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.

• Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan, and others vs Muhammad Anwar2024 SCP 305, 2025 SCMR 153, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-10
  civil servantpromotionproforma promotionsuperannuationjurisdiction of service tribunalfitness and eligibilitydepartmental promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a challenge to a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which allowed an appeal filed by a retired civil servant, declaring him qualified for promotion from the date others were promoted and directing that he be considered for proforma promotion. The core legal questions concern whether the Service Tribunal is competent to declare a civil servant 'qualified' or fit for promotion, whether a retired civil servant can claim promotion, and the distinct nature of promotion versus proforma promotion. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating fitness and eligibility and declaring the respondent qualified for promotion, as the determination of fitness is the exclusive domain of the competent authority and designated forums, and promotion cannot be granted post-retirement or with retrospective effect. However, the direction to consider the respondent for proforma promotion was sustained given his exoneration from disciplinary charges. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority regarding the fitness and eligibility of a civil servant for promotion, nor can promotion be claimed after attaining the age of superannuation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is competent to declare a civil servant qualified or fit for promotion?
  • Can a civil servant claim promotion to a higher post after retiring upon attaining the age of superannuation?
  • Does the determination of fitness and suitability for promotion fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent authority?
  • Is promotion a vested right that can be claimed with retrospective effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Finance, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhtua, Peshawar and another vs Syed Jehangir Shah and others2024 SCP 42, 2024 SCMR 538, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-29
  special allowanceutility allowanceCivil SecretariatSolicitor Officereasonable classificationequality before lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by the Appellant Department challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 23.04.2015, which allowed the respondents' writ petition and granted them special allowance and utility allowance. The core legal question was whether the employees of the Solicitor Office, situated within the premises of the Civil Secretariat, were entitled to the special and utility allowances granted to the employees of the Civil Secretariat. The Supreme Court held that denying these allowances to the respondents while granting them to other employees similarly placed within the same premises constitutes an unreasonable classification violating the principle of equality before the law under Article 25 of the Constitution. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment. The key principle laid down is that state authorities cannot arbitrarily deny monetary benefits and allowances to government servants who are similarly placed without a reasonable and defensible classification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Solicitor Office working within the Civil Secretariat premises are entitled to special and utility allowances granted to Secretariat employees?
  • Does the denial of allowances to government servants similarly placed to those receiving them violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • What constitutes a reasonable classification for the grant of government allowances to civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed vs The State2024 SCP 224, 2024 SCMR 1571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-22
  narcoticschain of custodysafe custodysafe transmissionnon-production of Moharrarcontraband recoverycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the petitioner's conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which had been upheld by the High Court of Balochistan. The prosecution alleged that 146.200 kilograms of Charas, divided into 150 pieces, were recovered from secret cavities in a vehicle driven by the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody and proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the 150 sample pieces were improperly sealed in a single parcel rather than individual parcels, the Moharrar responsible for safe custody was not produced as a witness, and the seized vehicle was never produced during the trial. The Court held that safe custody and transmission of the contraband must be established through an unbroken, unsuspicious chain of custody. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and acquitted the petitioner due to these fatal evidentiary gaps.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of failing to produce the Moharrar at trial to prove the safe custody of recovered contraband?
  • Does the failure to separately seal individual sample pieces of recovered narcotics violate established judicial guidelines for forensic analysis?
  • How does a break or gap in the chain of custody of seized drugs affect the reliability of the Government Analyst's report?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics recovery be sustained if the prosecution fails to produce the seized vehicle containing secret cavities at the trial without explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardaran Bibi vs The State & others2024 SCP 138, 2024 SCMR 1116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-18
  criminal petitionmurderbenefit of doubtappeal against acquittalcontradictionsocular accountmedical evidenceSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondents and answered the murder reference in the negative, thereby acquitting them of murder charges. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in extending the benefit of doubt to the respondents and overturning a trial court conviction based on improvements, material contradictions, and lack of corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with inconsistencies, improvements, and doubts regarding the source of light at the time of the early morning occurrence, and that the scope of interference in an acquittal appeal is extremely narrow unless the judgment is perverse or suffers from grave misreading of evidence. The Court reaffirmed the principle that even a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal judgment?
  • Does an unexplained delay in filing a private complaint and material improvements in witness statements cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Confucius Imam Qasrani vs Sardar Mir Badshah Khan Qaisarani and another2024 SCP 2 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-02
  Elections Act 2017lifetime bandisqualificationconstitutionalityamici curiaevideo-link appearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns proceedings addressing the constitutionality and legality of Section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017, alongside the issue of whether disqualification entails a lifetime ban. The Attorney-General for Pakistan and the Advocate-Generals of all provinces and the Islamabad Capital Territory supported the statutory provision's validity, a position largely aligned with by most appearing counsel, while certain petitioners' counsel contended for a lifetime ban. Given the profound constitutional importance of the issue, the Court directed counsel appearing via video-link to attend in person at Islamabad for proper consideration of arguments. Additionally, the Court appointed amici curiae to submit written briefs and assist in adjudicating the constitutional and legal validity of the subject provision. The Court did not settle the substantive legal questions in this interim order, instead adjourning the proceedings to 4 January 2024 for full hearing and appointment of legal assistance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether amici curiae may be appointed by the Court to assist on questions regarding the constitutionality and legality of Section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Whether the Supreme Court may require counsel appearing via video-link to appear in person in matters of significant constitutional importance?
  • Whether an opportunity must be granted to an unrepresented party to engage counsel or provide proper authorization to a representative during constitutional proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Confcius Imam Qasrani vs Sardar Mir Badshah Khan Qaisarani &2024 SCP 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• Sanam Javaid Khan (Presently confined in Kot Lakhpat Jail, Lahore)2024 SCP 111, 2024 SCMR 819, 2024 SCP 36, 2025 PLJ SC 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-26
  nomination paperselection expensesjoint bank accountultra viresdelegated legislationreturning officer inquiryfundamental right to contest election
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the High Court's order upholding the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for election to constituency PP-150, Lahore. The nomination papers were initially rejected by the Returning Officer and the Election Tribunal, and subsequently by the High Court, on two main grounds: first, that the bank account declared for election expenses was a joint account rather than a single account, and second, that her signatures and thumb impression on the nomination papers, Form-B, and affidavit were not genuine due to lack of attestation by the Superintendent Jail. The core legal questions involved the legality of Rule 51 of the Election Rules, 2017 regarding joint bank accounts vis-à-vis Section 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017, and the scope of inquiry by the Returning Officer under Section 62(9). The Supreme Court held that Rule 51, insofar as it prohibits joint signatory accounts, is ultra vires the Elections Act, 2017 as it travels beyond the rule-making power. Furthermore, the Court held that a candidate is permitted to use an existing account and rectify any defects, and that non-verification by jail authorities does not render signatures invalid under Section 62(9). Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the nomination papers were deemed accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Rule 51 of the Election Rules, 2017 prohibiting joint signatory accounts for election expenses is ultra vires Section 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Can nomination papers be rejected solely on the ground that the bank account declared for election expenses is a joint account?
  • Does the scope of summary inquiry by a Returning Officer under Section 62(9) of the Elections Act, 2017 permit the rejection of nomination papers due to lack of attestation of signatures by jail authorities for an under-trial prisoner?
  Read full judgment →
• Sakhib Zar vs M/s K-Electric Limited & others2024 SCP 281, 2024 SCMR 1722, 2024 PLC 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-10
  industrial misconductabsence without leavequantum of punishmentNational Industrial Relations Commissionemployer prerogativereinstatementunauthorized absence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the appellate order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The petitioner, a Semi-Skilled Lineman and union member, remained absent from duty beyond his sanctioned leave and was dismissed after ex-parte disciplinary proceedings for misconduct under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. A Single Member of the NIRC set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement on compassionate grounds, noting the absence was only fifteen days, but the Full Bench of the NIRC allowed the employer's appeal and restored the dismissal. The core legal question concerned whether an employee's unauthorized absence for more than ten days constitutes statutory misconduct and whether forums can mitigate punishment when guilt is established. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that absence without leave for over ten days is explicitly defined as misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(e) of the Ordinance, and once established, the quantum of punishment falls within the employer's prerogative, precluding tribunals from rewriting statutory thresholds or granting arbitrary relief based on sympathy.

  Questions settled

  • Does absence from duty for more than ten days without leave constitute statutory misconduct under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can a tribunal or court rewrite the statutory period defining misconduct under labour laws on compassionate grounds?
  • Is the determination of the quantum of punishment the sole prerogative of the employer once an employee's guilt of misconduct is established?
  • Under what circumstances can a court or tribunal interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by an employer for misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Sagheer Ahmed vs The State and another2024 SCP 116, 2024 SCMR 913, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-13
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsforensic analysis delaysafe custodyfurther inquirystatutory barcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's order dismissing the petitioner's post-arrest bail application in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 1420 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution's failure to adhere to the mandatory timeline for sending seized narcotics to the Forensic Science Laboratory constituted sufficient grounds to grant bail. The Supreme Court observed that the samples were sent to the laboratory over a month after the seizure, violating Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which mandates dispatch within seventy-two hours. The Court held that this unexplained delay, combined with the lack of evidence regarding the safe custody of the narcotics, created a case of further inquiry. Furthermore, noting that the maximum sentence did not trigger the statutory bar under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that an unreasonable delay in sending narcotic samples for forensic analysis, coupled with a failure to establish safe custody, entitles an accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to a forensic laboratory constitute grounds for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
  • Does the statutory bar under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply to offenses carrying a maximum sentence of fourteen years?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish the safe custody of recovered narcotics during the period between seizure and forensic analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed, Noor Muhammad vs The State & another2024 SCP 325, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-23
  pre-arrest bailplea of alibifurther inquirymalafidecolumn No.2 of challantentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by Saeed Ahmed and Noor Muhammad in connection with FIR No.31/22 registered under sections 302, 324, 337-H(ii), 337-F(v), 114, 148 and 149 PPC at Police Station Jarwar, District Ghotki. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of their plea of alibi, police exoneration, and placement in column No.2 of the challan, pointing toward malafide and further inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' apprehension of arrest was well-founded, investigation was complete, no recovery was required from them, and their case fell within the scope of further inquiry based on a tentative assessment of the record, including hospital slips, ATM CCTV footage, and call data records. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, reaffirming that bail should not be withheld as a punishment and that pre-arrest bail is justified where mala fide and ulterior motives are established alongside a case of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is declared innocent during investigation and placed in column No.2 of the challan?
  • Does a plea of alibi supported by hospital records, CCTV footage, and call data records make out a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
  • Can bail be withheld as a punishment when the accused are no longer required for further investigation or recovery?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail is justified where the apprehension of arrest at the instance of the complainant is tainted with malafide and ulterior motives?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadaqat Ali and another vs Mst. Nasreen Akhtar2024 SCP 414, 2025 SCMR 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-19
  rent evictionex parte proceedingsservice of noticeSection 12(2) CPCconcurrent findingssub-lesseefraud and misrepresentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenges a Sindh High Court order confirming concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and District Court regarding an eviction application. The core legal question was whether the ex parte eviction judgment against the petitioners was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, as alleged under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the service of notice was valid. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller had exhausted all legal modes of service, including bailiff, registered post, and publication, rendering the service valid. Consequently, the ex parte proceedings resulted from the petitioners' willful absence rather than any fraud or misrepresentation by the respondent. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the petitioners failed to establish any valid grounds for interference. The key principle laid down is that where a party is served through multiple modes of service and fails to appear, the resulting ex parte judgment cannot be set aside on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts remain undisturbed absent compelling legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Can an ex parte judgment be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the party was served through multiple modes including publication?
  • Does the failure to appear after valid service of notice constitute a valid ground to claim fraud or misrepresentation in eviction proceedings?
  • Is a court required to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a rent eviction case where service of notice was properly effected?
  Read full judgment →
• Rohan Ahmad vs The State, etc2024 SCP 22, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-15
  statutory bailpost-arrest bailfair trialdue processcriminal procedureblasphemy lawstrial delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to an accused charged under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given that his detention exceeded two years and the trial had been suspended due to pending proceedings in the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court established that the statutory right to bail under Section 497, CrPC is grounded in the constitutional guarantees of fair trial and due process under Articles 4, 9, and 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. It further held that for bail to be denied, the prosecution must prove that trial delays were caused by the accused's deliberate, concerted efforts to obstruct proceedings, rather than by court-related delays or administrative inaction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory right to bail under the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, stem from constitutional guarantees?
  • Can an accused be denied statutory bail if the delay in trial is caused by the court's own administrative actions or suspension of proceedings?
  • What standard of proof must the prosecution meet to demonstrate that an accused is responsible for trial delays sufficient to deny statutory bail?
  • Does the mere filing of adjournment requests by an accused automatically justify the denial of statutory bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Rasheed & another vs The State2024 SCP 269, 2024 SCMR 1968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-21
  abduction for ransomterrorismAnti-Terrorism Actspeedy trialThird Schedulemens reacompoundable offencecompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of petitioners for abduction for ransom and murder. The core legal question was whether the offence of abduction for ransom, when committed without a specific design, purpose, or intent of terrorism, falls under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA) or the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), and whether the conviction under the ATA was sustainable in the absence of such intent. The Supreme Court held that the inclusion of an offence in the Third Schedule of the ATA 1997 merely mandates trial by an Anti-Terrorism Court for the purpose of a speedy trial but does not automatically classify the act as terrorism. Unless the ingredients of Section 6 of the ATA 1997—specifically the design, purpose, or intent of terrorism—are satisfied, the offence remains triable under the PPC. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions under the ATA, accepted a compromise regarding the murder charge under Section 302 PPC, and maintained the conviction under Section 365-A PPC, establishing that heinousness alone does not equate to terrorism.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of an offence in the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 automatically classify the act as terrorism?
  • Can an accused be convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for abduction for ransom if there is no evidence of a design, purpose, or intent of terrorism?
  • Is the offence of kidnapping or abduction for ransom triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court even if it does not constitute an act of terrorism?
  • Does a compromise between the legal heirs and the accused in a murder case under Section 302 PPC result in acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali and Fakhar Zaman vs The State and another2024 SCP 167, 2024 SCMR 1224, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-16
  murderocular evidencemedical evidence conflictblackening woundunnatural conduct of witnessesadverse inferencebenefit of doubtcriminal acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a criminal petition filed by convict Riasat Ali challenging his conviction and life sentence under Section 302(b) PPC for the murder of Asadullah Khan, after his co-convict was acquitted pursuant to a compromise regarding the murder of another deceased. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the ocular and circumstantial evidence established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Re-appraising the evidence, the Supreme Court found critical contradictions: medical evidence showing blackening and charring around the entrance wound contradicted ocular testimony that shots were fired from 5.5 feet away; recovery of crime empties was contradicted by discrepancies in the site plan; and the eye-witnesses' unnatural conduct and uninjured status during close-range firing rendered their presence doubtful. Furthermore, non-production of a key material witness warranted an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-Shahadat Order, 1984. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the petitioner due to reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conflict between medical evidence regarding firearm distance/blackening and eye-witness testimony creates reasonable doubt requiring acquittal?
  • Does the failure to produce a material eye-witness named in the prosecution case justify drawing an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can the uninjured status and unnatural conduct of alleged eye-witnesses during close-range firing render their presence at the crime scene doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah and others vs The State2024 SCP 268, 2024 SCMR 1782, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-29
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionpolice custodymedical evidencerecovery of assetsmotivebenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of three appellants for murder under Section 302(b)/34 PPC, where the trial and High Court sentenced them to life imprisonment based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was sufficiently complete to sustain the conviction. The Court observed that the prosecution's case relied on an alleged extra-judicial confession made while in police custody, which is inadmissible under the law. Furthermore, the recoveries of a motorcycle and mobile phone were deemed unreliable as no proof of ownership or SIM card connection to the deceased was established. The medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's motive of attempted sodomy, as no relevant injuries were found, and the removal of the deceased's eye with a sharp-edged weapon remained unexplained by any recovered weapon. Applying the principle that every link in a circumstantial chain must be proved and incompatible with innocence, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Read full judgment →
• Rehm Dad vs Province of Punjab through its Chief Secretary, Lahore &2024 SCP 93, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-15
  Intra-court appealLaw Reforms OrdinanceLand acquisitionMaintainabilityOriginal orderBoard of RevenuePunjab Land Acquisition Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenges a High Court judgment that dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) as non-maintainable. The core legal question is whether the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, bars an ICA against an order passed by the Board of Revenue under the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983. The Supreme Court held that the ICA is maintainable. The court clarified that the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, only precludes an ICA if the law applicable to the proceedings provides a statutory right of appeal, revision, or review against the 'original order.' Since the application under the 1983 Rules did not provide such remedies, the bar was inapplicable. The court established that the 'original order' is the order initiating the specific proceedings, not the historical acquisition notification. Furthermore, while rules framed under a statute are part of the parent act, the absence of an appellate remedy within that framework preserves the right to an ICA.

  Questions settled

  • Is an intra-court appeal maintainable under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, if the relevant law provides no right of appeal, revision, or review against the original order?
  • Does the 'original order' for the purpose of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, refer to the order commencing the specific proceedings or the initial acquisition notification?
  • Are rules framed under a statute considered part of the parent act for determining the applicable law under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Reference by the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution vs Reference by the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Under Article 186 of the Constitution to revisit the case of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto2024 SCP 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-08
  Presidential ReferenceAmicus CuriaeConflict of InterestJudicial ReviewProcedural AdjournmentHistorical Conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Presidential Reference filed under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking to revisit the conviction and death sentence of the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The proceedings before the Supreme Court focused on procedural preliminaries, specifically the appointment and recusal of amici curiae and legal representation for the family members of the deceased. The Court addressed potential conflicts of interest regarding appointed amici, allowing the withdrawal of one amicus due to a prior family connection to a co-accused in the original case, while retaining another despite a disclosure regarding a familial link to the victim of the original murder case, as no objections were raised by the parties present. The Court also facilitated the exchange of evidentiary material, including reports and recordings, among the counsel and amici. Given the significance of the Reference and the Court's intent to conduct a detailed examination of the historical record, the proceedings were adjourned to the third week of February 2024, partly to accommodate the upcoming general elections and to allow for a thorough review of the voluminous documentation submitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an amicus curiae be replaced by counsel if the parties involved do not object?
  • Does a familial connection to a party in a historical criminal case necessitate the automatic recusal of an appointed amicus curiae?
  • Is the Supreme Court empowered to adjourn proceedings in a Presidential Reference to allow for the review of voluminous evidentiary material?
  Read full judgment →
• Reference by the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Under Article 186 of the Constitution to revisit the case of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto reported as PLD 1979 SC Page 38-53 vs [Reference by the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution]2024 SCP 89, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-06
  presidential referenceadvisory jurisdictiondue processfair trialhistorical judicial reviewfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This presidential reference under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan sought the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the murder trial, conviction, and execution of former Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The core legal question addressed was whether the requirements of due process and fair trial were complied with during the proceedings before the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Court held that the trial and appellate proceedings did not meet the fundamental rights to a fair trial and due process enshrined in the Constitution. However, the Court clarified that neither the Constitution nor the law provides a mechanism to set aside the final judgment of conviction. Furthermore, the Court declined to reappraise evidence in its advisory jurisdiction or answer questions regarding Islamic law and the doctrine of repentance due to a lack of legal assistance on the matter. The key principle laid down is that while the Court can acknowledge major constitutional and legal lapses in historical judicial proceedings under its advisory jurisdiction, it cannot formally set aside or undo final judicial decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court set aside a final judgment of conviction and sentence in its advisory jurisdiction under Article 186 of the Constitution?
  • Did the murder trial and subsequent appeal of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto fulfill the requirements of due process and fair trial?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the power to reappraise evidence and undo a finalized criminal decision through a presidential reference?
  • Whether the proceedings against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto met the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, and 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Reference by the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution vs N/A2024 SCP 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-05
  presidential referenceadvisory jurisdictionfair trialdue processmurder trialaccomplice testimonyjudicial biasconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment contains the reasoned opinion of the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution in a Presidential Reference concerning the murder trial, conviction, and execution of former Prime Minister Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The core legal questions addressed the compliance of the trial and appellate processes with fundamental rights, due process, and fair trial guarantees, alongside the historical legitimacy of the proceedings conducted during a martial law regime. The Court held that the proceedings of the trial by the Lahore High Court and the appeal by the Supreme Court failed to meet the requirements of the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process, and suffered from grave constitutional and legal lapses, including unauthorized reopening of the investigation, the unprecedented conduct of a murder trial by the High Court rather than a Court of Session, and apparent judicial bias. However, the Court observed that neither the Constitution nor the law provides a mechanism to set aside the final judgment in its advisory jurisdiction. The key principles laid down emphasize that due process and fair trial are foundational elements of criminal jurisprudence and constitutional governance that cannot be bypassed, and that courts must transparently confront past judicial fallibilities to uphold the integrity of the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a presidential reference under Article 186 of the Constitution can be entertained to evaluate the due process and fairness of a historical criminal trial?
  • Whether the trial of a murder case directly by the High Court instead of a Court of Session vitiates the trial and deprives the accused of statutory rights of appeal and sentence confirmation?
  • Whether the testimony of an approver requires strict corroboration in material particulars to form the basis of a conviction in a capital case?
  • Whether the Supreme Court in its advisory jurisdiction under Article 186 of the Constitution has the power to set aside a final judgment of conviction and sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Baig etc vs Muhammad Mansha etc2024 SCP 185, 2024 SCMR 1385, 2024 PLJ SC 874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-29
  constitutional jurisdictioninterim ordersdiscretionary ordersstay of proceedingsabuse of processsupreme court rulesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to challenge an order of the Lahore High Court which had dismissed the petitioners' writ petition against the concurrent interlocutory orders of the lower courts dismissing their applications for summoning revenue officers as witnesses. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts' discretionary orders suffered from any jurisdictional defect and held that when a party challenges an interim order in constitutional jurisdiction, it must establish that the order is without jurisdiction. Since discretionary interlocutory orders passed by courts below were within jurisdiction and could also be scrutinized later in an appeal against the final decree, the High Court rightly dismissed the constitutional petition. The Supreme Court further emphasized that the filing of a petition for leave to appeal or an appeal does not automatically stay trial or execution proceedings unless a specific injunctive order is granted by the apex court, and obtaining or granting stays without such an order is an abuse of process and contempt of court. Leave was refused and the petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interim order passed by a trial court in the exercise of its discretion can be challenged through constitutional jurisdiction as being without jurisdiction?
  • Does the filing of a petition for leave to appeal or an appeal automatically stay the proceedings or execution before the trial court?
  • Can interim orders passed during the pendency of a suit be scrutinized in an appeal filed against the final judgment and decree?
  • What are the legal consequences when trial courts or parties adjourn proceedings sine die awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court without an explicit injunctive order from the apex court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Tanveer Safdar vs Mrs. Tehmina Yasmeen and others2024 SCP 169, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 795, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 957, PLJ 2024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-24
  double jeopardyworkplace harassmentdefamationmisconductcompulsory retirementconstitutional jurisdictionhuman dignitydepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from a challenge to an order of the Lahore High Court which upheld the compulsory retirement of the petitioner for workplace harassment. The petitioner, a government officer, had levelled false allegations of sexual abuse against a female teacher. Consequently, he faced three distinct legal actions: departmental proceedings under the PEEDA Act resulting in service forfeiture; a defamation suit under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 resulting in damages; and a complaint under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 resulting in compulsory retirement. The petitioner contended that these concurrent penalties violated the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that double jeopardy only applies where a person is prosecuted and punished for the same offence on the same ingredients. The Court ruled that since the three laws (PEEDA, Defamation Ordinance, and the 2010 Act) serve distinct statutory purposes and address different causes of action, concurrent proceedings do not constitute double jeopardy. The Court further emphasized that High Courts should not interfere with factual findings of specialized forums in constitutional jurisdiction unless such findings are perverse.

  Read full judgment →
• Raja Shahzad Ahmad vs Incharge Baggage Routing Paksitan Internatinoal2024 SCP 405, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 251, 2025 CLD 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-18
  limitation periodconsumer complaintcondonation of delayspecial lawmissing baggageleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of his first appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the dismissal of his consumer complaint regarding missing baggage on the ground of limitation. The core legal question was whether the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to proceedings under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, particularly regarding the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 is a special law which prescribes its own period of limitation and mechanism for condonation of delay under the proviso to section 28(4), while section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 excludes the application of section 5. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, laying down that general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 such as section 5 do not apply to special enactments unless expressly saved, and time-barred complaints before consumer courts must be governed strictly by the limitation and condonation provisions contained within the special statute itself.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to proceedings under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005?
  • What is the prescribed period of limitation for filing a claim under section 28(4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005?
  • Can a Consumer Court condone delay in filing a complaint under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 beyond the statutory period upon sufficient cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahimullah Khan vs Deputy Postmaster General, Southern Postal Region, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2024 SCP 46, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 540, 2024 SCMR 541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-24
  service lawback benefitsreinstatementhonourable acquittalfundamental rulessuperannuationdisciplinary proceedingscivil service regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil servant who, after being removed from service and subsequently reinstated by the Federal Service Tribunal with 'consequential back benefits,' faced a departmental order treating his intervening period of absence as 'without pay.' The department relied on F.R. 54(a) of the Fundamental Rules, arguing the petitioner was not 'honourably acquitted.' The core legal question was whether the department could unilaterally withhold pay for an intervening period after a Tribunal had ordered reinstatement with back benefits, and whether the concept of 'honourable acquittal' applied to service disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the department's action was illegal. It ruled that 'honourable acquittal' is a concept specific to criminal law, not service disciplinary matters. Furthermore, the Tribunal's order of reinstatement with back benefits was binding and could not be undermined by the department. The Court emphasized that the 'no work, no pay' principle does not apply when back benefits have been awarded. Additionally, the Court noted that under Article 417-A of the Civil Service Regulations, disciplinary proceedings abate upon superannuation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the concept of 'honourable acquittal' apply to service disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can a department unilaterally treat an intervening period as 'without pay' after a Tribunal has ordered reinstatement with consequential back benefits?
  • Do disciplinary proceedings against a government servant abate upon attaining the age of superannuation?
  • Does the principle of 'no work, no pay' apply when a Tribunal has awarded consequential back benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali @ Foji vs The State and others2024 SCP 225, 2024 SCMR 1579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-23
  criminal appealmurder convictionabsconsionocular testimonyreasonable doubtevidentiary valueacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of the deceased, originally sentenced to death by the Trial Court and subsequently modified to life imprisonment by the Appellate Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant evidentiary gaps and the reliance of the lower courts on the accused's absconsion. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with infirmities, including the failure to collect blood-stained earth from the crime scene, contradictory statements by eyewitnesses, and the lack of corroborative evidence. The Court emphasized that ocular testimony from interested witnesses was unreliable and that absconsion, while a relevant fact, cannot serve as substantive evidence of guilt or cure defects in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, acquitted the convict, and dismissed the complainant's petition for sentence enhancement, establishing that absconsion alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other incriminating evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the absconsion of an accused serve as the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
  • Does the failure to collect blood-stained earth from the alleged place of occurrence create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can absconsion be used to cure material defects or lack of evidence in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the ocular testimony of interested witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Qudrat Ullah vs Additional District Judge, Renala Khurd District Okara etc.2024 SCP 55, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-25
  child maintenanceeducational expensesbest interests of the childfamily lawfather's obligationconcurrent findingsUNCRC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a challenge to a maintenance decree. The core legal question was whether "maintenance" for a child includes educational expenses and the extent of a father's obligation to provide such support. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts which had enhanced the maintenance amount. The Court held that the term "maintenance" is not limited to food, clothing, and lodging but encompasses necessary expenses for a child's mental, physical, and social well-being, including education. Relying on Islamic principles and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, the Court affirmed that a father is duty-bound to support a child's education until they are capable of earning a livelihood, provided he has the financial capacity. The "best interests of the child" remains a primary consideration. The Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact absent evidence of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

  Questions settled

  • Does the legal definition of 'maintenance' for a child include expenses incurred for education?
  • Is a father legally obligated to provide for the educational expenses of his child until they are able to earn a livelihood?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding maintenance amounts?
  • Does the 'best interests of the child' principle apply to the determination of maintenance and educational support?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Khan Soori vs Mir Lashkari Raisani and others2024 SCP 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-07
  substituted serviceservice of noticecourt processappellant's attendanceprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the procedural issue of effecting service of notice upon the appellant, Mr. Qasim Khan Soori, in an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question addressed by the Court is how to proceed when a party deliberately avoids the service of court processes. The Court observed that despite repeated attempts, the appellant could not be served, with reports indicating that his brother had refused to accept notice on his behalf. Finding the appellant's conduct in avoiding service—particularly given his former status as a parliamentarian and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly—to be unfortunate, the Court exercised its discretion to ensure the effective administration of justice. The Court held that substituted service was necessary to compel the appellant's appearance. Consequently, it ordered that the appellant be served through publication in designated Urdu and English newspapers, alongside service via registered post and the affixing of notice at his last known address, mandating his personal attendance at the next scheduled hearing.

  Questions settled

  • How should a court proceed when a party deliberately avoids the service of notice?
  • Can a court order substituted service through newspaper publication when personal service is evaded?
  Read full judgment →
• Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2024 SCP 99, 2024 SCP 164, 2024 SCP 227, 2024 SCP 248, PLD 2024 Supreme · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-07
  climate changefundamental rightsenvironmental governancestatutory compliancedisaster managementclimate financepublic interest litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the failure of the Federal and Provincial Governments to operationalize the Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017, despite the existential threat posed by climate change to Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the state's failure to establish the Pakistan Climate Change Authority and the Pakistan Climate Change Fund, as mandated by the Act, constitutes a violation of fundamental rights and a failure of governance. The Court held that the continued non-establishment of these statutory bodies, seven years after the Act's promulgation, is unacceptable and directly impacts the fundamental rights of the citizenry. The Court issued mandatory directions to the Federal Government to constitute the Authority within a strict timeline, warning of potential contempt proceedings for non-compliance. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that climate change is a serious existential threat requiring proactive, policy-driven governance rather than mere disaster management. It mandated that both Federal and Provincial Governments formulate and implement concrete climate change strategies, policies, and action plans, noting that the absence of such measures, particularly in light of recurring climate-induced disasters, is a significant constitutional and administrative failure.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the Federal Government to establish the Pakistan Climate Change Authority as mandated by the Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017 violate fundamental rights?
  • Are disaster management institutions like the NDMA and PDMA sufficient to address the broader, preventive requirements of the Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017?
  • Can the Court issue mandatory directions to the executive branch to expedite the appointment of statutory bodies required by legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan and others vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 SCP 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-30
  climate changestatutory complianceenvironmental governancecontempt of courtpublic interest litigationexecutive accountability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the failure of the Federal Government to constitute the Authority under the Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017, despite the Act being promulgated seven years prior. The core legal question addressed is the accountability of the executive branch in implementing statutory mandates related to climate change governance and the Court's authority to enforce compliance with such legislative directives. The Court expressed severe dissatisfaction with the Ministry of Climate Change's casual approach and failure to meet previous deadlines for establishing the Authority. The Court issued a final peremptory direction for the Authority to be constituted and notified by 15.08.2024, warning that failure to comply would result in personal appearance of the Secretary and potential contempt proceedings. The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory mandates, particularly those concerning public interest and environmental protection, must be implemented with urgency by the executive. Furthermore, the Court reviewed progress reports from provincial governments, noting Sindh's proactive climate interventions while directing other provinces to expedite their policy frameworks to address climate-related challenges effectively.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Court initiate contempt proceedings against a Secretary for failure to implement a statutory mandate to constitute an Authority?
  • Does the failure to establish an Authority under the Pakistan Climate Change Act 2017 constitute a breach of executive duty?
  • Is the Court empowered to set peremptory deadlines for the executive branch to fulfill statutory obligations?
  Read full judgment →
• Public at Large vs Capital Development Authority and another2024 SCP 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-27
  deforestationenvironmental protectionfundamental rightspublic parksuo motuinterim injunctionlocal commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a note by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding public complaints of systematic deforestation and the cutting of trees in Fatima Jinnah Park, F-9, Islamabad, allegedly directed by the Capital Development Authority (CDA). The Committee constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 directed that the matter be registered as a constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court held that the matter satisfies the preconditions of Article 184(3) as it involves public interest and impacts fundamental rights, specifically the right to access public places under Article 26 and the right to life under Article 9, which is degraded by environmental damage. Consequently, the Court issued notices to the respondents, directed the CDA to submit a detailed report on the deforestation activities, appointed joint commissioners to inspect and document the site, and issued an interim injunction restraining the CDA from cutting any further trees or proceeding with deforestation until the next hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does systematic deforestation in a public park impact the fundamental right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the cutting of trees in a public park by a municipal authority requires prior approval from the Environmental Protection Agency?
  • Can the Supreme Court appoint joint commissioners under Order XXXII of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 to inspect and document environmental degradation in a pending public interest litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh and others vs Muhammad Tahir Khan Chandio and others2024 SCP 147, 2024 SCMR 1160, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-15
  police cadreIT cadrecivil servantsexecutive branchseniority and promotionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Sindh which had allowed a constitutional petition concerning the cadre and service conditions of police personnel. The core legal question revolves around whether non-uniformed or IT/ministerial staff in the police department are governed by the Police Act 1861 or the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 and its framed rules, and whether long service in the Executive Branch entitles such personnel to absorption and parity with executive staff. The Supreme Court allowed the impleadment of affected parties, expunged adverse observations made against them without hearing, and disposed of the appeal by holding that the respondent ASIs (Computer) appointed in 2004 shall continue to serve in the Executive Branch of the Police Department without serving as a precedent, while their seniority and promotion must be strictly regulated in accordance with the relevant laws, rules, and regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-uniformed or IT and ministerial staff in the police department are regulated by the Police Act 1861 or the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 and rules framed thereunder?
  • Can police personnel appointed in a technical or computer cadre be permanently absorbed into the Executive Branch of the Police Department based on long service?
  • Whether adverse observations passed against parties without impleadment and opportunity of hearing are sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary Population Welfare Department, Lahore, etc vs Shehzad Anjum, etc2024 SCP 68, 2024 SCMR 766, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 657, 2024 PLJ SC 370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-01
  Intra Court Appealmaintainabilitysecond writ petitioncause of actionregularizationcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal assails an order of the Lahore High Court passed in an Intra Court Appeal, which had dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not filed by a competent person. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the Intra Court Appeal was maintainable and whether a second constitutional writ petition on the same cause of action was maintainable when an earlier writ petition had already been decided and implemented. The Supreme Court held that the Intra Court Appeal was maintainable, but the second writ petition was barred as no fresh cause of action had accrued and the principles analogous to Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred the subsequent agitation of omitted claims. The Court laid down the principle that a litigant cannot split their claim or bring successive writ petitions on the same concluded cause of action, and that prior implemented judgments preclude fresh writ remedies for retrospective benefits arising from the same lis.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second constitutional writ petition is maintainable on the same cause of action after an earlier writ petition has been decided and implemented?
  • Whether principles analogous to Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to bar subsequent claims omitted in earlier constitutional petitions?
  • Whether an Intra Court Appeal filed by the Provincial Government is maintainable when represented through its law officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary C&W, Lahore, etc vs M/s Haroon2024 SCP 123, 2024 SCMR 947, 2024 PLJ SC 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-20
  public procurementadditional performance securityperformance guaranteebid securitymis-procurementPunjab Procurement Rules 2014bidding documentsalternative dispute resolutionmediation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from civil petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the legality of procurement clauses demanding additional performance security from tender bidders. Public procuring agencies in Punjab sought tenders for construction works under bidding documents containing Clause 26(A), which required the lowest bidder to deposit an additional performance security ranging from 5% to 10% of the difference between the tendered and estimated amount. The central legal issue was whether a procuring agency can insert terms in bidding documents requiring additional performance security beyond the caps prescribed under Rules 27 and 56 of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014. The Supreme Court held that public procurement requires strict compliance with the legal framework to ensure transparency, non-discrimination, and predictability. The Court decided that clauses demanding additional performance security were inconsistent with Rules 27 and 56 and thus ultra vires and void. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned demand letters and judgment, emphasizing that any additional security can only be introduced via formal amendment to the Rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can a procuring agency introduce terms in bidding documents that demand security beyond the limits set in the applicable procurement rules?
  • Is a clause requiring additional performance security from the lowest bidder lawful under Rules 27 and 56 of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014?
  • Does the insertion of tender conditions inconsistent with the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 constitute mis-procurement?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary (Primary & Secondary Healthcare2024 SCP 83, 2024 SCMR 689, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 687, 2024 PLJ SC 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-17
  service matterpromotionselection postconstitutional jurisdictionArticle 212civil servantservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that directed the promotion of a retired civil servant from BPS-18 to BPS-19. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain a service matter regarding promotion, and whether the promotion to a selection post could be mandated by the court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction due to the absolute bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which mandates that matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants must be adjudicated by Service Tribunals under the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 8(6) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, promotion to a selection post, such as BPS-19, is determined strictly on the basis of merit rather than seniority. Consequently, the High Court’s interference in the administrative decision regarding the respondent's promotion was legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, bar the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants?
  • Is promotion to a selection post (BPS-19) under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, based on seniority or merit?
  • Can a High Court issue directions for the promotion of a civil servant in a service matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab thr. Chief Secretary, Lahore & others vs Qasim2024 SCP 412, 2025 SCMR 14, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 416, 2025 PLJ SC 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-09
  regularization of servicecontract employeesbeneficial legislationscrutiny committeecivil serviceequal protection of lawproject employees
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment directing the consideration of respondents for regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018. The respondents, formerly employed as District Teacher Educators under a discontinued project, sought regularization, while the petitioners argued they were ineligible as project employees or already held regular civil servant status. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly directed the Scrutiny Committee to verify the respondents' academic records and employment status. The Court emphasized that beneficial legislation must be implemented in an evenhanded, non-discriminatory manner across the board. It held that where a dispute exists regarding whether an employee is contractual or already a regular civil servant, the Scrutiny Committee is the appropriate forum to examine credentials and determine eligibility under the Act. The Court affirmed that public functionaries must act in good faith to ensure equal treatment, consistent with constitutional principles of equality and the elimination of exploitation, rather than adopting rigid approaches that force unnecessary litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 require the government to implement regularization policies without discrimination?
  • Is the Scrutiny Committee the appropriate forum to determine whether an employee is a contractual employee or a regular civil servant for the purposes of the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018?
  • Can the government deny the benefit of beneficial legislation to employees by adopting a rigid approach without proper scrutiny of their employment status?
  Read full judgment →
• Postmaster General Balochistan vs Amanat Ali and others, Muhammad2024 SCP 271, 2024 SCMR 1484, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1051, 2024 PLJ SC 696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-17
  service tribunalquantum of punishmentmisappropriation of public fundsdismissal from servicereduction in time scaledepartmental inquirycivil servantmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arose from judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal which had converted the major penalty of dismissal from service into a minor penalty of reduction in time scale for two years against postal department employees found guilty of facilitating a massive financial fraud and embezzlement of public funds at a post office through dereliction of duty and violation of rules. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the competent authority without identifying any legal defect in the inquiry reports or proceedings. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that while the Tribunal possesses the power to modify penalties, such discretion must be exercised judiciously with a proper application of mind and proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, especially where public funds and embezzlement are involved, and that the administrative authority's primary role in awarding punishment should not be interfered with lightly. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal cannot arbitrarily or without sound rationale reduce a major penalty to a minor one in cases of proven financial corruption and gross negligence, and the primary assessment of punishment by the competent department must be respected unless found unreasonable or unlawful.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have the power to modify the quantum of punishment awarded to a civil servant by a departmental authority?
  • Under what circumstances can a court or tribunal substitute its own finding on punishment for that of the administrative authority?
  • Can employees involved in the embezzlement of public funds be let off with a minor penalty without proper justification by the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervez Elahi vs Election Commission of Pakistan, etc2024 SCP 41, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-26
  nomination papersright to contest electionpro-enfranchisementelection expensesexclusive bank accountmisdeclaration of assetselectoral processsubstantial defect
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for a Provincial Assembly seat, primarily on grounds of failing to maintain an exclusive bank account for each contested seat and alleged non-disclosure of assets. The core legal questions were whether a candidate must open a separate bank account for every individual seat contested and whether the Returning Officer properly rejected the nomination for an alleged asset omission. The Supreme Court held that the requirement for an exclusive bank account under the Elections Act, 2017, is for the purpose of managing election expenses generally, not per seat, and that one account suffices for multiple seats. Furthermore, the Court held that the asset in question was acquired after the mandatory reporting date of June 30th, rendering the objection invalid. The Court emphasized that the right to contest elections is a fundamental right, requiring strict construction of provisions that curtail it. It established that election laws must be interpreted in a pro-enfranchisement manner, and nomination papers should not be rejected for non-substantial defects that can be remedied.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Elections Act 2017 require a candidate to maintain a separate exclusive bank account for every individual seat they are contesting?
  • Is the right to contest an election a fundamental right that requires strict construction of statutory provisions curtailing it?
  • Can a Returning Officer reject a nomination paper for a defect that is not of a substantial nature?
  • Should a statement of assets and liabilities be based on the preceding thirtieth day of June as per the Elections Act 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Rasheed and others vs PTV2024 SCP 125, 2024 SCMR 942, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 803, 2024 PLJ SC 816 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-21
  review jurisdictionArticle 184(3)public sector appointmentfinancial liabilityfundamental rightsarbitrary determinationSupreme Court review
  Summary & questions settled

  These review petitions challenge a 2018 Supreme Court judgment concerning the appointment of Mr. Attaul Haq Qasmi as Director/Chairman/Managing Director of Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV). The core legal questions involved whether the original judgment correctly invoked Article 184(3) of the Constitution and whether the findings of illegality, financial loss, and personal liability imposed on government officials were factually and legally sound. The Supreme Court allowed the review petitions and recalled the 2018 judgment. The Court held that the invocation of Article 184(3) requires a clear nexus to fundamental rights or public importance, which was absent. Furthermore, the Court determined that the calculation of financial loss was arbitrary, based on conjecture regarding notional airtime revenue, and failed to account for inflation regarding salary comparisons. The Court emphasized that imposing personal liability for financial losses on public officials without evidence of corruption, nepotism, or personal benefit lacks legal basis and precedent. The original judgment contained material factual errors and legal misapplications, necessitating its recall.

  Questions settled

  • Does the invocation of Article 184(3) of the Constitution require a clear demonstration of public importance and the undermining of fundamental rights?
  • Can a court impose personal financial liability on public officials for administrative decisions without evidence of corruption or personal benefit?
  • Is a calculation of financial loss based on notional revenue, such as airtime value, legally sustainable for recovery purposes?
  • What is the scope of the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction regarding material factual errors?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, through its authorized person and others. vs Election Commission of Pakistan, through Special Secretary, Islamabad and others2024 SCP 356, 2025 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-11
  adjournmentreview petitionlegal representationcase managementSupreme Court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed against the short order and detailed reasons of the Supreme Court of Pakistan issued in January 2024. The primary legal question addressed by the Court was whether a request for adjournment based on a counsel's personal family engagement, submitted by an Advocate-on-Record, constitutes sufficient grounds for delaying proceedings, particularly when multiple other counsel are available to represent the petitioners. The Court held that the mere filing of an adjournment application does not automatically entitle a party to a postponement. Emphasizing the availability of other counsel and the legislative change introduced by Section 6 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, which now permits the engagement of different counsel in review petitions, the Court declined the request for adjournment. However, as an indulgence in the interest of justice, the Court granted a final adjournment, explicitly warning that no further requests would be entertained and mandating that the case proceed on the next scheduled date.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of an adjournment application by an Advocate-on-Record automatically entitle a party to a postponement of proceedings?
  • Does Section 6 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 allow for the engagement of different counsel in a review petition?
  • Can a court deny an adjournment request when multiple other counsel are available to represent the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Engineering Council through its Chairman & others vs Taj2024 SCP 130, 2024 SCMR 956, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 746, 2024 PLJ SC 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-15
  engineering equivalencePakistan Engineering CouncilHigher Education Commissionacademic autonomyjudicial reviewB.Tech degreeprofessional registrationrecruitment criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals concern the equivalence of B.Tech. (Hons.) degrees with B.Sc. Engineering degrees and the respective jurisdictions of the Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) and the Higher Education Commission (HEC). The core legal question was whether B.Tech. (Hons.) is equivalent to B.Sc. Engineering and whether courts possess the authority to interfere in university admission policies or employer-prescribed recruitment criteria. The Supreme Court held that B.Tech. (Hons.) and B.Sc. Engineering are distinct disciplines—the former being skill-oriented and the latter research-oriented—and are not equivalent. The Court affirmed that the PEC holds the exclusive mandate to determine engineering qualification equivalence for professional registration, while the HEC oversees general higher education. Furthermore, the Court ruled that educational institutions maintain autonomy over admission policies, and employers retain the discretion to set specific qualification requirements for recruitment and promotion. Consequently, judicial interference in these administrative and academic domains is unwarranted absent a clear violation of law. The Court emphasized that the establishment of the National Technology Council further confirms the separation of these two distinct professional streams.

  Questions settled

  • Is a B.Tech. (Hons.) degree equivalent to a B.Sc. Engineering degree for the purposes of professional engineering registration?
  • Does the Pakistan Engineering Council have the exclusive authority to determine the equivalence of engineering qualifications?
  • Can courts interfere in the admission policies of educational institutions or the recruitment criteria set by employers?
  • Does the Higher Education Commission have the power to override the Pakistan Engineering Council regarding the accreditation of engineering degrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Noman Mansoor alias Nomi and others vs The State and others2024 SCP 194, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-22
  criminal revisionenhancement of sentenceright to fair trialrevisional jurisdictionmandatory noticeconversion of proceedingsdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition challenging a High Court judgment that converted a complainant's appeal against acquittal into a criminal revision petition, subsequently enhancing the petitioner's sentence from 14 years rigorous imprisonment to life imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possesses the authority to convert an appeal against acquittal into a criminal revision, and whether such conversion requires a mandatory notice to the accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court has the inherent power to convert proceedings to advance justice, it cannot enhance a sentence in revisional jurisdiction without strictly complying with the mandatory notice requirement under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court affirmed that the right to be heard is a fundamental constitutional guarantee. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside for failing to issue the required notice, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision after ensuring the petitioner is afforded the opportunity to defend himself, thereby upholding the principles of fair trial and due process.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court convert an appeal against acquittal into a criminal revision petition?
  • Is it mandatory for the High Court to issue a notice to the accused under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, before enhancing a sentence in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does the fact that an accused is already before the court in their own appeal dispense with the requirement of a separate notice under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, when the court exercises revisional power to enhance a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed & another vs Aijaz Ahmed & Others2024 SCP 243, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-15
  illegal dispossessioninterim reliefeviction and mode of recoverypower of court to acquit at any stagecivil disputeland grabbers
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a judgment of the Sindh High Court dismissing their criminal revision applications against orders passed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and the dismissal of their acquittal application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal questions involved the scope and applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to family members and pending civil disputes, the conditions for granting interim relief under Section 7 of the said Act, and the proper exercise of powers for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 applies broadly to any illegal occupant and is not restricted to land grabbers or Qabza groups, that pending civil litigation does not bar criminal proceedings under the Act, that interim restitution under Section 7 requires a prima facie finding of unlawful possession during trial after charges are framed, and that acquittal under Section 265-K is unwarranted where a prima facie case exists. The petitions were consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is restricted solely to professional land grabbers and Qabza groups or extends to family members and other illegal occupants?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation between the parties bar the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What are the precise conditions and legal thresholds required for granting interim relief under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 during the course of a trial?
  • At what stage of a criminal proceeding does a trial legally commence for the purposes of invoking Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What constitutes extraordinary circumstances warranting the acquittal of an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Naz Tahir vs Kafayat Ullah, etc2024 SCP 43, 2024 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-26
  nomination paperselection appealproclaimed offenderqualification of candidateselectoral processNational Assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for a seat as a Member of the National Assembly from NA-49, Attock-I. The Returning Officer initially rejected the papers because the petitioner was the wife of a proclaimed offender, but the Appellate Tribunal accepted them. Subsequently, the Lahore High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and rejected the nomination papers on the same ground. The core legal question is whether a candidate can be disqualified from contesting elections merely for being the wife of a proclaimed offender under the applicable legal framework. The Supreme Court held that there is no provision under the Constitution or the Elections Act, 2017 that deprives a person of the right to contest elections on such a ground, noting also that certain constitutional provisions regarding qualifications are not self-executory. The Court suspended the impugned High Court order and directed the provisional acceptance of the petitioner's nomination papers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether being the wife of a proclaimed offender is a valid ground under the law to reject nomination papers for contesting elections?
  • Are Articles 62(1)(d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Constitution of Pakistan self-executory?
  • Can a High Court set aside the acceptance of nomination papers on grounds not provided in the Constitution or the Elections Act, 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Jangaiz Khan Marri vs Mir Naseebullah Khan and others2024 SCP 179, 2024 SCMR 1372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-22
  election disputere-pollingabnormal voter turnoutElection Commission of Pakistandeclaration of poll voidsummary powersgeneral elections
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan directing re-polling at four polling stations in a provincial assembly constituency due to an unnatural and abnormal voter turnout. The core legal question concerns the scope and exercise of powers by the Election Commission under Section 9 of the Elections Act, 2017 to declare a poll void and order re-polling based on grave illegalities and apparent facts without conducting a full-fledged trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Election Commission possesses summary powers to regulate its own procedure under Section 9 and can order re-polling when faced with abnormal voter turnout and apparent irregularities that materially affect election results. The key principle laid down is that the Election Commission, upon being satisfied from facts apparent on record and after necessary inquiry, can validly order re-polls to ensure elections are conducted honestly, justly, and fairly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Election Commission of Pakistan has the power to order re-polling under Section 9 of the Elections Act, 2017 without conducting a full-fledged trial?
  • Does an abnormally high and unrealistic voter turnout at specific polling stations constitute a ground for declaring a poll void and ordering a re-poll?
  • What is the nature and extent of the summary powers exercised by the Election Commission of Pakistan when regulating its own procedure under Section 9 of the Elections Act, 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank ofPakistan through its President, Head Office, Karachi vs Roz-ud-Din and another2024 SCP 337, 2025 SCMR 160, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12
  service tribunaldepartmental inquirydismissal from serviceproportionality of punishmentdiscriminationconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which partly allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondent bank officer against his dismissal from service and modified the penalty to downgradation by one step in his pay scale. The core legal question involved whether the major penalty of dismissal from service was proportionate to the allegations of omissions and irregularities regarding ATM cash handling, and whether similarly placed employees could be subjected to discriminatory treatment. The Supreme Court held that the punishment of dismissal was harsh, disproportionate to the minor role assigned, and discriminatory compared to other employees facing the same allegations who received lesser penalties. The Court laid down the principles that penalties must commensurate with the magnitude of the guilt under the principles of safe administration of justice, and that similarly placed employees cannot be treated discriminately in violation of constitutional guarantees of equality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the penalty of dismissal from service is proportionate to minor omissions regarding ATM cash handling where the main accused has confessed guilt?
  • Does treating similarly placed bank employees differently in disciplinary proceedings violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can an employee be awarded a major penalty of dismissal from service in the absence of direct charges of misconduct, fraud, or embezzlement?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through President, Karachi vs Sajjad Ali Kakakhel2024 SCMR 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-11
  proforma promotionsupersessionservice ruleslachesconstitutional petitionretirement benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, whereby a constitutional petition filed by the respondent challenging his non-promotion and seeking proforma promotion was allowed. The core legal questions relate to the competence of granting proforma promotion in the absence of enabling service rules, the effect of inordinate delay and laches in challenging supersession, and the maintainability of a constitutional petition by a retired employee who has already received all retirement benefits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in granting relief as the relevant service rules of the National Bank of Pakistan contained no provision for proforma promotion, the respondent's challenge to his supersession suffered from gross laches, and he had already retired and received his terminal benefits. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that a writ or order directing proforma promotion cannot be issued where the applicable service rules do not provide for it, and that belated challenges to supersession raised after retirement are legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court direct the grant of proforma promotion when the relevant service rules contain no provision for it?
  • Whether a constitutional petition challenging supersession suffers from laches if filed years after the supersession and after the employee's retirement?
  • Is a retired employee who has accepted all terminal dues entitled to seek promotion and associated service benefits through a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through its President, Head Office, Karachi, etc.2024 SCP 127, 2024 SCMR 982, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 846, 2024 PLJ SC 478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-13
  intra-court appealmaintainabilityLaw Reforms Ordinanceproceedings specificright of appealconstitutional petitionservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of an intra-court appeal (ICA) by the High Court on the ground of maintainability. The core legal question is whether the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 bars an ICA when the original proceedings provide for an appeal, revision, or review, even if that specific remedy was not available to one of the parties. The Supreme Court held that the proviso is proceedings-specific and not party-specific; thus, if the underlying proceedings provide for an appeal against the original order, an ICA is barred regardless of whether a particular party enjoyed the right to file such an appeal. The Court laid down the principle that the test for the maintainability of an ICA under the proviso focuses on the nature of the proceedings rather than the parity of appeal rights between the litigating parties, disapproving contrary views.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is proceedings-specific or party-specific?
  • Does the unavailability of an appeal remedy to one party under the underlying rules allow the filing of an intra-court appeal?
  • Whether an intra-court appeal is barred if the proceedings in which the original order was passed provide for at least one appeal, revision, or review?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseem Khan and others vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2024 SCP 193, 2024 SCMR 1341, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 979, 2024 PLJ SC 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-17
  service lawpromotion quotajudicial reviewcivil servantsadministrative discretionvested rightseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions challenging a judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, which upheld a government notification altering promotion quotas for Soil Conservation Assistants. The petitioners, whose promotion quota was reduced from 100% to 75% to accommodate Field Assistants, contended that the notification was ultra vires and adversely affected their seniority and career progression. The core legal question was whether the government’s policy decision to amend promotion criteria and quotas for civil service posts is subject to judicial interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the formulation of recruitment and promotion policies, including the determination of eligibility criteria, falls within the exclusive administrative domain of the government. The Court affirmed that promotion is not a vested right, and civil servants only possess a right to be considered for promotion. Consequently, in the absence of any demonstrated illegality, discrimination, or violation of statutory provisions, the Court refused to interfere with the government’s policy decision, establishing that administrative authorities possess the discretion to amend service rules in the interest of service efficiency.

  Questions settled

  • Is promotion to a higher grade a vested right of a civil servant?
  • Does the government have the exclusive authority to prescribe eligibility criteria and promotion quotas for civil service posts?
  • Under what circumstances can a court interfere with a government's policy decision regarding civil service recruitment and promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Naimatullah Khan, Advocate, etc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 SCP 141, 2024 PLJ SC 449, 2024 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-25
  encroachmentspublic pavementsdemolitioncompensationland auctionamenity plotpublic interest litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses multiple public interest issues, including the rehabilitation of affectees from the Gujjar, Orangi, and Mehmoodabad Nallahs, and the demolition of Nasla Tower and Tejori Heights. Regarding the Nallah affectees, the Court directed the Sindh Government to finalize claims and allot plots with construction compensation. For Nasla Tower, where the deceased owner failed to refund buyers, the Court ordered the Official Assignee to auction the 780-square-yard plot to distribute proceeds among the affectees, while preserving the adjacent 240-square-yard amenity plot. On Tejori Heights, the Court sought details of the owners and booking refunds. Crucially, the Court addressed public encroachments, holding that pavements and public roads are exclusively for public use and cannot be blocked, even for security barriers by government officials. The Court directed the nationwide removal of all such encroachments within three days, ordering that costs for non-compliance by official buildings be recovered from the salaries of the senior-most occupying officers.

  Questions settled

  • Can public roads and pavements be encroached upon or blocked by government entities for security purposes?
  • Whether the cost of removing official encroachments on public pavements can be recovered from the salaries of the occupying public officers?
  • Can private land on which an illegally constructed building stood be auctioned to refund the affected buyers if the owner fails to comply with a refund order?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Sajid and others vs The State through Prosecuter General Punjab2024 SCP 302, 2025 SCMR 129, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausecross-versionrule of consistencytentative assessmentmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges of murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners, accused of killing the complainant's father during a land dispute, challenged the Lahore High Court's dismissal of their bail application. The core legal question was whether, given the conflicting versions of the incident and the existence of a cross-FIR, the petitioners' case warranted further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, thereby entitling them to bail. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail. The Court held that because the petitioners and the complainant presented contradictory narratives regarding the aggression and the specific circumstances of the death, the prosecution's case required proof through cogent and reliable evidence at trial. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioners' involvement was a matter of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail on a tentative assessment of the facts. The dissenting opinion argued that the petitioners were expressly nominated with specific roles and that the cross-version was delayed, thus failing to meet the criteria for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version in a murder case constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When is the rule of consistency applicable in bail matters?
  • What is the scope of the Court's assessment of evidence at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Tanveer Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. (in C.P.L.a 1422-L/2021) M/s Tanveer2024 SCP 219, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 830, 2024 CLD 1032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-28
  winding-up orderofficial liquidatorresiduary powers of directorslocus standiperson aggrievedcompanies actappeal against winding-up
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed under Section 6(14) of the Companies Act 2017 against a Lahore High Court Company Bench judgment ordering the winding-up of the petitioner-companies and appointing official liquidators. A preliminary objection was raised regarding whether a company ordered to be wound up can maintain an appeal in its name through its board of directors or chief executive, given the liquidator's appointment. The Supreme Court appointed amici curiae to examine the issue. Holding that a company is an aggrieved person under Section 6(1) of the Companies Act 2017, the Court decided that the right to challenge a winding-up order vests in the company through its board of directors exercising residuary powers, as the liquidator becomes functus officio regarding the winding-up order itself and cannot challenge the very order constituting their authority. The Court established that directors retain the residuary power to authorize representation to protect the company's existence, treating an appeal as a continuation of original proceedings, and rejected the preliminary objection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a company that has been ordered to be wound up can challenge the winding-up order in its name through its board of directors or the chief executive officer?
  • Does the appointment of an official liquidator deprive the board of directors of its residuary powers to file an appeal against the winding-up order?
  • Whether an appeal against a winding-up order is considered a continuation of the original winding-up proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Taj Wood Board Mills (Pvt) Limited and others vs Government of2024 SCP 174, 2024 SCMR 1347, 2024 PTD 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-17
  merged districtsFATA and PATAtax exemptiondiscriminatory treatmentequality of citizenscustoms general orderfiscal laws
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, private manufacturing companies located in the erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas, challenged a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding the applicability of fiscal and tax regimes following the constitutional merger of these areas through the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act. The core legal question concerned whether the preferential treatment in clearance and transhipment of imported goods granted exclusively to bulk-importing edible oil manufacturers under Customs General Order No. 8 of 2021 violated the right to equality by discriminating against other similarly situated businesses in the region. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them, holding that creating sub-classifications among businesses located in the Merged Districts without an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object of the exemption violates Article 25 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that executive circulars or statutory provisions cannot create arbitrary sub-categories or discriminate among businesses entitled to regional fiscal exemptions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Board of Revenue can create sub-classifications among businesses in the Merged Districts for the application of clearance and transhipment procedures?
  • Does the exclusion or preferential treatment of specific industries within the former tribal areas violate the equality clause enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether an executive circular or Customs General Order can introduce a parallel audit system when specific provisions already exist under the Income Tax Ordinance and Sales Tax Act?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Pak Telecom Mobile Limited vs Muhammad Atif Bilal and others2024 SCP 78, 2024 SCMR 719, 2024 PLC 130, 2025 PLJ SC 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-26
  trans-provincial establishmentworkman statusburden of proofgrievance petitionindustrial disputereinstatementNational Industrial Relations Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged concurrent decisions of the National Industrial Relations Commission and the Islamabad High Court, which had ordered the reinstatement of the respondent. The core legal questions concerned the competent forum for individual grievances in trans-provincial establishments, the interpretation of the term 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and the burden of proof regarding such status. The Supreme Court held that the National Industrial Relations Commission is the competent forum for such grievances under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. However, the Court ruled that a claimant must satisfy the definition of 'workman' under both the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 to maintain a claim for reinstatement. The key principle laid down is that the initial burden of proof rests entirely on the claimant to demonstrate, through evidence, that their duties were manual or clerical and not managerial or administrative. As the respondent failed to discharge this burden, the petition was allowed and the lower orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Which forum is competent to adjudicate individual grievances of workers in trans-provincial establishments?
  • Does the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 differ from the definition under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the claimant to establish their status as a 'workman' in a grievance petition?
  • Can a worker seek reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 without proving their status as a 'workman' under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Options International (SMC-Pvt.) Ltd through its CEO vs The2024 SCP 260, 2024 CLD 1221, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-07
  Competition Acttrademark infringementunfair competitionCompetition Commission of Pakistanstatutory penaltiesmarket distortion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under section 44 of the Competition Act, 2010, challenging a judgment by the Competition Appellate Tribunal. The appellant, M/s Options International (SMC-Pvt.) Ltd., had been penalized by the Competition Commission of Pakistan for using the trademarked name and logo of Starbucks Corporation USA without authorization. The Tribunal had upheld the finding of violation while modifying the penalty structure. The core legal question was whether the Competition Act, 2010 applies to an undertaking using a foreign brand's trademark when that brand has no physical presence or authorized outlets in Pakistan. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the unauthorized use of a well-known international brand name and logo distorts competition within Pakistan. The Court reasoned that such conduct places local competitors at a disadvantage because the public is misled into believing the products are genuine, thereby creating an unfair market environment. The Court affirmed that the Commission possesses the statutory authority under section 38 of the Competition Act, 2010 to impose penalties for such anti-competitive practices.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Competition Act, 2010 apply to an undertaking using a foreign brand's trademark when that brand has no physical presence in Pakistan?
  • Does the unauthorized use of a foreign brand's name and logo by a local entity constitute a distortion of competition within Pakistan?
  • Does the Competition Commission of Pakistan have the statutory authority to impose penalties for anti-competitive practices under the Competition Act, 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Mughals Pakistan (Pvt) Limited vs Employees Old Age Benefits2024 SCP 391, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 1, 2025 CLD 150, 2025 PLJ SC 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-06
  Alternative Dispute ResolutionMediationArbitration ActAccess to JusticePro-mediation biasCase backlogCourt-annexed mediationSingapore Convention on Mediation
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant appeals arose from disputes between a private construction company and the Employees Old Age Benefits Institution regarding a construction project, which led to arbitration proceedings, an arbitral award made the Rule of Court, and a subsequent reversal by the High Court. During the hearing, the Supreme Court suggested mediation, and the parties eventually agreed to refer their dispute to mediation. The core legal question addressed the promotion and integration of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly mediation, within the judicial system to combat chronic case pendency and delays. The court held that courts should exhibit a pro-mediation bias and actively utilize the statutory framework for alternative dispute resolution to facilitate amicable settlements. The key principle laid down is that mediation is a crucial, complementary component of the justice system ensuring timely access to justice, preserving relationships, and reducing the immense backlog of pending cases in Pakistan's courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether courts should exhibit a pro-mediation bias to encourage out-of-court settlements?
  • Can pending appeals be referred to mediation or alternative dispute resolution with the consent of the parties?
  • What is the scope of mediation and alternative dispute resolution under the existing legislative framework in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Inter Quest Informatics Services (in all cases) vs The Commissioner of2024 SCP 398, PTCL 2025 CL. 72, 2025 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-28
  review jurisdictionerror apparent on the face of the recorddouble taxation treatyroyalty vs business profitsreference jurisdictionsoftware licensingtax exemption
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition challenged a majority judgment of the Supreme Court which had reversed a High Court decision regarding the taxability of receipts from leasing software (FLIC tapes). The petitioner, a non-resident, claimed these receipts were 'business profits' exempt under the Double Taxation Convention, while the tax authorities classified them as 'royalties.' The Court held that the majority judgment contained errors apparent on the face of the record. Specifically, the Court clarified that reference jurisdiction under the Income Tax Ordinance is akin to appellate jurisdiction and cannot be declined based on the availability of alternate remedies, unlike writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court determined that payments for the mere right to use a computer program, without transferring copyright, do not constitute 'royalties' but are 'business profits.' Consequently, the Court recalled the majority judgment, dismissed the respondent’s appeals, and restored the High Court’s decision, affirming that the receipts were not taxable as royalties under the relevant treaty provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decline to exercise reference jurisdiction under the Income Tax Ordinance on the ground of the availability of an alternate remedy?
  • What constitutes an 'error apparent on the face of the record' sufficient to warrant a review of a Supreme Court judgment?
  • Are payments for the lease of computer software programs, where no copyright is transferred, classified as 'royalties' or 'business profits' under the Convention Between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan vs Qadir Hussain & others2024 SCP 57, 2024 CLD 619, 2024 SCMR 770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-26
  partnership at willretirement of partnerdischarge of liabilitythird party liabilityrecovery suitPartnership Act 1932statutory compliancepublic noticeagreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that accepted a respondent's appeal, setting aside a Civil Judge's preliminary decree for recovery of Rs. 2,38,00,000/-. The appellant, a third-party investor, had sued the respondents for unpaid returns on a substantial investment in their business. The core legal question revolved around whether Respondent No.1 had effectively retired from a 'partnership at will' and was discharged from liabilities to the appellant under the Partnership Act, 1932. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 32 of the Act. The Court ruled that for a partner to be discharged from third-party liabilities upon retirement, strict adherence to the procedures outlined in Section 32(1)(c), (2), and (3) of the Partnership Act, 1932, is mandatory, including giving written notice, entering into a specific agreement with the third party and reconstituted firm, and issuing public notice. Mere witnessing of an agreement by the third party does not fulfill these statutory requirements. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Trial Court's preliminary decree was restored.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes a 'partnership at will' under the Partnership Act, 1932?
  • What are the statutory requirements for a partner to retire from a 'partnership at will'?
  • How can a retiring partner be discharged from liability to a third party for acts of the firm done before retirement under the Partnership Act, 1932?
  • Does a third party merely witnessing an agreement between partners imply acceptance of a retiring partner's exoneration from joint business liabilities?
  • Is public notice required for a retiring partner to be discharged from liabilities against third parties?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Haque Traders and others vs Sheikh Abid & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others2024 SCP 300, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-19
  fair rentrent controllertenancy lawfixation of rentrented premisesconcurrent findingslandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that affirmed concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court regarding the fixation of fair rent for commercial premises. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller correctly applied the criteria for determining fair rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, particularly regarding the landlord's evidence of comparable rents, increased taxes, and renovation costs. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the lower fora had properly appreciated the evidence, which remained unrebutted by the tenants. The Court affirmed that the Rent Controller's findings were based on a sound evaluation of the statutory criteria. A key principle laid down is that the criteria for fixing fair rent under Section 8 of the Ordinance do not require the simultaneous presence of all listed factors; rather, they serve as a yardstick. The Rent Controller may fix fair rent proportionately based on proven grounds, and an application cannot be dismissed solely because the applicant failed to substantiate every single precondition.

  Questions settled

  • Must all criteria listed in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 be proven simultaneously to justify the fixation of fair rent?
  • Does the Rent Controller have the authority to execute final orders and determine questions relating to the satisfaction of such orders?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Court if there is no patent illegality or misreading of evidence?
  • Is the Rent Controller empowered to exercise the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for specific procedural matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal2024 SCP 387, 2025 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-07
  trans-provincial establishmentforum of appealretrospective applicationcoram non judicejurisdictionprocedural lawsubstantive law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, a bank cashier, was dismissed for misconduct in 1982. The Punjab Labour Court ordered his reinstatement in 1985. During the pendency of the employer's appeal, the employee passed away, and the Industrial Relations Act 2012 was promulgated. The core legal question was whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the appeal of a trans-provincial establishment after the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act 2012, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the orders of both the High Court and the Tribunal. The Court held that laws altering the forum of appeal are procedural and apply retrospectively. Consequently, any decision rendered by a forum whose jurisdiction has been ousted by subsequent procedural legislation is coram non judice and a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a change in the statutory forum of appeal affect a vested right of appeal or is it merely a matter of procedural law?
  • Does a procedural statute altering the forum of appeal apply retrospectively to pending actions?
  • What is the legal status of an order passed by a provincial Labour Appellate Tribunal in respect of a trans-provincial establishment after the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Whether an order passed by a court lacking legal jurisdiction over the subject matter constitutes a nullity under the doctrine of coram non judice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited & others vs The Punjab Labour Appellate2024 SCP 389, 2025 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-24
  law of limitationgrievance petitiondismissal from serviceindustrial relationsdelay in litigationcondonation of delayback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arises from a service dispute where an employee, dismissed from service for misconduct in May 1976, challenged his dismissal via a grievance notice and petition filed in 1997—over two decades later. After successive rounds before the Labour Court, Labour Appellate Tribunal, and High Court, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned whether a time-barred grievance notice and petition could be entertained after a lapse of twenty-two years without any formal application for condonation of delay or plausible justification. The Supreme Court held that the law of limitation strictly applies to industrial relations disputes and that an employee cannot extend the limitation period indefinitely by repeatedly corresponding with the employer after the statutory deadline has expired. The Court emphasized that litigants must be vigilant and that courts are duty-bound to examine limitation issues. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and Labour Court and restoring the decision of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which had dismissed the employee's claim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grievance notice and petition filed after an inordinate delay of 22 years can be entertained without seeking condonation of delay?
  • Does an employer's reply to a time-barred grievance notice extend the period of limitation for a workman to approach the Labour Court?
  • Is it mandatory for Labour Courts and High Courts to examine the question of limitation even if it is not explicitly raised by the opposing party?
  • Can proceedings under Section 25-A of the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 be equated with civil suit proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaque Ahmed vs Shahzad Khan2024 SCP 317, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-29
  contempt of courtejectment orderdoctrine of mergerexecuting courtfinality of judgmentslandlord and tenantSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Original Petition was instituted under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, seeking contempt proceedings against a tenant for non-compliance with the Supreme Court's consent order requiring the vacation of demised premises. The core legal questions pertained to the enforceability of final ejectment orders, the effect of independent civil title disputes on eviction proceedings, the doctrine of merger, and the mandate of an Executing Court under rent laws. The Supreme Court observed that concurrent ejectment findings against the tenant had attained absolute finality and merged into the apex Court's order. The Court held that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree or stall execution based on frivolous pretexts or separate inheritance disputes between alleged legal heirs. While declining direct contempt punishment, the Supreme Court directed the Rent Controller to immediately execute the ejectment order and submit a compliance report.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Executing Court go beyond, modify, or rescind a final ejectment order during execution proceedings?
  • Can a tenant resist the execution of a final ejectment order on the ground that a separate civil title dispute is pending among alleged legal heirs of the landlord?
  • Does an ejectment order affirmed through successive appellate forums merge into the final order passed by the Supreme Court under the doctrine of merger?
  • What is the statutory forum and procedure for determining all questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of an eviction order under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Alam Khan vs Qurban Ali Mallano and others2024 SCP 129, 2024 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-08
  registration of multiple FIRsJustice of Peacecognizable offenceprivate complaintpolice investigationarrest of accusedSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the Sindh High Court's order which maintained the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's application under Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 seeking registration of a criminal case. The petitioner and respondents, belonging to the legal fraternity, harbored mutual animosity stemming from bar elections, leading to cross-allegations and litigation. The core legal question revolved around the legality and proper scope of registering multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) regarding the same incident and the misuse of provisions governing Justices of Peace. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that an FIR merely reports a cognizable offence and subsequent divergent versions must be investigated within the same case rather than by registering separate FIRs. The Court laid down definitive principles regarding the true import of Section 154 Cr.P.C., the duties of investigating officers under the Police Rules 1934, and clarified that private complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C. equally empower courts to direct investigations, arrests, and recoveries.

  Questions settled

  • What is the precise legal status and scope of a First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can a separate and subsequent First Information Report be registered for a different version or counter-version of the same cognizable incident?
  • What are the statutory duties of an investigating officer upon the registration of a criminal case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Police Rules, 1934?
  • Does a court seized of a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 possess the power to order an investigation that includes powers of arrest and recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Uddin Shaikh vs Chief Post Master Gpo Hyderabad & Others.2024 SCP 245, 2024 SCMR 1675, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-19
  service matterdepartmental proceedingscriminal acquittalmisconductmisappropriationlimitationlachesstandard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal for reinstatement following his dismissal from service for misappropriation of government funds. The petitioner, a former Clerk at the General Post Office, argued that his subsequent acquittal in a criminal trial regarding the same allegations necessitated his reinstatement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct, operate independently, and are governed by different standards of proof. The Court affirmed that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically exonerate a civil servant from departmental liability, as disciplinary proceedings focus on service discipline and conduct, whereas criminal trials address criminal culpability. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's service appeal was also barred by the principle of laches and limitation, as he failed to pursue his remedies diligently. The Court concluded that the Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal on both merits and limitation grounds, reaffirming that criminal acquittal does not provide a shield against validly conducted disciplinary actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically entitle a civil servant to reinstatement in service?
  • Are departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings mutually exclusive or independent of each other?
  • Does the standard of proof in a departmental inquiry differ from the standard of proof required in a criminal trial?
  • Is a court required to consider the question of limitation under the Limitation Act 1908 even if it is not raised by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali vs The State thr. Chairman NAB and Others2024 SCP 98, 2024 SCMR 749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-29
  post-arrest bailmisappropriationfine recoverydefault imprisonmentnational accountabilityspecial lawsurety discharge
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous application seeking the discharge of an alleged surety and the release of Defence Savings Certificates deposited pursuant to a Supreme Court post-arrest bail order in a corruption case. The appellant was convicted by an Accountability Court under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for misappropriation of government funds, and his conviction was upheld by the High Court with a reduction in the sentence of imprisonment. The core legal question concerned whether an amount voluntarily deposited by an accused as a condition for bail, equivalent to the determined financial liability, could be released upon conviction or whether it should be appropriated towards the fine imposed. The Supreme Court held that the deposited amount constituted an admitted liability rather than a traditional surety and that a sentence of imprisonment in default does not extinguish the obligation to pay a fine under the special law. The Court laid down that amounts deposited to secure bail in lieu of liability must be applied directly to satisfy the final fine, and special provisions for recovery under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 override general principles concerning default imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amount deposited by an accused as a condition for post-arrest bail representing the misappropriated sum can be treated as a surety bond that must be discharged upon conviction?
  • Does the serving of a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine absolve a convict from the liability to pay the fine under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Whether the recovery mechanism under Section 33-E of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is controlled or restricted by Section 70 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Hussain son of Ghu lam Muhammad and another. vs The State2024 SCP 56, 2024 SCMR 800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytwo versionsdischarge of accusedmurderpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, after being refused bail by the Lahore High Court in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners fired rifle shots causing the death of the deceased. However, a subsequent investigation conducted by the Regional Investigation Branch (RIB) and approved by the District Police Officer (DPO) concluded that the petitioners were innocent and recommended their discharge. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the existence of two conflicting versions—one in the FIR and another in the final investigation report recommending discharge—rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners, emphasizing that liberty is a precious constitutional right that cannot be curtailed on bald allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the police investigation recommends the discharge of the accused, contradicting the FIR?
  • Does the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident entitle an accused to the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can the liberty of an accused be curtailed solely on bald allegations when an official investigation has exonerated them?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafran vs The State2024 SCP 27, 2024 SCMR 548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-03
  desecration of Holy Qurancriminal appealinvestigational lapsesrecovery memoadmissibility of evidenceduty of trial judgereasonable doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged desecration of the Holy Quran. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the integrity of the investigation and the admissibility of recovered evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge due to significant investigational lapses, including the lack of an identifiable description of the recovered verses in the recovery memo and evidence of tampering with the recovery record. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment establishes that recovered articles must contain a precise, identifiable description in the recovery memo to ensure transparency and evidentiary preservation. Furthermore, it reaffirms that trial judges have an active, mandatory duty to prevent inadmissible evidence from entering the record, irrespective of whether the parties raise objections, to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide an identifiable description of recovered articles in a recovery memo render such evidence inadmissible?
  • Is a trial judge obligated to exclude inadmissible evidence even if the parties fail to raise an objection?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of desecrating the Holy Quran under Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Bhindi and others vs M/s. A.G.E. & Sons (Pvt) Ltd. &2024 SCP 207, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-08
  ex parte decreeservice of summonsrevisional jurisdictionsubstituted servicelimitation periodpith and substancecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from civil petitions challenging a High Court judgment that affirmed ex parte decrees against the petitioners. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court properly exercised its revisional jurisdiction in upholding these decrees despite potential irregularities in the service of summons and the misapplication of limitation provisions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s consolidated judgment was legally flawed, as it relied on diary sheets from a single suit to determine service across multiple distinct suits without analyzing individual facts. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to plaintiffs, not defendants, and that courts must prioritize the "pith and substance" of an application over incorrect legal nomenclature. The Court emphasized that substituted service under Order V Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, cannot be ordered without first establishing that a defendant is avoiding service. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing that the revision applications be reconsidered in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to applications filed by defendants for setting aside ex parte orders?
  • Can a court order substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without first establishing that the defendant is avoiding service?
  • Should a court prioritize the nomenclature of a legal provision cited in an application or the pith and substance of the relief sought?
  • Is a revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 required to examine the specific facts of each case when deciding multiple revision applications through a consolidated judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf, Commissioner Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala vs Member Judicial-IV, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others, Maratab Ali and another2024 SCP 420, 2025 SCMR 459, 2025 PLJ SC 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-28
  charagah landlambardari grantstate landBoard of Revenueland allotmentrevenue lawpublic purpose
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions challenging a High Court order that upheld the allotment of charagah (grazing) land to a lambardar (village headman). The core legal question was whether charagah land constitutes state land and whether it can be allotted under a lambardari grant scheme. The Supreme Court held that charagah land is legally distinct from state land. Historically reserved for collective village grazing and public purposes, charagah land cannot be converted into state land or allotted for private use without express permission from the Board of Revenue. The Court found the respondent's allotment lacked such authorization and violated the established policy governing charagah land. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the revenue authorities' cancellation of the allotment was restored. The key principle laid down is that charagah land retains a specific public character and cannot be treated as general state land for the purpose of private leases or lambardari grants; any deviation from this requires strict compliance with Board of Revenue mandates.

  Questions settled

  • Is charagah land considered state land for the purpose of allotment?
  • Can charagah land be allotted as a lambardari grant?
  • Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to regulate the conversion and allotment of charagah land?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Province of Sindh and others2024 SCP 291, 2024 SCMR 1689, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1178, 2025 PLJ SC 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-12
  pensionary benefitsvested rightdue processright to fair trialearned leavesqualifying serviceright to lifesuperannuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition for pensionary benefits. The petitioner, a sanitary worker who served the Sukkur Municipal Corporation for over 24 years, had his services terminated and pension denied due to alleged unauthorized absence, without being issued a show-cause notice or afforded an opportunity of hearing, and without the adjustment of his accumulated 811 earned leaves. The core legal question was whether a retired employee could be deprived of pensionary benefits without due process and without considering available earned leaves that could fulfill qualifying service requirements. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the High Court's order, holding that pension is a vested right and a component of the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution, and that procedural due process, including the issuance of a show-cause notice and a right of audience, is mandatory before any adverse employment or pension action. The Court laid down that pension cannot be arbitrarily withheld, earned leaves must be accounted for toward qualifying service, and public departments are under a strict legal obligation to process pensionary benefits expeditiously without unreasonable delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pensionary benefits can be withheld or forfeited without issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does the denial of accrued pension without lawful justification violate the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Are accumulated earned leaves required to be counted or adjusted as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating pension entitlement?
  • Is the payment of pension a legal right or a matter of charity and discretion by the employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Huma Saeed and others2024 SCP 132, 2024 SCMR 1078, 2024 PLJ 454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-06
  Nikah Namamarriage contractdowerinterpretation of contractfree consentfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that declared his divorced wife entitled to a plot described in column 17 of the Nikah Nama (marriage contract). The core legal question concerned how the terms and conditions in a Nikah Nama should be interpreted, particularly regarding ambiguities and the legal effect of its columnar headings. The Supreme Court held that a Nikah Nama is a civil contract whose interpretation depends on the true intent of the parties rather than the rigid headings of its printed columns. The Court laid down the principle that the headings in Form II under the marriage rules are not conclusive, and any ambiguity in the terms of a Nikah Nama must be resolved in favor of the wife unless it is established through evidence that she had full freedom of contract, an informed understanding of her rights, and exercised free consent during its execution, given prevailing socio-cultural disadvantages.

  Questions settled

  • Are the headings of columns in a Nikah Nama conclusive for ascertaining the intention of the parties to the marriage contract?
  • How should ambiguities in the terms and conditions of a Nikah Nama be interpreted regarding the rights of a wife?
  • What role does the free consent and informed understanding of the bride play in the interpretation of a marriage contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamim Ali vs Mst. Asma Begum & others2024 SCP 239, 2024 SCMR 1642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-15
  family courtexclusive jurisdictionconstitutional petitionconcurrent findingsdowry articlessecond appealscope of writ jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a family suit filed by the respondent for dissolution of marriage by way of khula, recovery of dowry articles, and monthly maintenance, which was decreed by the Family Court and subsequently upheld in a family appeal by the Additional District Judge. The petitioner then challenged these concurrent findings through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution before the High Court, which was dismissed. Upon seeking leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of concurrent factual findings, the special and exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and the limited scope of constitutional interference where no second appeal is provided by the legislature. The Supreme Court held that High Courts should not routinely exercise constitutional jurisdiction as a substitute for a second appeal or re-evaluate factual controversies already settled by the trial and appellate courts, thereby upholding the legislative intent of expeditious dispute resolution in family matters. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence in a constitutional petition against concurrent factual findings of family courts?
  • Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 provide for a right of second appeal?
  • What is the extent of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution regarding concurrent findings of fact in family disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Muhammad Imran and another2024 SCP 115, 2024 SCMR 814, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-18
  murderdeath sentencelife imprisonmentmitigating circumstancessingle fire shotacquittal of co-accusedre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, brought by leave of the court, challenged a Lahore High Court judgment confirming the appellant's death sentence and convictions under Sections 302(b), 324, and 337-F-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions pertained to whether an accused could be convicted for additional murders and injuries specifically attributed to co-accused who were ultimately acquitted, and whether causing a single firearm injury despite opportunity to fire again constitutes a mitigating factor in sentencing. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant fired a solitary shot causing the death of one deceased; however, because he did not repeat the fire despite having ample opportunity and did not cause injuries to other victims, he could not be held liable for the acts attributed to the acquitted co-accused. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the conviction under Section 302(b) PPC for one murder, altering the death sentence to life imprisonment, and acquitting the appellant of all other charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted for murder and injuries specifically attributed to co-accused who have been acquitted?
  • Whether inflicting a single firearm injury despite having ample opportunity to repeat constitutes a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can conviction for a specific fatal shot be sustained against one accused when the same eye-witness evidence is disbelieved regarding the co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Govt. of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and another2024 SCP 30, 2024 SCMR 614, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-21
  service tribunalliencivil servantautonomous bodyNADRAparent departmentreversion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application seeking the restoration of a civil petition which challenged a judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, wherein the petitioner's request to accept his lien against the post of Junior Scale Stenographer in the S&GAD, Government of Balochistan, was rejected. The core legal question centered on whether a civil servant who leaves government service to join an autonomous body like NADRA retains a right of lien to their former government post. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Rule 6(2) of the Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules, 1993, and Rule 7(2) of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules, 2012, a civil servant ceases to hold a lien against their government post upon taking up an appointment on selection in an autonomous body. The key principle established is that transitioning from civil service to an autonomous body on selection, rather than on deputation, fundamentally changes the employment status and extinguishes any prior lien in the parent government department.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant retains a lien on their government post after taking up an appointment on selection in an autonomous body?
  • Does an administrative assurance allowing a civil servant to retain a lien override statutory confirmation rules?
  • What is the legal effect under service law when a civil servant transitions from government employment to an autonomous organization?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Adj2024 SCP 250, 2024 SCMR 1770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-23
  maintenance allowancefrivolous litigationconcealment of factswrit petitionimposition of cost
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had also imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- upon him for filing a frivolous second writ petition. The core legal questions involved the propriety of imposing costs for filing successive concealment-riddled petitions, the waiver of such costs, and the permissibility of paying a decretal amount in installments before the Supreme Court without approaching the executing court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner, having concealed material facts, made false accusations against counsel, and indulged in frivolous litigation, did not deserve leniency, and that requests for installment payments of a decree must be raised before the executing court. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a litigant can seek waiver of costs imposed by the High Court for filing a frivolous second writ petition without convincing reasons?
  • Can the Supreme Court entertain a request for the payment of a family court decree in installments when no such application was made before the Executing Court?
  • Does a litigant who conceals material facts and makes false accusations against counsel deserve leniency from the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safeer and others vs Muhammad Azam and others2024 SCP 211, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 838, 2024 PLJ SC 612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-12
  constitutional jurisdictionadequate remedymaintainabilityreview jurisdictionejusdem generisboard of revenuedemarcation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed their constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 solely on the ground of maintainability, holding that an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy of review under Section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act 1957 was available. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly evaluated the adequacy of the statutory review remedy. The Court held that the High Court erred by failing to examine the specific grounds raised by the petitioners before concluding that the review remedy was adequate. The Supreme Court laid down that the scope of review under Section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act 1957 is strictly confined to its expressly prescribed grounds, and the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' must be read ejusdem generis with the preceding grounds. If the grievances raised in a constitutional petition fall outside the narrow scope of such statutory review, the remedy becomes illusory and cannot bar the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter remanded to the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can dismiss a constitutional petition under Article 199 solely on the ground of an alternative statutory remedy without examining the specific grounds raised by the petitioner?
  • What is the true legal scope and extent of the review jurisdiction conferred under Section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act 1957?
  • How should the expression 'for any other sufficient reason' in Section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act 1957 be construed?
  • When does an alternative statutory remedy of review become illusory or inadequate for the purpose of barring constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed, Waqar Ali vs The State and another2024 SCP 190, 2024 SCMR 1421, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-30
  murderdying declarationmitigating circumstancesimprisonment for lifecriminal petitioncorroborationmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which maintained the conviction of the petitioner under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Nagina Bibi, but converted his death sentence into imprisonment for life while enhancing the compensation amount. The core legal question revolved around the reliability and corroboration of the dying declaration made by the deceased. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed both the convict's petition for leave to appeal and the complainant's petition for sentence enhancement, holding that the dying declaration made to witnesses implicating the accused was voluntary, trustworthy, and sufficiently corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, including the medical-legal certificate and post-mortem report. The key principle laid down is that a dying declaration made to private persons, when free from outside influence, made in a fit state of mind, and corroborated by consistent testimony and medical evidence, forms a safe basis for conviction, while mitigating circumstances such as a single stab wound, unproven motive, and rejected recovery can justify reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration made before private persons can form the basis of a conviction without being recorded by a magistrate?
  • Can a dying declaration be accepted when it is supported by medical evidence and consistent testimonies of witnesses?
  • Whether the absence of motive and a single stab wound constitute mitigating circumstances to convert a death sentence into imprisonment for life?
  • Is a dying declaration required to be evaluated with great care and caution under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Muhammad Akram etc.2024 SCP 84, 2024 SCMR 692, 2024 PLJ SC 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-25
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadimmediate demandchain of informationhearsay evidenceadverse inferencepersonal right
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The primary legal questions concerned the validity of Talb-i-Muwathibat (immediate demand) and the necessity of proving a complete chain of information regarding the sale. The Supreme Court observed that respondent No. 2 made his demand with a slight delay after respondent No. 1, and more critically, the informer's source (DW-3) denied providing information, thereby breaking the chain of knowledge required to establish the 'immediate' nature of the demand. The Court held that the right of pre-emption is a piratical right requiring strict compliance with Section 13 of the Act. It further ruled that pre-emption is a personal right; the failure of respondent No. 2 to testify in person or through an attorney attracted an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and others vs The State and others2024 SCP 287, 2024 SCMR 1839 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-22
  joint recoverybenefit of doubtterrorism definitionocular evidence contradictionspersonal enmitymotive double edged weaponsuspension of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal and a civil petition arising from a trial under Sections 302/324/148/149 PPC and Sections 7/21-L ATA, where the trial court convicted the appellants for murder, attempt to murder, and terrorism, and the appellate court subsequently modified the sentence from death to life imprisonment while acquitting them under Section 7 ATA. The Supreme Court considered whether the ocular account, joint recovery of weapons, motive, and applicability of the Anti-Terrorism Act were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court held that the eyewitness testimonies contained material contradictions, no specific injury was attributed to the appellants, and the joint recovery of weapons from the same place without independent proceedings carried no evidentiary value and failed to match crime cartridges. Furthermore, an act arising from personal enmity without the design or purpose under Section 6 ATA does not constitute terrorism. Applying the established principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to benefit, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the petition for suspension of sentence as infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Does a joint recovery of weapons conducted simultaneously from the same place carry evidentiary value against co-accused persons?
  • Can an act committed in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta be categorized as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is the existence of motive alone sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused in the presence of material contradictions in eye-witness accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Khizar Hayat & another2024 SCP 134, 2024 SCMR 1085, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-17
  murder trialinterested witnessforensic evidencecriminal acquittalburden of proofocular accountinvestigative failurereasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment acquitting the respondent of murder charges. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's ocular account and the conviction based on alleged misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution’s case, relying on interested witnesses, suffered from material contradictions and lacked independent corroboration, rendering the testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the failure to conduct forensic analysis on the alleged murder weapon (a sota) significantly weakened the prosecution's case. The judgment established that while interested witnesses are not inherently incredible, their testimony requires careful scrutiny and independent corroboration to sustain a conviction. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof remains strictly on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that modern forensic science is an essential component of a fair trial and effective criminal justice system, which the investigating agency must prioritize to avoid erroneous acquittals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to subject a recovered weapon to forensic analysis?
  • Does the failure of an investigating agency to utilize modern forensic techniques entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and others, Muhammad Ashraf and others, Haji2024 SCP 314, 2025 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-16
  Shamlat DehAla MalkiyatAdna MalkiyatLand ReformsProprietary RightsConstitutional JurisdictionWajib-ul-ArzHasab Rasad KhewatPossessionLand Distribution
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court dismissed appeals concerning the distribution of Shamlat Deh land, affirming the Lahore High Court's judgment. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation and implementation of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959 and a 1960 Notification, specifically regarding the proprietary rights of Ala Maliks, Adna Maliks, and Ala-khud-Adna Maliks in common village land. The Court held that superior courts, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, cannot create new rights for parties. It was reiterated that Ala Malkiyat and similar intermediary interests stood abolished by Paragraph 22 of MLR-64, and Shamlat Deh land is to be distributed among the proprietary body of the village based on their entitlement in the Malkiyat Khata, not merely on possession. The Court clarified that terms like "Hasab Rasad Khewat" and "Hissa Hasab Rasad Khewat Jama Bandobast Qanuni" are interchangeable for determining shares.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court or Supreme Court create a new right in favour of any party while dealing with a matter under Article 199 or 185 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • How is Shamlat Deh land to be distributed among the proprietary body of a village after the abolition of Ala Malkiyat?
  • Does mere possession of Shamlat Deh land, without any right in the Malkiyat Khata, create a right for its grant?
  • Do the provisions of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 No.64, override customary practices or agreements like Wajib-ul-Arz for the distribution of Shamlat land?
  • What is the legal status of Ala Malkiyat and similar intermediary interests after the promulgation of West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 No.64?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rajar vs The State through Prosecutor General Sindh and others2024 SCP 360, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-14
  direct complaintpreliminary inquiryfrivolous complaintissuance of processretaliatory FIRmalafide intentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenges an order of the High Court of Sindh, which allowed a revision application and set aside a trial court's order issuing bailable warrants on a direct complaint filed by the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the scope and duty of the trial court under Sections 202, 203, and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in scrutinizing direct complaints and preliminary inquiry reports to prevent frivolous or malafide litigation. The Supreme Court held that the direct complaint was a retaliatory and malafide measure filed subsequent to an FIR registered against the petitioner's party, and that the preliminary inquiry report failed to disclose sufficient grounds or incriminating material to proceed. The Court laid down that trial courts must thoroughly scrutinize complaints and inquiry reports to protect individuals from vexatious prosecutions and must dismiss unsubstantiated claims at their inception.

  Questions settled

  • What is the primary purpose of holding an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Whether a trial court is justified in dismissing a direct complaint at its inception when no prima facie case is made out through the preliminary inquiry report?
  • Can a direct complaint filed as a retaliatory measure against an earlier registered FIR be entertained without satisfactory explanation for contradictions and expanded accusations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Iqbal in Crl.P.522 vs The State & others2024 SCP 272, 2024 SCMR 1731 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-25
  murderbenefit of doubtBadal-i-Sulhprivate complaintacquittalcompromisespecial leave to appealmedical evidenceFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses several petitions arising from a murder case involving multiple accused. The Trial Court had convicted several individuals, sentencing some to death and others to life imprisonment. The High Court subsequently acquitted most of the accused, maintaining only the conviction of Muhammad Nawaz while reducing his death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court, upon review, converted Muhammad Nawaz's petition into an appeal and acquitted him, noting that the prosecution failed to explain a delay in the FIR and that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the time of death. Furthermore, the Court observed that the complainant (the deceased's brother) could not override the will of the legal heirs (Walis), who had entered into a compromise (Badal-i-Sulh) with one co-accused and declined to challenge the other acquittals. The Court reaffirmed that a single doubt is sufficient for the benefit of the doubt and that special leave to appeal is a condition precedent under Section 417(2) Cr.P.C. for challenging acquittals in complaint-based cases.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansab vs Muhammad Hanif2024 SCP 388, 2025 SCMR 60, 2025 PLJ SC 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-19
  ex parte decreesummary suitspecial circumstancesleave to defendsubstituted servicerecovery suitCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld an ex parte decree passed against the petitioner in a recovery suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal question is whether an ex parte decree in a summary suit can be set aside after a significant delay without demonstrating 'special circumstances' or filing an application for leave to appear and defend. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish any 'special circumstances'—defined as rare, exceptional events beyond human control—to justify the delay and absence. The Court emphasized that the burden lies on the defendant to prove such circumstances, and that the petitioner failed to join proceedings despite proper service, including substituted service. The Court affirmed that the provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 4, require a defendant to show special circumstances to set aside a decree and that a party cannot introduce new pleas, such as being abroad, if not raised in the initial application. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes 'special circumstances' under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for setting aside an ex parte decree?
  • Is a defendant required to file an application for leave to appear and defend alongside an application to set aside an ex parte decree in a summary suit?
  • Can a party introduce a new factual plea, such as being abroad, during arguments if it was not pleaded in the initial application for setting aside an ex parte decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jahangir, Muhammad Lateef vs The State, etc2024 SCP 266, 2024 SCMR 1741, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-06
  criminal appealmurderacquittalreasonable doubtdishonest improvementocular evidencemedical evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was initially sentenced to death by the trial court, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged inconsistencies in the ocular account, the failure to establish motive, and the unreliability of the eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the eyewitnesses made dishonest improvements to their statements to align with medical evidence, their presence at the scene was doubtful, and the motive was not established. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner, emphasizing that medical evidence is merely confirmatory and cannot identify a culprit in an un-witnessed incident. The key principle laid down is that where eyewitnesses make dishonest improvements to their testimony, their evidence loses credibility, and a conviction cannot be sustained on medical evidence alone when the ocular account is unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on medical evidence when the ocular account is found to be unreliable?
  • What is the legal consequence when eyewitnesses make dishonest improvements to their statements during trial?
  • Does medical evidence serve as substantive evidence to identify a culprit in a criminal case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to establish the motive and the presence of eyewitnesses is doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque, Azira Razvi, Ahmed Ali vs M/s Zeal Pak Cement2024 SCP 61, 2024 SCMR 628, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 634 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-22
  contempt of courtcivil contemptsubstantial compliancereinstatementback benefitsexecution of judgmentlabor lawjudicial jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court order that disposed of a contempt application concerning the non-compliance of a judgment directing the reinstatement of employees with consequential benefits. The core legal question is whether the High Court acted correctly in dismissing the contempt proceedings based on an unsubstantiated assertion of "substantial compliance" without verifying the implementation of its prior directions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by failing to ensure the execution of its own judgment, effectively rendering it ineffectual. The Court emphasized that a High Court cannot abdicate its jurisdiction to enforce its orders. It established the principle that in contempt proceedings, a court must evaluate compliance in its entirety rather than relying on vague claims of "substantial compliance." The court is obligated to verify evidence of implementation and cannot simply relegate parties to seek alternative remedies when its own orders remain unexecuted. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh, thorough determination of whether the original judgment had been fully implemented.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court dispose of a contempt application on the ground of 'substantial compliance' without verifying the actual implementation of its judgment?
  • Is a court permitted to abdicate its jurisdiction to enforce its own orders by directing a party to seek alternative remedies?
  • Does the concept of 'substantial compliance' relieve a contemnor from the obligation to fully implement a court's judgment?
  • What is the scope of a High Court's duty under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to ensure the execution of its own judgments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State and Farhat Riaz2024 SCP 144, 2024 SCMR 1133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-18
  criminal appealmurder trialacquittalocular testimonycorroborationfalsus in uno falsus in omnibussupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charge of murder and his death sentence was set aside. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent by disbelieving the ocular account and motive, particularly when co-accused were already acquitted on similar evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence, as the eyewitnesses made false improvements, over-implicated innocent persons, and their testimony lacked independent corroboration. The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that when witnesses are disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon against other co-accused without strong, independent corroboratory evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses can be relied upon against a remaining accused when they have been disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused attributed the same role?
  • Is independent corroboratory evidence required to sustain a conviction when the ocular account is found tainted and unreliable as to a major portion of the accused persons?
  • Does the over-implication of innocent persons in a murder case destroy the credibility of the complainant and eyewitnesses?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of the High Court acquitting an accused where no legal infirmity is pointed out?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imtiaz Baig and others vs The State through Prosecutor2024 SCP 154, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  qatl-e-amdlife imprisonmentwide net implicationjuxtaposition of evidencedefence pleaadverse inferencedelay in sending crime emptiesbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal petitions arising from a double-murder case under section 302/34/109 PPC. The trial court had sentenced petitioners Muhammad Imtiaz Baig and Muhammad Fayyaz Baig to death. On appeal, the High Court maintained their convictions but reduced the death sentences to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court re-evaluated the prosecution evidence alongside the defense plea raised under section 342 Cr.P.C. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the presence and role of Fayyaz Baig beyond reasonable doubt, citing the unnatural story of snatching the pistol, wide-net implication of family members, lack of recovery, withholding of material witnesses under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and delayed submission of crime empties. Conversely, the evidence against Imtiaz Baig was found reliable, while his plea of sudden provocation and self-defense remained unproven. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent of Fayyaz Baig, acquitting him, but dismissed the petitions regarding Imtiaz Baig and the complainant's petition for enhancement of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • How must a court evaluate a defence plea under Section 342 Cr.P.C. when placed in juxtaposition with the prosecution evidence?
  • Does delayed dispatch of crime empties to the forensic laboratory after recovery of the weapon negate their evidentiary value?
  • What is the effect under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution withholds key material witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran vs The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and another2024 SCP 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-26
  rapefornicationDNA evidenceconsentcriminal appealmedical examinationgender-based violence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal appeal arising from a dissenting judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein the majority converted the petitioner's conviction for rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 into one for fornication under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was initially convicted by the trial court for rape and house-trespass, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court. The majority of the Supreme Court held that the absence of physical injuries, lack of weapon, delay in lodging the First Information Report, and a prior association between the parties indicated consent, thus negating the charge of rape. The dissenting opinion, authored by Ayesha A. Malik, J., concluded that DNA evidence established sexual contact, that victims react differently to trauma without necessarily showing physical resistance, and that consent cannot be presumed without evidence. The dissenting judge held that the conviction for rape and house-trespass should have been maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of physical marks of resistance on a victim's body is sufficient to infer consent in a charge of rape?
  • Can an appellate court convert a conviction from rape under Section 376 to fornication under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on inferred consent?
  • Whether DNA evidence matching the accused with the victim conclusively establishes sexual intercourse in the absence of a proved alternative defense?
  • Is a delay in lodging the First Information Report in sexual assault cases invariably fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ijaz @ Billa (Crl.A.169/23) Mst. Naseem Akhtar (Crl.A.170/23) vs2024 SCP 218, 2024 SCMR 1507, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-22
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical jurisprudencepost-mortem delayacquittalQatl-e-amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the ocular evidence, the alleged motive of an illicit relationship, and the medical evidence concerning the cause of death. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s case suffered from material contradictions in eyewitness testimony, an unsubstantiated motive, and significant discrepancies between the alleged manner of killing and the medical findings. The Court emphasized that the unexplained delay in the post-mortem examination raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution's narrative, suggesting potential fabrication. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, applying the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case, the benefit of that doubt must be extended to the accused. The judgment reinforces that guilt must be proven firmly through evidence, not mere conjecture or probability.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's theory of the cause of death?
  • Is the principle of benefit of doubt applicable when the prosecution withholds the best available evidence?
  • Does the failure to prove the alleged motive for a crime necessitate the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan, Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State etc2024 SCP 187, 2024 SCMR 1427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-16
  murderchance witnessdelayed FIRprivate complaintbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencecorroborative evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter originated from a private complaint following a police investigation that initially declared the accused innocent. The trial court convicted Muhammad Hassan for murder under Section 302(b) PPC, sentencing him to death. The Lahore High Court subsequently maintained the conviction but commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the veracity of the prosecution's case, which relied on three eye-witnesses. The Court found that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained sixteen-hour delay, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the eye-witnesses were classified as 'chance witnesses' as they failed to provide cogent reasons for their presence at the crime scene, located far from their residences. The Court held that medical evidence and motive are merely corroborative and cannot sustain a conviction where the primary ocular account is unreliable. Applying the principle that the benefit of any single doubt must be extended to the accused, the Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and acquitted the petitioner.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux, Muhammad Ilyas vs Province of Sindh through Chief2024 SCP 309, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1349, 2024 SCMR 1864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-01
  service appeallimitationin limine dismissalcause of actionmixed question of law and factservice tribunalprocedural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against orders of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' service appeals in limine on the grounds of limitation. The petitioners, whose employment was terminated by the Education and Literacy Department, challenged these dismissals, arguing that their departmental appeals were filed within time and that the Tribunal failed to conduct a proper factual inquiry. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal could summarily dismiss appeals as time-barred without issuing notice or verifying the specific dates of the cause of action for each individual appellant. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal, as a fact-finding forum, erred by dismissing the appeals without proper adjudication. The Court ruled that the issue of limitation in these circumstances constituted a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating a detailed examination of individual records rather than summary dismissal. The Court emphasized that procedural rules exist to facilitate, not obstruct, justice, and that technical interpretations should not defeat substantive rights. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision after hearing all parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal in limine on the ground of limitation without issuing notice to the respondent department?
  • Is the question of limitation in service appeals considered a mixed question of law and fact when the date of the cause of action is disputed?
  • Does the Sindh Service Tribunal have the authority to examine evidence and summon witnesses to resolve factual controversies regarding the limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz and others vs Mst. Saima Saeed and others2024 SCP 310, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-11
  summoning witnessadverse inferenceexamination of witnessdefendant as witnessfair trialcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution arose from a suit for declaration and injunction where the plaintiffs sought to summon the first defendant as their own witness. The Trial Judge rejected the application, a decision subsequently upheld by both the Appellate and Revision Courts. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff can compel the defendant to testify as the plaintiff's witness. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the lower courts' decisions, refusing leave to appeal. The Court ruled that calling an opposing party as a witness is a highly objectionable practice that embarrasses judicial investigation, hinders a fair trial, and obstructs justice by placing examination and cross-examination in the wrong hands. The Court laid down the principle that if a party refrains from entering the witness box to give personal evidence without sufficient cause, it constitutes suppression of evidence, and the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference against them, rather than allowing the opposing party to compel their testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff compel the defendant to appear and testify as the plaintiff's own witness?
  • What is the legal consequence if a party to a civil suit refrains from entering the witness box to give personal evidence without sufficient cause?
  • Does the refusal of a defendant to testify justify the court allowing the plaintiff to summon that defendant as their witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs Molvi Muhammad Ishaq (decd.) thr. L.Rs.2024 SCP 191, 2024 SCMR 1390, 2024 PLJ SC 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-03
  pre-emptioncompromise decreeZar-e-ShufaSection 12(2) CPCsanctity of judicial proceedingsmisreading of evidencelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a protracted property dispute originating from pre-emption suits filed in 1972. The central legal questions involved the validity of a 1979 compromise decree, the alleged non-payment of the pre-emption amount (Zar-e-Shufa), and the maintainability of subsequent challenges under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in disregarding the 1979 compromise, which was a valid judicial record. The Court emphasized that judicial proceedings carry a presumption of correctness under Article 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, regarding the alleged shortfall in Zar-e-Shufa, the Court applied the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, ruling that parties cannot suffer due to a court's typographical error. The Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were perverse due to the misreading of evidence and failure to recognize the finality of the earlier litigation. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the lower courts' judgments, and affirming the Appellants' ownership and possession of the disputed land.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court's typographical error regarding the amount of Zar-e-Shufa payable by a pre-emptor invalidate the decree?
  • Can a party challenge a compromise decree through an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after significant delay?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a compromise recorded in judicial proceedings under Article 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asjad vs The State, etc.2024 SCP 270, 2024 SCMR 1959, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-12
  explosive substancesanti-terrorism actstatutory presumptionburden of proofmalicious intentpossession of explosivesquantum of sentenceterrorist purpose
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenges the judgment of the High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction for possessing explosive substances under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 7(1)(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involve whether the Anti-Terrorism Act applies to unauthorized possession of explosives without proof of a specific terrorist design, and whether possession without a functional triggering device satisfies Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The Supreme Court held that under Section 27A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, proof of possession of explosives shifts the burden to the accused to prove lawful justification, establishing a rebuttable presumption of a terrorist purpose. However, concerning the Explosive Substances Act, the Court held that in the absence of a functional electric circuit or proof of malicious intent to endanger life, conviction under Section 4 cannot be sustained and is altered to Section 5. The Court laid down that statutory presumptions regarding terrorism apply to unauthorized explosive possessions once physical recovery is proven, but distinct malicious intent must be established for higher sentencing brackets.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unauthorized possession of explosive substances automatically raise a rebuttable presumption of the purpose of terrorism under Section 27A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does the absence of a functional triggering device preclude a conviction under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • What is the distinction in ingredients between possession under Section 4 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • How does the statutory presumption under Section 27A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 shift the burden of proof onto the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The Chief Engineer (Administration), WAPDA, and others2024 SCP 203, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-31
  review petitionadministrative ordermaintainabilitySupreme Court Rules 1980frivolous petitionpowers of registrar
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition was filed seeking a review of a single Judge's order affirming an administrative decision of the Registrar who returned the petitioner's civil miscellaneous application as not entertainable. The core legal question was whether a review petition lies under Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or Order 26 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 against administrative orders passed by the Registrar or a Judge in appeal against administrative decisions. The Supreme Court held that Article 188 of the Constitution and Order 26 of the Rules pertain exclusively to the review of judicial orders, not administrative orders. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed for being neither entertainable nor maintainable under any provision of the Constitution or Rules. The Court laid down the principle that any petition or application that falls outside the scope of any provision of the Constitution, statutory law, or applicable procedural rules is frivolous and must not be received or entertained by the Registrar pursuant to Order 17 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980.

  Questions settled

  • Does a review petition lie under Article 188 of the Constitution against an administrative order?
  • Are administrative orders of the Court reviewable under Order 26 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980?
  • Should the Registrar entertain a petition that does not fall within the scope of any provision of the Constitution or Rules under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad (deceased) through LRs vs BashirAhmad (deceased)2024 SCP 183, 2024 SCMR 1369, 2024 PLJ SC 651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-08
  pre-emptionZar-e-Soimstatutory limitationdeposit of sale considerationrejection of plaintextension of time
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the interpretation of Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, specifically regarding the timeline for depositing the 'Zar-e-Soim' (one-third of the sale consideration) in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the statutory 30-day period for such deposit commences from the date of the institution of the suit or from the date of a court order. The Supreme Court held that the law mandates the deposit of the one-third amount within 30 days from the date of filing the suit. The Court affirmed that this 30-day period is a strict statutory requirement, and courts lack the jurisdiction to extend this time limit under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Even if a court fails to specify the time for deposit, the pre-emptor is under a duty to make the deposit within 30 days of the suit's institution. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the revisional court's decision dismissing the suit for failure to comply with this statutory requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 30-day period for depositing Zar-e-Soim under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 commence from the date of filing the suit or the date of the court order?
  • Does a court have the jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend the statutory 30-day period for depositing Zar-e-Soim?
  • Is a pre-emptor required to deposit Zar-e-Soim within 30 days of filing the suit even if the court fails to explicitly order such a deposit within that timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State & another2024 SCP 210, 2024 SCMR 1567, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-03
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequeprohibitory clausecriminal breachsecurity cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a cheque given as a guarantee or security rather than towards the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation attracts the penal provisions of Section 489-F PPC, and whether bail should be granted when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the impugned order and granting bail to the petitioner. The court held that a tentative assessment of the record showed the cheque was issued as a security, which prima facie does not attract Section 489-F PPC, and reiterated that Section 489-F is not meant to be used for the recovery of money. Furthermore, since the maximum punishment does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Does a cheque issued as a guarantee or security attract the penal provisions of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized as a mechanism for the recovery of alleged amounts?
  • Does the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the general rule regarding the grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Mahar and another vs The State2024 SCP 228, 2024 SCMR 1584, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 87 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-11
  pre-arrest bailhonour killingkaro-karifasad-fil-arzconstructive liabilitycommon intentionsui jurisextraordinary remedymala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal was directed against the order of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the petitioners' pre-arrest bail application in a case registered under Sections 302, 34, 201, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, concerning the murder of a 26-year-old woman portrayed by her family as suicide but alleged by her husband to be an honour killing. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were family members seeking pre-arrest bail, satisfied the extraordinary legal thresholds and demonstrated mala fide on the part of the complainant or prosecution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring clear proof of mala fide or victimization, which the petitioners failed to establish, especially given the medical evidence, the suspicious conduct of the family in failing to report the death promptly, and retrieved digital communications contradicting the suicide theory. The Court dismissed the petition, recalled the interim pre-arrest bail, and laid down principles regarding the strict parameters for pre-arrest bail and the grave societal menace of honour killing amounting to fasad-fil-arz.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted without demonstrating clear mala fide or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant or the prosecution?
  • Does the defense of suicide in a firearm death case override medical and circumstantial evidence pointing towards murder on the pretext of honour at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • What are the statutory parameters governing pre-arrest bail under criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  • Whether an offence committed in the name or on the pretext of honour constitutes fasad-fil-arz under the criminal law framework?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali (Haider), Zulfiqar Ali & others vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Govt. of Sindh & others2024 SCP 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-17
  doctoral programPh.D. in lawHigher Education Commissionfaculty requirementseducational standardsuniversity administrationcivil petitions
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh concerning a doctoral program in law introduced by the University of Karachi, which allegedly failed to comply with the basic criteria prescribed by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC). An inquiry report submitted by the HEC highlighted critical shortcomings, including the absence of full-time, permanent Ph.D. faculty members. Enrolled students sought permission to challenge the High Court's adverse judgment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the doctoral program cannot continue in violation of HEC rules, as non-compliance would ultimately invalidate the degrees awarded to students. With the consent of the parties, the Supreme Court disposed of the petitions by directing the Vice Chancellor of the University and the HEC to each constitute a three-member committee to resolve the pending issues, rectify defaults, and explore solutions regarding faculty requirements within two months, allowing the HEC to independently decide the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a university conduct a Ph.D. program in law without complying with the criteria prescribed by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan?
  • Whether third-party students affected by a High Court judgment can be granted leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • How can committees from a university and the Higher Education Commission resolve compliance issues regarding a doctoral degree program?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar and others, Muhammad Arshad vs The State &2024 SCP 324, 2025 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-24
  murdereyewitness credibilityadverse inferencefirearm expertbenefit of doubtdishonest improvementscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had maintained the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, while acquitting several co-accused. The prosecution's case rested on ocular accounts of a multi-victim shooting, but the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the recovered firearms and crime empties were never sent to a firearm expert for analysis. Furthermore, the complainant, despite claiming to be an eyewitness from a close range, did not sustain any injuries during the indiscriminate firing, and his testimony was filled with precise attributions that cast doubt on his presence. The non-production of other key eyewitnesses led the Court to draw an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. Finding material contradictions, dishonest improvements, and a lack of independent corroboration, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court accepted the appellant's appeal, ordered his acquittal, and dismissed the complainant's appeals against the co-accused's acquittals.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of failing to send recovered weapons and crime empties to a firearm expert for forensic analysis?
  • Can an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 be drawn if the prosecution fails to produce material eyewitnesses at trial?
  • Does the absence of physical injuries on an alleged eyewitness during an indiscriminate firing incident cast doubt on their presence at the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ain-ul-Haq vs Abdul Ali and another2024 SCMR 1767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-25
  execution proceedingseviction ordertenant evictionfair rentconstitutional petitionsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges an order passed by the High Court of Sindh, which disposed of the petitioner tenant's constitutional petition by directing him to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent landlord. The core legal question involves the scope and limitations of execution proceedings when the underlying eviction order passed by the Rent Controller has attained finality and remains unchallenged. The Supreme Court held that in execution proceedings, courts are strictly confined to the implementation of judicial decisions and are legally precluded from deliberating on or revisiting the merits of the underlying case. The ratio established is that an unchallenged eviction order remains valid and enforceable, and executing courts cannot scrutinize its legality. The Court affirmed the impugned order, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court examine the merits of an underlying case during execution proceedings?
  • Whether an unchallenged eviction order passed by a Rent Controller remains legally valid and enforceable?
  • Does an executing court have the latitude to scrutinize or revisit the findings of an original eviction order?
  Read full judgment →