment processselection committeevested rightlegitimate expectationcivil servantsappointmentzonal allocationscrapping of recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which had allowed a constitutional petition and directed the department to issue appointment orders to respondents based on recommendations of a Selection Committee. The core legal question was whether candidates have a vested right or legitimate expectation to appointment following a recruitment process that contained fundamental legal and procedural flaws and was subsequently scrapped by the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that the Selection Committee exceeded its mandate by adding non-existent posts, altering zonal allocations, and improperly changing its own composition in violation of applicable rules, meaning no vested right was created since no appointment letters were issued. The Court ruled that the recruitment process was rightly annulled due to these material irregularities and distinguished the doctrine of legitimate expectation as applied by the High Court. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the constitutional petition was dismissed, while clarifying that respondents could apply afresh when new posts are advertised.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of an application or recommendation by a Selection Committee create a vested right to a public appointment?
  • Can a Selection or Recruitment Committee alter, add, or subtract posts beyond the sanctioned positions advertised?
  • Whether a recruitment process can be scrapped by the competent authority upon discovery of material procedural flaws and illegalities?
  • Does the doctrine of legitimate expectation apply when a recruitment process violates governing statutory rules and advertised conditions?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMuhammad Nasir Ismail Versus Government of Punjab through Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Lahore2025 PLC(CS) 723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-25
  civil service disciplineunauthorized absencecompulsory retirementPEEDA Actprinciple of proportionalitystructured discretionmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal assailing the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner (an Assistant at the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi) for unauthorized absence from duty and misconduct under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the second proviso to Section 13(5)(ii) of the PEEDA Act, specifically whether it mandates major penalties exclusively for absences exceeding one year, thereby barring major penalties for shorter absences. The Supreme Court held that the proviso merely restricts the competent authority's discretion by making major penalties mandatory when absence exceeds one year, but it does not curtail the authority's general discretion to impose major penalties for absences of less than one year under Section 13(5)(ii) read with Section 4. However, the Court laid down the principle that any such discretionary imposition of a major penalty for a shorter absence must strictly satisfy the three-pronged test of proportionality. Finding the penalty of compulsory retirement disproportionate to a 48-day absence, the Court set aside the impugned judgment regarding the penalty and remanded the matter for fresh determination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the second proviso to Section 13(5)(ii) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 restrict the competent authority from imposing a major penalty when the unauthorized absence from duty is for less than one year?
  • What is the legal effect of a proviso on the general discretion of a competent authority under service laws?
  • Does the imposition of a major penalty for an unauthorized absence of 48 days satisfy the principle of proportionality?
  • What are the components of the three-pronged test of proportionality in administrative and disciplinary actions?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWPakistan Railways through Chairman Pakistan Railways, Islamabad Versus Muhammad Amin2025 PLC(CS) 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-11
  service tribunalupgradation of postfraud and misrepresentationdoctrine of mergerexecution of judgmentcivil procedure codecivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing an application filed by Pakistan Railways under Section 12(2) read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The underlying dispute relates to the upgradation of the post of Signal Maintainer from basic pay scale 8 to 10 in the Multan Division to bring it at par with the Rawalpindi Division. The Tribunal's judgment granting the upgradation attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed earlier civil petitions. Subsequently, the department filed a miscellaneous petition alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and want of jurisdiction. The core legal questions involved the maintainability and scope of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before the Service Tribunal, the applicability of the doctrine of merger, and whether procedural provisions of civil law can be invoked to obstruct the execution of a final service tribunal judgment. The Supreme Court held that the application under Section 12(2) was misconceived, lacked specific grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, and could not be used to challenge the implementation of a judgment affirmed by the apex court. The petition was dismissed and leave refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be maintained before the Federal Service Tribunal to obstruct the implementation of a final judgment?
  • Whether the doctrine of merger applies when a service tribunal's judgment is challenged and affirmed by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the invocation of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to execution or implementation proceedings before a service tribunal?
  • What are the essential elements of fraud and misrepresentation required to set aside a final judgment under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWAamir Akbar Versus Additional Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur2025 PLC(CS) 675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-04
  departmental inquiryregular inquirydismissal from servicenatural justicefair trialdue processcross-examinationde novo inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a Junior Clerk, on charges of misconduct, habitual absence, and inefficiency. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a major penalty could be validly imposed without holding a regular inquiry conforming to the requirements of due process, fair trial, and the prescribed departmental inquiry rules. The Supreme Court held that the inquiry conducted was defective, as no evidence was formally recorded, no witnesses were produced or cross-examined, and the petitioner was merely confronted with charges and his response noted. Emphasizing Article 10-A of the Constitution and Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, the Court held that disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal require a fair and impartial regular inquiry. Converting the petition into an appeal, the Court allowed it, set aside the dismissal and Tribunal orders, and remanded the matter for a de novo regular inquiry within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Can a major penalty of dismissal from service be imposed upon a civil servant merely on the basis of a summary or discreet inquiry without recording evidence and allowing cross-examination?
  • Does conducting an inquiry by solely recording the accused civil servant's reply to the charges fulfill the requirement of a regular inquiry under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999?
  • Whether departmental proceedings conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and Article 10-A of the Constitution can be cured by remanding the matter for a de novo regular inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWChairman, NADRA, NADRA Headquarter, Islamabad Versus Abdul Majeed2025 PLC(CS) 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-28
  regularization of servicecontractual employeedisabled persons quotadiscriminationconstitutional jurisdictionintra-court appealNADRAequal protection of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenged a High Court judgment directing the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to regularize the services of a contractual employee appointed under the disabled persons' quota. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court could interfere with NADRA’s regularization policy, whether the respondent suffered discrimination in violation of the Constitution, and whether the failure to file an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) precluded the Supreme Court from hearing the matter. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that while contractual employees generally lack a vested right to regularization, the department’s arbitrary exclusion of the respondent—despite regularizing others similarly situated—violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that public functionaries must act fairly and that the state is obligated to protect the rights of disabled persons. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the requirement to file an ICA is a rule of practice rather than a jurisdictional bar, and given the case's long pendency, it declined to dismiss the petition on technical grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to file an Intra-Court Appeal under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
  • Can a contractual employee claim regularization based on a departmental policy if they were excluded due to discriminatory application of that policy?
  • Does the constitutional right to equality and non-discrimination apply to the regularization of contractual employees in statutory organizations?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWFederation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad Versus Muhammad Atiq-Ur-Rehman2025 PLC(CS) 612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-05
  pay protectionautonomous bodycivil servantFundamental Rule 22Federal Service Tribunalper incuriambinding precedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had granted the respondent pay-protection upon his appointment from the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission to a government post in the Department of Libraries. The core legal question was whether an employee of a statutory autonomous body with Special Pay Scales, upon subsequent appointment to government service, is entitled to the benefit of pay-protection under Fundamental Rule 22 and relevant Finance Division Office Memorandums. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, holding that employees of autonomous bodies having switched over to government service form a distinct class and cannot claim the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22, which applies strictly to civil servants. The Court laid down the principle that the binding precedents of the Supreme Court under Article 189 of the Constitution must be followed, and judgments rendered in ignorance of binding five-member bench precedents are per incuriam.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of a statutory autonomous body is entitled to pay-protection upon subsequent appointment to government service under Fundamental Rule 22?
  • Does a dismissal of a civil petition by the Supreme Court on technical grounds constitute a binding judgment in rem?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is bound to follow the authoritative pronouncements of a larger bench of the Supreme Court under Article 189 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. Anita Anam Versus General Public2025 PLC(CS) 575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-02
  succession certificatefamily pensionsummary proceedingsres judicatacivil procedurepension entitlementunmarried daughter
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal regarding the denial of a succession certificate for a share in a monthly family pension. The petitioner, the daughter of a deceased government officer, sought a certificate to claim her share of the pension under the Balochistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1989. The lower courts dismissed her application, partly relying on the argument that a previous certificate application barred the current one under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the Succession Act, 1925, is a special law governing the issuance of succession certificates and does not incorporate the bar of Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court established that the Act allows for multiple applications for certificates and that summary proceedings under the Act are not final adjudications of title. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the High Court erred by applying unamended pension rules rather than the 1999 amendment, which entitles an eldest unmarried daughter to a share of the family pension. The impugned judgments were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh determination.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply to applications for a succession certificate under the Succession Act, 1925?
  • Can a court issue more than one succession certificate under the Succession Act, 1925?
  • Is a succession certificate a final and conclusive determination of title between parties?
  • Does the Succession Act, 1925 bar a person from filing a subsequent application for a succession certificate regarding a claim omitted in an earlier application?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSecretary to Government of the Punjab, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Lahore Versus Ali Ahmad Khan2025 PLC(CS) 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-23
  disciplinary proceedingscivil servantwillful absencemisconductservice tribunalappellate jurisdictionextraordinary leavemajor penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Service Tribunal order that set aside a disciplinary penalty imposed on a civil servant. The respondent had been penalized for willful absence and submitting fabricated medical certificates while abroad. The Tribunal had overturned the penalty, reasoning that because the department treated the absence period as "extraordinary leave without pay," the misconduct charge was effectively regularized and nullified. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not deciding the matter on its merits. The Court clarified that an appellate tribunal must examine the inquiry proceedings and evidence to determine if misconduct is proved. Crucially, the Court ruled that an administrative decision to treat an absence period as "leave without pay" is a lenient measure to preserve service continuity and does not constitute exoneration from disciplinary charges of misconduct. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that disciplinary action cannot be rendered redundant by such administrative regularization. The judgment reinforces the Tribunal's duty to evaluate the gravity of charges and the proportionality of punishments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the administrative regularization of an absence period as 'leave without pay' automatically exonerate a civil servant from disciplinary charges of misconduct?
  • Is a Service Tribunal required to decide service appeals on the merits rather than on technicalities?
  • Does the treatment of an absence period as 'leave without pay' render disciplinary proceedings for willful absence redundant?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWGovernment of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore Versus Zaka Ullah2025 PLC(CS) 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-20
  regularization of servicecontract employeescabinet approvalfinance department concurrenceconstitutional jurisdictiontrichotomy of powerszakat department
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenges the Lahore High Court's orders directing the regularization of contract employees holding 236 posts in the Zakat and Ushr Department and ordering the Chief Secretary to release funds via supplementary grants. The core legal questions involved whether contractual employees possess a vested right to regularization, the necessity of cabinet and finance department approval for creating and regularizing posts, and the limits of judicial interference in executive policy matters. The Supreme Court held that regularization is an executive policy prerogative requiring mandatory approval from the provincial cabinet and concurrence from the finance department, neither of which occurred here, and that the High Court exceeded its constitutional jurisdiction by issuing binding financial and appointment directions. The ratio is that courts cannot usurp executive functions by ordering regularization or budgetary appropriations in the absence of statutory backing, valid cabinet approval, and financial concurrence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contractual employees have a vested right to seek regularization of their services?
  • Is the approval of the provincial cabinet mandatory for the regularization of government posts?
  • Can a court in its constitutional jurisdiction direct the executive to finance and regularize posts through supplementary grants?
  • Does a cabinet sub-committee's recommendation constitute a final binding decision without ratification by the full cabinet?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWTariq Khan Versus Additional Director General (North) Federal Investigation Agency, Islamabad2025 PLC(CS) 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-07
  compulsory retirementdepartmental inquirymisconductcross-examinationnatural justicefair trialde novo inquirycivil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil Petitions for leave to appeal were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on two Federal Investigation Agency officials for alleged gross negligence in immigration clearance. The core legal questions pertained to whether disciplinary proceedings conducted without affording an accused the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses violate the principles of natural justice and due process, and when a de novo departmental inquiry ought to be ordered. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter for a de novo inquiry. The Court held that the right of cross-examination in domestic inquiries is a vested right and a fundamental facet of a fair trial, not a mere concession; its deprivation invalidates the inquiry proceedings. The Court further laid down that a de novo inquiry is warranted where serious procedural defects, natural justice violations, or unsubstantiated findings float on the face of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to afford an accused public servant an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during a departmental inquiry vitiate the disciplinary proceedings?
  • Under what circumstances is an appellate court or tribunal justified in directing a de novo departmental inquiry?
  • Is the right of cross-examination in domestic disciplinary inquiries a discretionary concession or a vested legal right under the principles of fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWGovernment of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Agriculture, Peshawar Versus Tahir Mushtaq2025 PLC(CS) 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12
  employee son quotacivil servantsfundamental rightsmerit-based employmentconstitutional discriminationpublic service
  Summary & questions settled

  The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which had favored the respondent's claim for appointment under the employee son's quota policy to the post of Statistical Clerk/Crop Reporter upon his father's retirement. The core legal question was whether the employee son's quota policy for government employment is constitutional and legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the High Court was unsustainable as the post in question stood upgraded to BS-5, placing it outside the applicable BPS-1 to BPS-4 quota instructions, and that executive instructions granting preferential employment based on filial relationship violate the constitutional prohibitions against discrimination and undermine the merit-based system of public employment. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the appeal, and advised the provincial government to withdraw all such quota-based instructions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the employee son's quota policy for government employment violates the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can executive instructions granting preferential employment to children of civil servants override the merit-based system?
  • Whether an unreferenced executive instruction lacking disclosure of the competent authority can form the basis for public appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMuhammad Hassanullah (Omg/B-18), Acting Additional Secretary, Health Department, Balochistan Versus Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Quetta2025 PLC(CS) 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-13
  civil servantsArticle 212 barArticle 199terms and conditions of servicetransfer and postingouster of jurisdictionservice tribunaldepartmental remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil petitions were converted into appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a High Court judgment that allowed a constitutional petition filed by civil servants disputing the posting of an Office Management Group officer to a provincial post. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to entertain disputes relating to postings and transfers of civil servants in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212 and the establishment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment, holding that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because postings and transfers fall squarely within the terms and conditions of service. The Court reiterated that Article 212 establishes an overriding constitutional ouster conferring exclusive jurisdiction on service tribunals, which cannot be bypassed even where violations of fundamental rights, mala fides, lack of jurisdiction, or the vires of rules or notifications are alleged.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition regarding the posting and transfer of a civil servant?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution apply to civil service disputes even where mala fides, coram non judice, or violation of fundamental rights are alleged?
  • Can a civil servant bypass the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal when challenging the vires of a statutory rule or government notification that affects terms and conditions of service?
  • Is a writ petition under Article 199 maintainable when the grievance relates to terms and conditions of service and proceedings on the same matter are pending before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSecretary, Ministry of Finance, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan Versus Muhammad Anwar2025 PLC(CS) 255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-12
  civil servantpromotionproforma promotionsuperannuationjurisdiction of service tribunalfitness and eligibility
  Summary & questions settled

  The Secretary, Ministry of Finance challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which allowed an appeal filed by the respondent civil servant, declaring him qualified for promotion and directing consideration for proforma promotion under FR-17(1). The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was competent to declare a retired civil servant qualified for promotion and preempt the evaluation of fitness by the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the respondent qualified for promotion, as the evaluation of fitness and eligibility is the exclusive domain of designated competent forums under the statutory scheme, and promotion cannot be claimed retrospectively or after superannuation. However, the Court upheld the direction to consider the respondent for proforma promotion given his exoneration from disciplinary charges. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal cannot substitute its own evaluation for the fitness and eligibility of a civil servant, which must be determined exclusively by the competent authority in the prescribed manner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal is competent to declare a civil servant qualified for promotion?
  • Does a retired civil servant have a vested right to be considered for promotion after attaining the age of superannuation?
  • Whether the determination of fitness and suitability for promotion falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent authority?
  • Can promotion be claimed with retrospective effect by a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWNational Bank of Pakistan through President, Karachi Versus Roz-Ud-Din2025 PLC(CS) 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12
  disciplinary proceedingsproportionality of punishmentdiscriminatory treatmentservice lawmisconductbank employeeArticle 25
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that modified the dismissal of a National Bank of Pakistan employee to a lesser penalty of downgrading. The respondent was dismissed for alleged irregularities in ATM cash management, despite the main accused, the Branch Manager, confessing full responsibility. The core legal question was whether the imposition of a major penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the respondent's alleged negligence and whether the bank's disparate treatment of similarly situated employees violated constitutional guarantees. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that punishment must be commensurate with the magnitude of the guilt. The Court held that imposing a major penalty of dismissal on the respondent, while similarly placed employees received lesser sanctions, constituted discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court emphasized that for the safe administration of justice, disciplinary authorities must ensure proportionality, noting that the respondent lacked direct involvement in the proven fraud, rendering the dismissal disproportionate and arbitrary.

  Questions settled

  • Can a disciplinary authority impose a major penalty of dismissal on an employee when similarly placed employees received lesser punishments for the same allegations?
  • Is a penalty of dismissal from service disproportionate when the employee is not guilty of direct fraud or embezzlement but only alleged negligence?
  • Does the principle of proportionality require that disciplinary punishments be commensurate with the magnitude of an employee's guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWDr. Khalid Iqbal Talpur Versus Province of Sindh2025 PLC(CS) 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-15
  statutory interpretationreappointmentage of superannuationharmonization of statutesadministrative lawpublic appointmentExecutive Director
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute regarding the appointment and reappointment of the Executive Director (ED) of the Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, a statutory body established under the Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Act, 2013. The core legal question was whether the age limit of 60 years, applicable to general appointments, also restricts the reappointment of an outgoing ED under the Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Administrative Structure, Powers and Duties of Institute Officers Rules, 2021. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in declaring the 65-year age limit in the advertisement unlawful. The Court ruled that the relevant statutory provisions must be harmonized, recognizing that reappointment constitutes a distinct exception to general appointment. It established a mandatory two-stage process: first, the Board must objectively assess the outgoing ED for reappointment based on exceptional performance; second, if reappointment is not warranted, the Board must proceed with fresh recruitment. The Court emphasized that reappointment is not a standard practice but an exceptional measure requiring transparent, written justification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the age limit of 60 years for general appointment of an Executive Director preclude the reappointment of an outgoing Executive Director under the Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Administrative Structure, Powers and Duties of Institute Officers Rules, 2021?
  • Can two sets of rules enacted by the same statutory body under the same enabling provision be harmonized to allow for exceptions to general service conditions?
  • What is the mandatory procedure for the Board to follow when considering the reappointment of an outgoing Executive Director versus the appointment of a new candidate?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMohsin Raza Gondal Versus Sardar Mahmood2025 PLC(CS) 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-13
  regularization of contract employeescivil service appointmentFederal Public Service CommissionCabinet Sub-Committeevoid ab initiopast and closed transactionrecruitment rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legality of regularizing contract employees in the Bureau of Emigration and Overseas Employment (BE&OE) into Basic Pay Scales (BS) 16 to 18 by a Cabinet Sub-Committee. The core legal question is whether such a committee possesses the authority to regularize appointments in BS-16 and above, thereby bypassing the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) and established recruitment rules. The Supreme Court held that the Cabinet Sub-Committee lacked the legal authority to regularize these appointments, as such actions contravened the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, and the Federal Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978. The Court affirmed that regularization constitutes a fresh appointment, which must adhere to merit-based recruitment processes. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to set aside the irregular appointments and refer the cases to the FPSC for a determination of fitness and eligibility. The judgment establishes that actions taken without lawful authority are void ab initio and cannot be shielded by the doctrine of past and closed transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Cabinet Sub-Committee have the legal authority to regularize contract employees in BS-16 and above?
  • Is the regularization of a contractual employee considered a fresh appointment in the civil service?
  • Can an action that is void ab initio be protected under the doctrine of a past and closed transaction?
  • Are appointments to BS-16 and above in the federal government required to be made through the Federal Public Service Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSecretary to Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Communication and Works Department, Peshawar Versus Parcon Associate Government Contractors through Muhammad Haroon2025 CLD 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-17Read full judgment →
• NEWMuhammad Adnan Versus Salah-Ud-Din2025 CLD 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-17Read full judgment →
• NEWAdamjee Insurance Company Limited Versus Techno International2025 CLD 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
• NEWRaja Shahzad Ahmad Versus Incharge Baggage Routing Pakistan International Airline, Lahore2025 CLD 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
• NEWKausar Rana Resources (Private) Limited Versus Qatar Lubricants Company W.L.L. (Qalco)2025 CLD 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• NEWState Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi Versus Nina Industries Limited, Karachi2025 CLD 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-19Read full judgment →
• NEWMughals Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited Versus Employees Old Age Benefits Institution through Director Law, Lahore2025 CLD 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-06
  Alternative Dispute ResolutionMediationAccess to JusticeArbitration Act 1940Case ManagementPro-mediation biasCommercial Litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a commercial dispute between a construction company and the Employees Old Age Benefits Institution regarding a project, which initially proceeded through arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Following the High Court's decision to set aside the arbitral award, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned the appropriateness of resolving the dispute through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms given the significant backlog of cases in the Pakistani judicial system. The Court held that the appeals should be disposed of by referring the parties to mediation, granting them the liberty to approach the Court for refixation if mediation fails. The judgment lays down the principle that courts must adopt a "pro-mediation bias," viewing mediation not merely as an alternative to litigation but as a necessary, complementary component of the justice system. It emphasizes that mediation promotes access to justice, cost-effectiveness, and procedural fairness, and encourages the adoption of mediation centers to alleviate the burden on the traditional adversarial court system.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court refer parties to mediation in a pending appeal?
  • Does the legal framework in Pakistan support a pro-mediation bias in judicial proceedings?
  • What are the primary advantages of mediation over traditional litigation in the context of case backlog?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSiraj Umer Versus Nazir Muhammad Khan1992 PLD 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-28Read full judgment →
• NEWJavaid Saigol Versus Commr. of Income-Tax Lahore1987 PLD 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Khan Versus State2026 SCMR 998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-02-09
  murdersudden fightheat of passionsingle fire shotsentence alterationpremeditationquantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction for murder but commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant concurrently petitioned for sentence enhancement to death. The core legal question was whether a single fatal shot fired during a spontaneous altercation without premeditation falls under Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon reappraising the evidence, the Supreme Court observed that the occurrence occurred at the petitioner's doorstep following an unexpected monetary dispute regarding crop pricing. The confrontation involved initial grappling and an absence of prior planning, culminating in a single firearm shot without undue cruelty. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the case fell squarely under Section 302(c), PPC. The conviction was altered from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c), PPC, reducing the sentence to fifteen years' rigorous imprisonment with Section 382-B Cr.P.C. benefits, and dismissing the enhancement petition as infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Does a fatal single shot fired spontaneously during an unpremeditated scuffle fall under Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the absence of premeditation and lack of undue cruelty in a sudden dispute justifies converting a conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a petition for enhancement of sentence become infructuous upon the alteration of conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Khanum Versus Additional District Judge-II East, Islamabad2026 SCMR 994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-01-07
  doctrine of electioncivil proceduremutationleave to appealwithdrawal of suitparallel proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an Islamabad High Court judgment regarding a property dispute involving multiple rounds of litigation. The core legal questions concerned whether a subsequent civil suit is maintainable when previous litigation regarding the same cause of action was dismissed, and whether the doctrine of election bars a party from bypassing the revenue hierarchy to seek relief in a civil court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal, and affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that a party cannot initiate proceedings in a parallel forum and subsequently abandon that election to pursue another. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a suit is barred if a previous suit concerning the same cause of action was withdrawn or dismissed without obtaining express permission to file a fresh suit. As the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality in the lower courts' application of these principles, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of election prevent a party from initiating proceedings in a civil court after abandoning a parallel remedy in the revenue hierarchy?
  • Is a subsequent suit barred under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the previous suit was dismissed without permission to file a fresh one?
  • Does the institution of a suit in a parallel forum preclude a party from later seeking relief in a different forum for the same cause of action?
  Read full judgment →