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.

• Liaqat Ali and another vs The State and others2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 212, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 844, 2021 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-26
  Criminal appealMurder convictionAcquittalBenefit of doubtEyewitness accountProof beyond reasonable doubtSentence enhancement petitionPakistan Penal CodeCriminal Procedure Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a criminal appeal filed by convict-appellant Liaqat Ali against his conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302(b)/34 PPC, along with connected petitions by the complainant seeking enhancement of Liaqat Ali's sentence and challenging the acquittal of co-accused Mumtaz Ahmad. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had established its case against Liaqat Ali beyond reasonable doubt, specifically scrutinizing the presence and credibility of the eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court observed that the presence of eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence was doubtful and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court allowed Liaqat Ali's appeal, setting aside his convictions and sentences, and acquitted him. The connected criminal petitions filed by the complainant were dismissed for being without merit, affirming the principle that benefit of doubt must be extended when the prosecution's case is not conclusively proven.

  Read full judgment →
• Lal Marjan and another vs Islam Gul and othersPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 188, 2021 P S c (Crl.) 156, 2021 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-09
  post-arrest bailmurdersupplementary statementmasked assailantsfurther inquirycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving murder and firing. The incident involved two masked pillion riders who opened indiscriminate fire, resulting in the death of one victim. The petitioners were implicated in a supplementary statement recorded several days after the incident, allegedly due to a past motive involving a runaway marriage. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in the absence of strong incriminating evidence at the pre-trial stage. The Court observed that the assailants were masked, making identification difficult, and noted the Investigating Officer's failure to recover the weapon or the motorbike used in the crime. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution's case relied heavily on the supplementary statement, the evidentiary value of which required assessment during trial. Finding a case for further inquiry, the Court granted bail to the petitioners under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, emphasizing that where the prosecution's case rests on evidence requiring deeper scrutiny, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to recover the weapon or vehicle used in a crime constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case against the accused relies primarily on a supplementary statement that requires evidentiary assessment at trial?
  • Is the identification of masked assailants a relevant factor in determining the entitlement of an accused to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Khyber Medical University and others vs Aimal Khan and others2022 PLD Supreme Court 92, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-04
  impersonationunfair meansuniversity regulationsjudicial overreachacademic freedominstitutional autonomydisqualificationeducational institutions
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed a challenge against a High Court judgment that reduced a medical student's disqualification period from three years to one year on compassionate grounds. The respondent, a medical student, was caught impersonating another student during an examination, an act he subsequently admitted. The Khyber Medical University, acting under Regulation 32(c) of its Examination Regulations 2017, imposed a mandatory three-year disqualification. The High Court, while acknowledging the guilt, reduced the penalty as being 'harsh'. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, holding that Regulation 32(c) provides a fixed penalty with no discretion for reduction. The Court emphasized that under Article 4 of the Constitution, everyone must be treated in accordance with the law, and judges cannot override express legal provisions based on personal compassion or whims. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle of judicial self-restraint in educational matters, asserting that courts should not interfere in the internal disciplinary and administrative autonomy of universities unless there is a clear violation of law or fundamental rights.

  Read full judgment →
• Khushdil Khan Malik vs The Secretary, Establishment Div. Cabinet Block2021 SCP 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servantsecretariat grouptime scale promotionmeritorious servicedeputationrepatriationout of cadre
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions arise from a consolidated judgment of the Islamabad High Court which set aside judgments in favor of the petitioner, who sought induction into the Secretariat Group, time scale promotion in BPS-21, and consideration for BPS-22 on a meritorious basis. The petitioner, originally appointed as a Headmaster (BPS-18) in the Federal Government Educational Institutions, had been serving outside his parent department on deputation and ex-cadre posts. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant outside the occupational groups has a vested right to be inducted into the Secretariat Group, whether time scale promotion is a matter of right or policy, and whether promotion on meritorious service can be directed by the court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for horizontal movement or induction into the Secretariat Group, that time scale promotion is a non-regular policy benefit rather than a statutory condition of service, and that evaluation for meritorious promotion is the exclusive prerogative of the Special Selection Committee. The petitions were dismissed and the High Court's judgment upholding the denial of these reliefs was affirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant belonging to an educational cadre have a vested right to be inducted into the Secretariat Group without meeting the prescribed horizontal movement criteria?
  • Is time scale promotion considered a regular term and condition of service under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Can a court assume the role of the Special Selection Committee to grant promotion on the basis of meritorious service?
  • Does serving on ex-cadre posts qualify a teaching staff member for time scale promotion and meritorious advancement meant for technical and professional officers in their parent department?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushdil Khan Malik vs Secretary, Establishment Division Cabinet Block, Islamabad and others2021 SCP 330, 2021 SCMR 1496, 2021 PSC 1587 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-12
  civil serviceSecretariat GroupTime Scale Promotionmeritorious promotiondeputationex-cadrevested rightoccupational group
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant originally appointed as a Headmaster in the Federal Government Educational Institutions, challenged the Islamabad High Court's consolidated judgment dismissing his claims for induction into the Secretariat Group, grant of Time Scale Promotion, and promotion on meritorious grounds. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner possessed a vested right to be inducted into the Secretariat Group despite not belonging to an Occupational Group, and whether he was entitled to Time Scale Promotion and meritorious promotion while serving on ex-cadre posts. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that induction into the Secretariat Group requires strict adherence to prescribed modes, including membership in an Occupational Group, which the petitioner lacked. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Time Scale Promotion and meritorious promotion are discretionary policy benefits, not vested rights, and are contingent upon specific conditions, such as serving in the parent department, which the petitioner failed to satisfy. The Court emphasized that it cannot usurp the authority of the Special Selection Committee in evaluating professional merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to be inducted into the Secretariat Group if they do not belong to an Occupational Group?
  • Is Time Scale Promotion a term and condition of service or a discretionary policy benefit?
  • Can a court assume the role of the Special Selection Committee in evaluating a civil servant for promotion on the basis of meritorious service?
  • Are the benefits of the Time Scale Formula applicable to a civil servant serving on ex-cadre posts outside their parent department?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushal Khan Khattak University through its Vice Chancellor and others vs Jabran Ali Khan and others2021 SCMR 977, 2021 SCP 182, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-26
  regularizationcontractual employmentmaster and servantconstitutional jurisdictiontrichotomy of powersvested rightuniversity servicewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These Civil Appeals were filed by Khushal Khan Khattak University against a Peshawar High Court judgment that directed the regularization of several contractual employees. The respondents, initially appointed on a temporary contingency basis under Section 11(5)(d) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2016, had failed subsequent skill tests and interviews for regular positions. The High Court had intervened, asserting that the University Syndicate's inquiry process was flawed and directed their confirmation. The Supreme Court, however, held that contractual employees possess no vested right to regularization unless specifically provided by statute. The Court further observed that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution by interfering in factual controversies, micromanaging administrative functions, and acting as an appointing authority, which violates the principle of trichotomy of powers. The Court emphasized that once a contract expires, the relationship of master and servant ends, and courts cannot retrospectively revive such contracts. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside.

  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Lubna Bibi vs Azhar Javed Abbasi and another2022 SCMR 946, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-11
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailmedical boardmedico-legal opinionconflict of medical evidenceprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 337A(ii), 337A(iv), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the respondent was accused of causing an injury falling under Section 337A(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the opinion of the initial medical examiner should be preferred over a subsequent Medical Board's opinion. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that when there is a conflict in medical opinions, the opinion of a Medical Board comprising multiple senior experts with superior qualifications and experience must be given precedence over the initial examination conducted by a single junior doctor. The Court observed that preferring the first examiner's opinion would frustrate the established hierarchical system of medical review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the opinion of an initial medical examiner must be given preference over the subsequent collective opinion of a duly constituted Medical Board?
  • How should a court resolve a conflict between the medical opinions of a single junior medical officer and a multi-member Medical Board?
  • Does the hierarchy of medical review established by provincial notifications allow a Medical Board's findings to supersede initial medico-legal reports for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Bashir Ahmed & Sons Pvt. Ltd vs M/s Martrade Shipping &2021 P SC 755, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 373, 2021 SCP 24, 2021 PLJ SC 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-14
  withdrawal of suitpermission to file fresh suitsufficient groundsindivisible applicationformal defectcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from concurrent decisions of the lower courts declining to grant permission to the appellant to file a fresh suit upon the withdrawal of its original civil suit against a defendant. The appellant had filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to withdraw the suit against respondent No.2 while reserving the right to sue afresh. The trial court dismissed the suit as withdrawn but refused permission to file a fresh suit, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether an application for withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh one under Order XXIII Rule 2(b) is indivisible, and what constitutes a sufficient 'ground' for granting such permission. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a plaintiff cannot withdraw a suit merely at their sweet will without disclosing facts that in law amount to a valid 'ground' under Rule 2(b). The Court laid down that an application merely stating a temporary disinclination to proceed does not constitute a ground, and unless a proper ground is disclosed, the court is not required to grant permission for a fresh suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for withdrawal of a suit under Order XXIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is indivisible?
  • What constitutes a sufficient ground under Order XXIII Rule 2(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for granting permission to file a fresh suit?
  • Can a plaintiff be permitted to withdraw a suit and reserve the right to sue afresh merely at their sweet will and pleasure?
  • What is the legal effect if a trial court dismisses a suit as withdrawn without expressly declining or granting permission to file a fresh suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Khallid Hussain, etc vs Nazir Ahmad, etc2021 P SC 1206, 2021 SCMR 1986, 2021 SCP 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-29
  inheritancegift deedmutationsuit for declarationsuit for cancellationvoid documentvoidable documentSpecific Relief Actonus of proofIslamic law of giftdelivery of possessionco-ownershiplimitationregistration of document
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition concerned siblings disputing inherited property, challenging a Gift Deed and subsequent mutation. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, for a registered document, and the necessity of seeking consequential relief like possession. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in finding the suit non-maintainable. It clarified the distinction between void and voidable documents, stating that for a void document (e.g., forged or procured by deceit), a suit for declaration under Section 42 is competent, and cancellation under Section 39 is not mandatory. Furthermore, not seeking possession was not fatal as the petitioners claimed co-ownership, and the respondents failed to prove exclusive possession. The Court emphasized that the onus was on the beneficiaries of the Gift Deed to prove its due execution, valid registration, and the three essential conditions of a valid gift under Islamic Law: declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The respondents failed to adduce reliable evidence for these conditions. The Court also determined that the cause of action for the petitioners arose upon their father's death, making the suit timely. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellate court's decision, which decreed the petitioners' suit, was upheld.

  Read full judgment →
• Khalilullah Kakar vs Provincial Police Officer, Balochistan etc2021 PLJ SC 333, 2021 SCP 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service tribunaljurisdiction of high courtseniority listdeputy superintendent of policeterms and conditions of servicecivil servantspolice branches
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves consolidated civil appeals arising from a dispute over whether Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) in the Balochistan Police Force belonging to different branches, specifically the legal/prosecution branch versus general and other branches, should have a joint seniority list or separate ones. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of constitutional petitions filed by civil servants before the High Court in view of the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether separate seniority lists for DSPs of different cadres are sustainable under the law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain service matters falling within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal, especially when the Tribunal was operational. On the merits, the Court held that separate seniority lists for DSPs of different branches are well-founded given the distinct qualifications, training, and nature of duties, and do not compromise the integrity of the police force since seniority lists merge beyond the rank of DSP. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable by a civil servant in relation to matters connected with the terms and conditions of service where a Service Tribunal has jurisdiction?
  • Does Article 212(2) of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain proceedings relating to terms and conditions of service even if the impugned orders are alleged to be mala fide, ultra vires, or coram non judice?
  • Whether separate seniority lists for Deputy Superintendents of Police belonging to the legal/prosecution branch and other branches of the Balochistan Police Force are permissible under the law?
  • Does the issuance of separate seniority lists up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police violate the status of the police force as an indivisible body?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalilullah Kakar vs Provincial Police Officer, Balochistan and others2021 P SC 1402, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 869, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-21
  service tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional petition maintainabilityseniority listpolice servicecadre separationcivil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses appeals arising from a High Court judgment directing the issuance of a joint seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) across all branches of the Balochistan Police Force. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of constitutional petitions by civil servants before the High Court in light of the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether separate seniority lists for DSPs belonging to different branches such as the legal and prosecution branch are legally sustainable. The Court held that the constitutional petitions were not maintainable because matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, and the Tribunal was functional at the relevant times. On merits, the Court held that maintaining separate seniority lists for DSPs of specialized branches like prosecution, given their distinct recruitment, training, and duties, is valid and does not compromise the compactness of the police force. The appeals were allowed and the impugned High Court judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant relating to terms and conditions of service is maintainable before the High Court in the presence of the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Does the bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution apply when the service tribunal is operational?
  • Whether separate seniority lists of Deputy Superintendents of Police belonging to the legal/prosecution branch and other branches of the police force are legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalilullah Kakar and others vs Provincial Police Officer, Balochistan and others2021 SCMR 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-21
  maintainability of constitutional petitionArticle 212 barService Tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicecivil servantsseniority listpolice cadres
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals under Article 185(3) of the Constitution arose from a High Court judgment directing the Provincial Police Officer, Balochistan, to issue a joint seniority list for Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) across all branches. The primary legal questions concerned whether constitutional petitions under Article 199 were maintainable despite the bar in Article 212(2) of the Constitution, and whether maintaining separate seniority lists for legal/prosecution and general cadres of DSPs was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court judgment. The Court held that respondents were civil servants and seniority directly relates to terms and conditions of service, falling squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Under Article 212(2), the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred from entertaining such petitions, even if the Tribunal was temporarily non-functional or the action was alleged to be ultra vires. Furthermore, given differences in recruitment, training, and duties under Rule 2(b) of the Balochistan DSP Service Rules, 1978, issuing separate seniority lists at the DSP level is legally permissible and does not violate the unity of the police force, provided lists merge upon higher promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable by a civil servant regarding terms and conditions of service in light of the bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution?
  • Does the temporary non-functionality of a Service Tribunal confer jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain service matters under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can separate seniority lists be legally maintained for different cadres of Deputy Superintendents of Police based on distinct duties, training, and recruitment procedures?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood and another vs The State and others2021 SCMR 810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-24
  MurderConvictionAcquittalJail PetitionCriminal AppealEyewitness TestimonyBenefit of DoubtMaterial ImprovementsMotiveReasonable Doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a murder conviction under Section 302(b) P.P.C., where the petitioner was initially sentenced to death, later converted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The Supreme Court considered a jail petition, converted into an appeal, and a criminal petition for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had proven its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the credibility of eyewitnesses and the consistency of the motive. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing material improvements in eyewitness testimonies, inconsistencies between the FIR and trial statements, and uncorroborated motive. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, and acquitted him. The criminal petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed as irrelevant after the acquittal.

  Read full judgment →
• Kazim Ali and others vs The State etc2021 SCP 386, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-11
  pre-arrest bailprinciple of consistencyfurther inquirycounter versioncriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when similarly placed co-accused had already been granted post-arrest bail which remained unchallenged. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The Court held that where co-accused with general and indistinguishable roles have been granted bail and the order remains unchallenged, denying pre-arrest bail on technical grounds serves no useful purpose since the accused would immediately become entitled to post-arrest bail upon arrest. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency applies to pre-arrest bail when the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the co-accused's bail has attained finality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted on the principle of consistency when similarly placed co-accused have already been granted post-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of a counter-version FIR justify further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a petition for pre-arrest bail should be denied on technical grounds when the accused would immediately become entitled to post-arrest bail upon surrender or arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Kazim Ali and others vs The State and others2021 SCMR 2086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-11
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirycounter-versiondelay in FIRvicarious liabilitycriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution was filed against the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case involving multiple injuries, house trespass, and assault on women. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated, citing a four-day delay in the FIR and a counter-version of the incident. The Supreme Court observed that four co-accused with similar roles had already been granted post-arrest bail, which remained unchallenged by the complainant. Applying the principle of consistency, the Court held that denying pre-arrest bail on technical grounds would be futile, as the petitioners would inevitably be entitled to post-arrest bail upon arrest. The Court further noted the existence of a counter-FIR and the general nature of the allegations against seventeen nominated persons. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted pre-arrest bail, ruling that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.

  Read full judgment →
• Kashif alias Wajid alias Waju vs The State and another2022 SCMR 828, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 165, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-27
  post-arrest bailsupplementary statementfurther inquirydouble murderhired assassindelay in nomination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was nominated as a hired assassin in a supplementary statement recorded by the deceased's daughter over three months after the double murder. The initial First Information Report, registered by the deceased's nephew, did not name the petitioner or provide a motive, whereas the daughter's subsequent statement introduced a new narrative involving election rivalry and hired assassins. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the prosecution's initial case was diametrically opposed to the version subsequently advanced by the daughter. The Court held that the evidentiary value of a belated supplementary statement and the daughter's explanation for her delay in participating in the investigation were matters of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making his continued detention unconscionable. The petition was converted into an appeal and bail was granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a diametrical contradiction between the initial First Information Report and a belated supplementary statement by a close relative brings a case within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted where the nomination of the accused as a hired assassin is based on a delayed supplementary statement whose evidentiary value is yet to be determined at trial?
  • Is the continued detention of an accused justified when the investigation is complete and the prosecution's case relies on conflicting versions of the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Attaullah and another vs The State2021 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-29
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailinvestigative processmala fidefinancial scamcriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of pre-arrest bail by the High Court of Sindh to the petitioners, who are officers of the Federal Investigation Agency. The petitioners were accused of accepting a bribe of 24 million rupees from a co-accused involved in a financial scam to defraud the Utility Stores Corporation. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail given the incriminating evidence, including forensic data and computer records, linking them to the alleged offense. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave, holding that the petitioners failed to establish a case for pre-arrest bail. The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to subvert or undermine the investigative process, which includes arrest as a necessary step for effective prosecution. The Court laid down the principle that the suspension or diversion of the usual course of law through pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary measure, justified only upon a clear showing of mala fide intent behind the intended arrest, which was absent in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Can anticipatory bail be granted to subvert or undermine the investigative process?
  • Is the arrest of an accused a necessary component for the effective and meaningful prosecution of an offense?
  • What is the primary justification required to suspend or divert the usual course of law through the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Attaullah and ano vs The State2021 P SC (Crl.) 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-29
  pre-arrest bailbail in anticipation of arrestFederal Investigation Agencycorruptioninvestigative processmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving as Deputy and Assistant Directors in the Federal Investigation Agency respectively, sought leave to appeal for pre-arrest bail after being refused by both the Special Judge Central and the High Court of Sindh in a case involving allegations of receiving gratification of 24 million rupees to facilitate a financial scam defrauding the Utility Stores Corporation through a fake certification. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of public servants facing serious allegations of corruption and abuse of authority to pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were prima facie connected to the offense through forensic data and witness statements, and reiterated that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to subvert or undermine the investigative process, which often requires arrest for effective prosecution. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy and mala fide on the part of the prosecution must be clearly established to suspend the usual course of law, which was absent in the present case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be granted pre-arrest bail to subvert or undermine the investigative procedure and process?
  • What is the primary justification required to suspend or divert the usual course of law through the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Are public servants facing allegations of receiving illegal gratification entitled to anticipatory bail when prima facie evidence connects them to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Justice Qazi Faez Isa vs The President of Pakistan and others2021 SCP 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-28
  review petitionbench reconstitutionmaster of the rosternumerical strengthreview jurisdictionsupreme court rulesmajority judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves miscellaneous applications seeking the reconstitution of the Bench hearing review petitions against the majority judgment in Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. President of Pakistan. The core legal questions concern the interpretation of 'same Bench' under Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, the numerical strength and composition of a review Bench in majority decisions, and whether dissenting judges from the original Bench should be included in the review Bench. The majority of the Court held that while the numerical strength of a review Bench must match the original Bench, its composition is subject to practicability and should include the author judge or an agreeing member, without any absolute requirement to include dissenting minority judges. The Court laid down principles regarding the Chief Justice's prerogative as master of the roster in structuring bench composition, the reviewability of majority versus minority judgments, and the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the 'same Bench' required under Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for hearing a review petition must include the judges who rendered minority or dissenting opinions in the original matter?
  • What is the required numerical strength and composition of a review Bench when the judgment under review was rendered by a majority?
  • Does a minority judgment possess the status of being enforceable or amenable to review under Order XXVI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
  • To what extent is the Chief Justice's discretion in constituting benches and determining the composition of a review Bench subject to principles of practicability?
  Read full judgment →
• Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others vs The President of Pakistan and others2021 PSC 378, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-22
  review jurisdictionbench constitutionmaster of the rosterjudicial reviewnumerical strengthSupreme Court Rules 1980minority judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns miscellaneous applications seeking the reconstitution of a review bench following the retirement of a judge from the original ten-member bench that decided the case. The core legal question is the required numerical strength and composition of a review bench, specifically whether the "same bench" rule mandates the inclusion of minority judges. The Court held that review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the Supreme Court Rules 1980 applies to unanimous and majority judgments, not minority ones. The Court ruled that the numerical strength of a review bench must match the original bench, regardless of whether the original decision was unanimous or by majority. However, the "same bench" requirement is subject to practicability and the Chief Justice's prerogative as "master of the roster." The principle laid down is that while numerical parity is mandatory, the composition is flexible, provided it includes the author judge or a concurring judge where practicable, ensuring the efficient functioning of the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extend to minority judgments?
  • Is the numerical strength of a review bench required to be identical to the bench that delivered the original judgment?
  • Does the 'same bench' requirement in Order XXVI, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 mandate the inclusion of the exact same judges who decided the original case?
  • Is the constitution of a bench the exclusive prerogative of the Chief Justice of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others vs President Of Pakistan and others2022 PLD Supreme Court 119, 2022 PCTLR 1302, 2022 SCP 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-29
  review jurisdictionjudicial accountabilitydue processnatural justiceaudi alteram partemSupreme Judicial Counciltax assessmentindependence of judiciaryerror apparent on the face of the recordmala fide in law
  Summary & questions settled

  This review matter arose from a Supreme Court judgment that quashed a presidential reference against a sitting Judge (Justice Qazi Faez Isa) but simultaneously directed the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to investigate the tax affairs of the Judge's spouse and children and report findings to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). The core legal questions involved whether the Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Articles 184(3) and 187 by issuing directions to non-parties, and whether such directions violated the principles of natural justice and due process. A majority of the review bench (6-4) allowed the petitions, holding that the impugned directions were made without providing a meaningful hearing to the affected family members and bypassed statutory protections under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Court recalled the directions, declaring all subsequent FBR proceedings and reports illegal. The key principle established is that judicial accountability must adhere to due process; the Court cannot confer jurisdiction upon authorities that they do not possess under law, nor can it bypass the independence of the SJC by acting as a complainant.

  Read full judgment →
• Js Bank Limited, Karachi and others vs Province Of Punjab through Secretary Food, Lahore and others2021 SCMR 1617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-07
  Intra Court AppealWrit PetitionStatutory First ChargeSugarcane PriceSecured CreditorsUnpaid SellerSale of GoodsCane CommissionerArrears of Land RevenuePurposive InterpretationConstitutional InterpretationCondonation of Delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, challenged judgments of the Lahore High Court (Division Bench and Single Judge) concerning the maintainability of Intra Court Appeals (ICAs) and the preferential rights of sugarcane growers over secured creditors (banks) regarding unpaid cane prices. The core legal questions revolved around whether ICAs were competent when the underlying law provided for alternative remedies, and the nature of the transaction between growers and sugar mills under the Punjab Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950. The Supreme Court held that ICAs were not maintainable as the applicable law provided for appeal, revision, or review. It further ruled that the transaction between growers and mills constituted a valid sale, and sugarcane growers held a "Statutory First Charge" (SFC) on the sugar and its byproducts for unpaid prices, including accrued interest, which takes precedence over the rights of secured creditors. The Court emphasized that Section 53(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, also creates such a preferential charge for unpaid sellers. The Cane Commissioner was directed to calculate and recover the full liability, including interest, as arrears of land revenue, with a warning against dereliction of statutory duty.

  Read full judgment →
• Jehangir vs Mst. Shams Sultana and others2021 SCP 412, 2022 SCMR 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-25
  sale mutationinheritanceadverse presumptionbest evidencelimitationattesting witnessescivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute over a 1975 sale mutation involving inherited property. The appellant’s sisters allegedly sold their shares to him; however, one sister (respondent No. 1) challenged the transaction in 2003, claiming fraud. The High Court set aside the appellate court's dismissal of the suit, holding the sale unproven. The Supreme Court examined whether the sale was validly established and whether the plaintiff's failure to testify was fatal to her case. The Court held that since the transaction occurred in 1975, the Evidence Act 1872 applied rather than the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. Under the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, specific denial by the executant is required to necessitate calling attesting witnesses. The Court found that the plaintiff’s failure to testify personally, despite challenges to her claim, triggered an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat. Consequently, the Court restored the appellate court's decision, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a plaintiff to testify personally in support of a claim of fraud regarding a sale mutation warrants an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat?
  • Does Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 apply retrospectively to sale mutations attested in 1975?
  • Whether a sale mutation must be proved by two attesting witnesses under Section 68 of the Evidence Act 1872 if the execution is not specifically denied by the executant?
  • Can a suit challenging a sale mutation be maintained after a delay of 28 years when the plaintiff's attorney was the local Lumbardar?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Ahmed and others vs The State2021 SCP 356, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-23
  criminal assaultproperty disputeconcurrent findingsmedico-legal certificatewitness credibilityleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from a dispute over property where the complainant, Noor-ud-Din, was assaulted inside his shop by his cousins. Following a trial, the accused were convicted for causing injuries and criminal trespass, with the Additional Sessions Judge later acquitting them of property damage charges but maintaining the assault convictions, which the High Court of Balochistan subsequently upheld. The petitioners challenged these convictions before the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution had falsely implicated all able-bodied opponents due to existing family animosity, citing discrepancies in the police surgeon's testimony and the acquittal on property damage charges as grounds for overturning the convictions. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the site plan corroborated the occurrence of a brawl and that the medical evidence consistently confirmed the date of the incident. The Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on credible witness testimony and that the potential loss of pensionary benefits for a deceased petitioner did not justify overturning a conviction supported by judicial consensus. Leave to appeal was declined.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy in a police surgeon's deposition regarding the date of examination invalidate a medico-legal certificate when the certificate itself contains the correct date?
  • Can a conviction for assault be sustained when the accused have been acquitted of charges related to property damage arising from the same incident?
  • Does the potential loss of pensionary benefits for a deceased convict constitute a valid legal ground to overturn a conviction supported by concurrent judicial findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamal Khan vs Secretary Home DepartmentPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 187, 2021 SCMR 468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-09
  FIR registrationforgeryfraudcivil disputearbitration agreementJustice of PeaceHigh CourtSupreme Courtleave declined
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a petition filed by Jamal Khan seeking a direction for the registration of a criminal case against rival claimants for alleged forgery and fraud related to an arbitration agreement. The petitioner contended that his thumb impression on the agreement was forged, while the respondents asserted a civil dispute over land. After failing to secure an FIR from the local police and a Justice of Peace, the petitioner approached the High Court of Balochistan, which declined to issue a direction for FIR registration, citing the prima facie civil nature of the dispute, inordinate delay, and availability of alternate remedies. The Supreme Court, hearing the petitioner's appeal, upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the police report did not support the petitioner's forgery claim and that both sides were engaged in a civil dispute. The Court found no jurisdictional error or flaw in the refusal by the Justice of Peace or the non-interference by the High Court, thus declining leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decline to direct the registration of a criminal case if the dispute primarily appears to be of a civil nature?
  • Is inordinate delay a valid ground for a court to refuse directing the registration of a criminal case?
  • Can a court refuse to direct FIR registration if alternate remedies are available to the petitioner?
  • Does a police report indicating a civil dispute justify a Justice of Peace's refusal to direct FIR registration for alleged forgery?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahanzeb Khan vs Umer Zahid and another2021 SCP 404, 2022 SCMR 726, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 105, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-30
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationmurderprohibitory clauseabscondencecriminal petitionappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal sought the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Peshawar High Court in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion judicially in granting bail despite the respondent being directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR, the existence of a blood feud, and evidence of the respondent's abscondence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning for granting bail was artificial, based on conjectures, and failed to properly evaluate the incriminating material, such as the prompt FIR and medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and cancelled the respondent's bail. The principle laid down is that while the considerations for granting bail and cancelling it differ, an appellate court must intervene when the lower court's bail order is based on surmises, lacks justiciable reasoning, or ignores material evidence, thereby failing to align with established legal guidelines for bail adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a blood feud and prompt FIR constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in a murder case?
  • Is an order granting bail sustainable if it is based on conjectures and surmises rather than a tentative assessment of the evidence?
  • Can the Supreme Court cancel bail if the High Court failed to provide justiciable reasoning for bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahanzeb and others vs The State through Ag KPK Peshawar and anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 151, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryineffective firingcommon intentionvicarious liabilitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which declined post-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case involving charges under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry, given that the deceased sustained only a single injury attributed to a co-accused, and no specific overt act or weapon recovery was linked to the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, converting the petition into an appeal and allowing it. The Court reasoned that since the petitioners were only alleged to have engaged in ineffective firing without causing injury, and no weapons were recovered from them, the case fell within the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where there is a possibility of a second view regarding the material on record, and no specific overt act is established, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a weapon recovery from an accused, combined with allegations of ineffective firing, justify the grant of bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail where the prosecution alleges common intention but the medical evidence shows only a single injury attributed to a co-accused?
  • Under what circumstances does a case fall within the ambit of 'further inquiry' for the purpose of granting bail in non-bailable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahanzeb and others vs State through A.G. Khyber Palditunkhwa Peshawar and another2021 SCMR 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycommon intentionineffective firingmurderSection 497 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution challenged the Peshawar High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioners in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 PPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with a co-accused, resorted to indiscriminate firing over a property dispute, resulting in one fatality. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could be held vicariously liable for the murder when the single fatal injury was attributed to a fugitive co-accused and no injuries were caused by the petitioners' alleged firing. The Supreme Court observed that despite allegations of indiscriminate firing in an open field, no prosecution witness sustained any injury, and no weapons were recovered from the petitioners. The Court held that the absence of an overt act causing injury and the lack of corroborating physical evidence rendered the question of common intention a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., establishing that where the material on record allows for a second view regarding an accused's guilt, the benefit of further inquiry must be extended.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be denied bail on the basis of vicarious liability when no overt act causing injury is attributed to them and no weapon is recovered?
  • Does the allegation of indiscriminate firing without causing any injury to witnesses in an open area justify a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • What is the legal sanctity of recovered crime empties when no corresponding weapon is recovered from the accused during investigation?
  • Can bail be granted if the material available on record allows for a second view regarding the 'guilt' of the accused at the tentative assessment stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Khan vs Khalid Latif2021 SCMR 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-03
  kidnappingjurisdictionAnti-Terrorism Courtremission of casepolice uniformleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case where the petitioner and other accused, disguised in police uniforms, allegedly kidnapped a couple, robbed them of cash and gold, and attempted to transport them before being intercepted by the Highway Patrolling Police. A case was registered under various penal provisions, including Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and submitted to the Anti-Terrorism Court. The trial court initially remitted the case to the regular jurisdiction, but this decision was reversed by the High Court. The petitioner challenged the High Court's reversal, arguing that the allegations did not constitute an offense under Section 365-A. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined leave to appeal, holding that the High Court correctly left the determination of the appropriate jurisdiction to be decided after the prosecution witnesses' statements are recorded. The Court emphasized that the issue of jurisdiction could be re-agitated by the accused at a later stage based on the evidence, and found no jurisdictional error in the High Court's approach.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case involving kidnapping and robbery under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 must be immediately remitted to regular courts before recording prosecution evidence?
  • Can the question of jurisdiction between an Anti-Terrorism Court and a regular court be re-agitated by the accused after the recording of prosecution witnesses' statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Jabar Ali vs The State2021 SCMR 1902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-29
  Qatl-i-amdcriminal petitionocular accountforensic evidencebail and leave to appealplea of substitution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition assailing the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, Jabar Ali, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the Qatl-i-amd of the deceased, Muhammad Hussain. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the ocular account, the corroborative value of medical and forensic evidence, and the sustainability of the defense plea of substitution and dacoity. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through straightforward and confidence-inspiring eyewitness testimonies, corroborated by medical evidence, weapon recovery, and forensic reports, while dismissing the belated defense hypothesis as illusory. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined, affirming the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the courts below in accordance with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court when ocular and forensic evidence are confidence-inspiring?
  • Can a belated defense plea of substitution involving an unreported dacoity be entertained without any foundational basis?
  • Whether minor discrepancies in cross-examination are sufficient to discredit eyewitness testimony in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Electric Supply Company Ltd. (IESCO) and 3 others vs Commissioner Inland Revenue Islamabad and others2022 SCMR 722, 2022 PTD 765, PTCL 2022 CL. 725, 2022 PCTLR 984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-15
  sales taxoutput taxinput tax adjustmenttax liabilitycollecting agentspecial procedure ruleselectricity distribution companies
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals filed by electricity distribution companies (DISCOs) against the Commissioner Inland Revenue regarding the classification of sales tax collected from steel-melting and re-rolling units. The core legal question was whether the additional sales tax collected by DISCOs from these consumers, pursuant to Rule 58H of the Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007, constituted part of the DISCOs' own output tax liability or if it was a separate tax liability of the consumers merely collected by the DISCOs as agents. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower forums, holding that the tax collected under Rule 58H is a distinct liability of the consumers. The Court reasoned that DISCOs merely act as collecting agents for administrative convenience, and this mechanism does not merge the consumers' tax liability with the DISCOs' own output tax. Consequently, the DISCOs cannot treat the collected amount as their own output tax. The principle established is that the administrative utilization of a third party to collect tax does not alter the underlying legal nature of the tax liability or conflate the liabilities of the collector and the taxpayer.

  Questions settled

  • Does the collection of sales tax from consumers via electricity bills by a distribution company make that tax part of the company's own output tax liability?
  • Is the tax liability of steel-melting and re-rolling units under Rule 58H of the Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules 2007 distinct from the output tax liability of the electricity distribution company?
  • Can an electricity distribution company claim input tax adjustment for sales tax collected from consumers under Rule 58H of the Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules 2007?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Bar Association through its President, Islamabad Bar-District2021 P SC 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-02
  encroachmentpublic parkillegal constructionCapital Development AuthoritySupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition involving the unauthorized construction of lawyers' chambers and court structures on public land designated as a football ground and park in Sector F-8, Islamabad. The core legal question concerns the encroachment of public parks and recreational spaces by professional bodies and judicial structures. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition based on the undertaking given by the petitioner's counsel that the illegal structures and chambers constructed on the football ground and park would be vacated within two months. Furthermore, the Court directed the Capital Development Authority and District Administration to demolish all illegal buildings upon vacation, ordered the Registrar of the Islamabad High Court to ensure the removal of court structures and their relocation to proper premises, and mandated compliance reports from both the petitioner's counsel and the High Court Registrar. The key principle laid down is that public amenities such as parks and playgrounds must be protected from encroachment and illegal constructions, and unauthorized structures thereon must be promptly removed and restored to their original public use.

  Questions settled

  • Can unauthorized structures constructed by lawyers and courts on public land designated for a football ground and park be ordered to be removed?
  • What is the procedure for clearing illegal constructions and restoring public parks to their original use in Islamabad?
  • Whether an undertaking given by counsel to vacate encroached public land within a specified timeframe binds the association.
  Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Hussain and another vs The State and othersPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 94, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 449, 2021 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-23
  murderocular accountmedical evidenceconflict of evidenceinjured witnessacquittalfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court which had altered the appellant's death sentence to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while upholding the acquittal of his co-accused sons. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his sons ambushed the deceased and others, resulting in one death and injuries to a witness. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the ocular account was reliable given major discrepancies with the medical evidence. The Court observed that the injured witness's testimony regarding his own injury contradicted the medical report, which showed a firearm injury instead of a dagger wound. Furthermore, the ocular account regarding the deceased's fatal wound was inconsistent with the autopsy report, which revealed an entry wound on the back of the chest rather than the front of the neck as initially reported. The Court held that the ocular account was inherently flawed, reflecting an attempt to falsely implicate an entire family. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the presence of an injured witness at the crime scene automatically guarantees the truthfulness of their testimony?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a stark conflict between the ocular account and the medical/autopsy reports?
  • What is the legal effect of a complainant casting a wide net to indiscriminately implicate an entire family in a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspector General Of Prison,Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others vs Habib Ullah2021 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-30
  sentence remissionAnti-Terrorism ActOffence of Zinaprison rulesconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent sentencesconvict rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, challenging a High Court judgment that granted sentence remissions to a convict, Habib Ullah. The respondent was convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a convict serving concurrent sentences for offenses under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, is entitled to remissions. The Supreme Court held that while Section 21-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, explicitly bars remissions for convictions under that Act, no such statutory bar exists for convictions under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. However, relying on the precedent in Nazar Hussain v. The State, the Court affirmed that remissions granted under Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 do not extend to convicts serving sentences under the Ordinance. Consequently, the Court allowed the respondent to claim remissions permissible under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prisons Rules, 2018, only after completing the sentence for the Anti-Terrorism Act conviction, while denying remissions under Article 45.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict sentenced under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, entitled to remissions in their sentence?
  • Can remissions granted under Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be applied to a sentence awarded under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Are remissions under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prisons Rules, 2018, available to a convict serving concurrent sentences for both anti-terrorism and non-anti-terrorism offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Inhaf Ullah vs The State and another2021 SCMR 1725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-07
  abduction for ransomtest identification paradejudicial interventioncriminal appealstandard of proofwitness testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for the abduction of a child for ransom. The petitioner was convicted under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment, while six co-accused were acquitted by the High Court. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, specifically regarding identification, and the propriety of the trial judge's intervention during witness examination. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from glaring discrepancies, including the lack of a test identification parade as required under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the failure of the complainant to identify the petitioner without judicial prompting. The Court emphasized that while trial judges possess the authority to question witnesses, such power must be exercised with extreme caution to maintain neutrality. The Court ruled that the trial judge's intervention to secure identification undermined the testimony's integrity. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted, establishing that judicial intervention to fill gaps in prosecution evidence is impermissible and that identification in the dock without prior testing is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction sustainable when identification of the accused is secured solely through the intervention of the presiding judge in the dock?
  • Does the failure to conduct a test identification parade undermine the prosecution's case in an abduction for ransom charge?
  • To what extent can a trial judge intervene to question a witness during examination-in-chief without compromising judicial neutrality?
  Read full judgment →
• Inhaf Ullah vs The State & another2021 P SC (Crl.) 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-07
  abduction for ransomdock identificationtest identification paradejudicial neutralitycriminal appealappreciation of evidencejudicial intervention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the abduction of a child for ransom. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of evidence, specifically regarding the identification of the accused and the credibility of the prosecution's narrative, given that the trial court prompted the witness to identify the appellant during examination-in-chief. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to glaring discrepancies in the prosecution's account, the absence of a test identification parade, and the improper judicial intervention that effectively filled gaps in the prosecution's evidence. The Court emphasized that while trial judges possess the authority to question witnesses, such power must be exercised with extreme caution to maintain judicial neutrality. Furthermore, the Court ruled that dock identification, absent a prior test identification parade, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment set aside, and the appellant acquitted of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dock identification of an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of a test identification parade?
  • To what extent can a trial judge intervene to question a witness during examination-in-chief without compromising judicial neutrality?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused in a joint criminal charge necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused if the prosecution's case is undermined?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Khan & others vs Shabir Ahmad Khan2021 P SC 707, 2021 SCMR 686, 2021 SCP 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-10
  specific performancecontract validityvoid for uncertaintybona fide purchaserwithout noticeTransfer of Property ActSpecific Relief ActContract Actlis pendensreadiness and willingness
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging judgments that decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The core legal questions revolved around the validity of an inchoate document, titled 'Receipt/Agreement', which lacked essential particulars such as land description, area, total sale consideration, and payment terms. The Court also considered the protection afforded to subsequent bona fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as well as the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. The Court held that the document was void for uncertainty under Section 29 of the Contract Act, 1872, and that an unsigned, unreferenced 'page' could not cure its deficiencies. It further ruled that subsequent purchasers, having bought the land before the suit was filed, were protected as bona fide purchasers without notice, and the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable. The plaintiff's failure to tender or deposit the balance sale consideration promptly also weighed against specific performance. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and dismissed the suit for specific performance.

  Read full judgment →
• Inam Ullah vs The State, etc2021 SCP 312, 2022 PSC CRI 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-13
  pre-arrest bailsuccessive bail applicationad interim bailabuse of processmaintainabilitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's second pre-arrest bail petition by the High Court in a case registered under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had previously withdrawn his first pre-arrest bail petition without advancing arguments on the merits and subsequently filed a second petition, enjoying ad interim bail in both instances. The core legal question was whether a second or successive pre-arrest bail petition is maintainable after the withdrawal of an earlier petition without a satisfactory explanation. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court, holding that while an accused may file a fresh pre-arrest bail petition after withdrawing a previous one without arguments, the second petition cannot be entertained nor ad interim bail granted unless the accused provides a satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal. Failing such explanation, successive petitions constitute an abuse of the court's process, rendering the second petition unmaintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second pre-arrest bail petition maintainable after the withdrawal of an earlier petition without arguments on merits in the absence of a satisfactory explanation?
  • Can an accused person be granted ad interim pre-arrest bail on a successive bail petition without providing a valid justification for withdrawing the previous one?
  Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Suo Motu Case No. 4 of 2021 vs N/A2021 SCMR 1609 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-23
  suo motu jurisdictionoriginal jurisdictionprocedural proprietyjudicial disciplineconstitutional interpretationSupreme Court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the procedural propriety of invoking the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The case arose after a two-member bench took suo motu notice of grievances presented by journalists via an unregistered application directly entertained in court, rather than through established judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court addressed whether such a departure from settled procedural norms for invoking suo motu jurisdiction is permissible. The Court held that it is essential to maintain a consistent procedural scheme to ensure credibility and certainty in the exercise of its constitutional powers. Consequently, the Court determined that it was inappropriate to implement the initial order while the fundamental question regarding the proper invocation of suo motu jurisdiction remained unresolved. The Court directed that the initial order be held in abeyance pending further deliberation on the procedural requirements for initiating suo motu actions, emphasizing that the substantive grievances of the applicants would not be addressed until the jurisdictional procedure was clarified and settled.

  Questions settled

  • How is the suo motu jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to be invoked?
  • Can a bench of the Supreme Court initiate suo motu proceedings based on an unregistered application received directly in court?
  • Is it appropriate to implement a judicial order that departs from settled procedural norms while the validity of that procedure is under review?
  Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Suo Motu Case No. 4 of 2021 vs Not2021 PSC 1250, 2021 SCMR 1612, 2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 365, KLR 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-26
  suo motu jurisdictionChief Justice of Pakistanconstitutional jurisdictionSupreme Court powersbench constitution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via Suo Motu Case No. 4 of 2021 regarding the exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question concerned the proper authority and procedure for invoking and assuming suo motu jurisdiction. The Court held and declared that the Chief Justice of Pakistan is the sole authority empowered to invoke or assume suo motu jurisdiction, either in his discretion or upon the request or recommendation of a Bench, and that no Bench may initiate any suo motu proceedings or take related steps without prior invocation by the Chief Justice. Consequently, the previous order dated 20.08.2021 was recalled, pending matters were directed to be handled by Benches constituted by the Chief Justice, and the case along with related filings was disposed of.

  Questions settled

  • Who is the sole authority to invoke or assume the suo motu jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a Bench of the Supreme Court take steps or make orders in the nature of suo motu exercise without the Chief Justice invoking the jurisdiction?
  • How are pending matters involving suo motu jurisdiction to be heard and disposed of?
  Read full judgment →
• Ilyas vs Waris Khan, etc2021 SCMR 1479, 2021 SCP 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-06
  criminal appealacquittalmurderreappraisal of evidenceocular evidenceinvestigative flawsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal against the acquittal of respondents by the Peshawar High Court in a murder case. The deceased, Akhtar Begum, was shot dead, allegedly by her husband, Waris Khan, and his brother, Karamat Ali, in retaliation for her filing a suit for dissolution of marriage. The trial court had convicted the respondents under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced them to death and life imprisonment, respectively. The High Court subsequently overturned these convictions, citing flaws in the investigative process. The petitioner challenged the High Court's judgment, arguing that the court placed disproportionate reliance on minor investigative discrepancies while ignoring formidable ocular evidence. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petition, granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence. The Court held that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, a re-examination of the evidence is necessary to secure the ends of justice, thereby setting the stage for a full review of the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment by a High Court?
  • Does the presence of minor investigative flaws automatically invalidate strong ocular evidence in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ihtisham Ali Cheema vs The State and another2021 PSC (Crl.) 1006, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 22, 2022 SCMR 624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-21
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtcriminal investigationright to libertyFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a Lahore High Court order that denied the petitioner pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 324/337-D/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific allegations of firearm injury and the findings of the police investigation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief, converting the petition into an appeal and confirming the pre-arrest bail. The Court reasoned that the investigation revealed the petitioner was empty-handed and that the firearm injury was actually caused by a co-accused, from whom the weapon was recovered. Furthermore, the Court noted an unexplained 24-hour delay in FIR registration and inconsistencies in the medical evidence. The key principle laid down is that while pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly, courts must intervene to prevent injustice when investigation findings cast doubt on the prosecution's case, and the benefit of doubt may be extended at the bail stage to protect the constitutional right to liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Does an investigation report finding an accused empty-handed constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR a relevant factor for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali vs Gul Rehman and another2021 SCMR 1490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-12
  leave to appealacquittalocular accountplea of alibisite plan discrepanciesmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the acquittal of the respondent, Gul Rehman, by the Peshawar High Court, which had overturned his conviction and life sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Fazal Ilahi. The petitioner challenged the acquittal, arguing that the High Court erred by focusing on peripheral issues despite overwhelming ocular evidence from natural witnesses. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the High Court's reasoning, which had relied on an unproven plea of alibi and minor discrepancies in the site plan that were not confronted to the witnesses during trial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's general observations did not invalidate the consistent ocular account from local witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence to secure the ends of justice, and ordered the issuance of a bailable warrant for the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court rely on discrepancies in a site plan to overturn a conviction if those discrepancies were not confronted to the witnesses during the trial?
  • Whether a plea of alibi can be accepted to overturn a conviction when the supporting witness and the accused both failed to testify in court?
  • Is the unscathed survival of eyewitnesses in a shooting incident a sufficient ground by itself to treat their testimony with suspicion?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State2021 PLD Supreme Court 799, 2021 SCP 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-14
  post-arrest bailbailforgerycheatingcriminal breach of trustdiscretionary bailprohibitory clausebail cancellationconstitutional binding
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's denial of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, accused under Sections 420, 468, and 471 PPC for allegedly forging a sale deed of a rented property. The core legal question addressed was whether the lower courts had correctly exercised their discretion under Section 497 CrPC, particularly regarding offences not falling within its prohibitory clause. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts failed to adhere to the established principle that grant of bail in offences not covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) CrPC is a rule, and refusal is an exception. The Court reiterated that refusal is justified only by specific circumstances such as likelihood of abscondence, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or repeating the offence, or other striking circumstances impeding trial or posing a societal threat. Finding no such circumstances mentioned by the lower courts or shown by the prosecution, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court are constitutionally binding under Article 189.

  Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Ullah vs The State2021 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-27
  Control of Narcotic Substances ActSection 9(c)official witnessespublic witnessesforensic reportrecovery of cannabisfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the conviction and sentence of six and a half years rigorous imprisonment under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as affirmed by the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions pertained to whether the absence of private witnesses, minor discrepancies in official testimonies, and the lack of explicit protocols in a forensic report vitiated the prosecution case. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined leave, holding that police officials are standard witnesses whose testimony is not inherently inferior to public witnesses. The Court laid down that public apathy in joining recoveries does not diminish the credibility of official witnesses when their testimonies on arrest and recovery are consistent, and that substantial quantities of narcotics cannot be assumed to be planted without evidence of strong motive.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of public witnesses automatically compromise the credibility of official witnesses in a narcotics recovery case?
  • Can a defense of false implication be sustained regarding a large quantity of recovered narcotics in the absence of a proven motive?
  • Does a forensic report carry evidentiary value if the procedure followed by the analyst is confirmed and acquiesced in during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Ahmed vs The State and others2021 SCMR 1263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-14
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirytampering of recordcriminal investigationmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the denial of post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of murder following a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the lack of a specific role attributed in the FIR, the admitted tampering of police diaries during the investigation, and the fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had acknowledged the tampering of the record but failed to consider its implications. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court noted that the co-accused had received bail due to discrepancies in the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the absence of recovery of the weapon of offence or incriminating evidence from the petitioner supported the conclusion that the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted the bail, holding that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused has been granted bail in similar circumstances?
  • Can bail be granted when there is admitted tampering of police diaries during the investigation?
  • Does the absence of a specific role attributed in the FIR justify a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Commission Of Pakistan through Chairperson and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Ministry of Education and others2022 SCMR 643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-14
  Evacuee Trust Property Boardminority rightsFIA investigationrehabilitation of templespublic interest litigationdue processaudit paras
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the ongoing oversight by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the management of Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) assets and the protection of minority religious sites. The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) submitted a report detailing progress on audit paras, including the registration of FIRs, recovery of immovable properties, and retrieval of outstanding rent. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of supporting documentation for these claims and directed the FIA to file all relevant records. The Court cautioned the FIA to act strictly in accordance with the law, ensuring that no harassment occurs and that criminal action is only initiated when a prima facie case is established. Furthermore, the Court addressed the rehabilitation and restoration status of various temples, including Jain Mandir and Neela Gumbad Mandir in Lahore, and the Gori Temple in Nagar-Parkar. It also directed the ETPB to examine claims regarding rehabilitation expenditures and ordered the Chief Secretary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to report on hospital conditions in the province, specifically in Teri, District Karak.

  Questions settled

  • Must the Federal Investigation Agency provide supporting documentation for FIRs and recoveries reported to the Court?
  • What standard must the Federal Investigation Agency meet before initiating criminal action against officials or private individuals regarding government property?
  • Is the Evacuee Trust Property Board required to provide detailed reports on the status of litigation and rehabilitation regarding specific minority religious sites?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Case No. 318 of 1993: In the matter of vs N/A2021 CLD 547, 2021 CLD 428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-14
  environmental protectionMargalla Hillsstone crushinglimestone miningjudicial reviewpublic interest litigationenvironmental pollution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns various civil miscellaneous applications filed in a long-standing Human Rights Case regarding environmental protection and the prohibition of stone crushing and limestone mining in the Margalla Hills. The core legal question addressed is whether the Court should recall or modify its previous orders prohibiting these activities, given the claims of leaseholders that their operations are lawful and economically necessary. The Court held that the prohibition on crushing and mining in the Margalla Hills remains necessary to prevent irreparable environmental damage, preserve the natural landscape, and protect the ecosystem. Consequently, the Court dismissed applications seeking to challenge these restrictions, affirming that environmental preservation takes precedence over commercial interests. However, the Court granted the applicants permission to remove their machinery and equipment from the prohibited areas under official supervision. The Court also directed that requests for national legislation regarding mountain ecosystem protection be addressed to the relevant government authorities, and dismissed applications for impleadment where alternative legal remedies were available to the aggrieved parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Court should recall or modify its order prohibiting stone crushing and limestone mining in the Margalla Hills?
  • Are leaseholders entitled to continue mining and crushing operations in the Margalla Hills despite environmental protection orders?
  • Can the Court grant permission to remove machinery and equipment from areas where industrial activity has been prohibited?
  • Is the Court the appropriate forum to direct the promulgation of national legislation for mountain ecosystem protection?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Bilal (decd.) through LRs & others vs Mst. Spogmai and others2021 PLD Supreme Court 700, 2021 P SC 1060, 2021 SCP 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-15
  Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulationremand of casesappellate jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionCode of Civil Procedureconstitutional amendmentrepeal of laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several civil petitions arising from judgments of the Peshawar High Court, which had remanded various cases to trial courts for de-novo proceedings. The core legal question was whether, under the Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009, appellate or revisional courts possess the authority to remand cases, or if they are mandated to decide the matters themselves. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in remanding these matters. The Court determined that the Regulation 2009 explicitly requires appellate and revisional courts to decide cases without remand. Furthermore, the Court clarified that appellate and revisional courts have sufficient powers under Order XLI, Rule 27 and Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to record necessary evidence or implead parties themselves, thereby obviating the need for remand. The key principle laid down is that where a special law mandates the final disposal of appeals or revisions by the appellate/revisional forum, the power of remand is excluded, and the court must exercise its inherent and procedural powers to resolve the controversy on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009 permit appellate or revisional courts to remand cases to the trial court?
  • Does the omission of Article 247 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 affect pending legal proceedings initiated under the Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009?
  • Can an appellate court record additional evidence or implead necessary parties instead of remanding a case?
  • Does Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 protect legal proceedings and remedies initiated under a law that has subsequently been repealed or omitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayat Muhammad vs State through Additional Advocate General, KP and another2021 SCP 362, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-20
  ocular testimonyinjured witnessmedical evidenceforensic reportcriminal appealconvictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that partially upheld the petitioner's conviction for firing shots at the complainant, causing injuries during a dispute over a water pipeline. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction under Sections 324 and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was sustainable given the alleged variances in the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court found that the injured witness's testimony was straightforward, confidence-inspiring, and fully corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of the weapon, and forensic reports matching the weapon to the crime scene empties. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of an injured witness, when consistent with medical evidence and corroborated by other forensic or ocular accounts, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, particularly when the occurrence takes place in daylight between known parties, leaving no room for misidentification or substitution.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient for conviction if corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon and forensic matching of empties corroborate an ocular account of a shooting?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the occurrence takes place in daylight between known parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayat Muhammad vs State through Additional Advocate General, Khyber2021 SCMR 1831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-20
  attempted murderinjured witnessocular accountmedical evidenceforensic reportleave to appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that partially allowed an appeal against a conviction for attempted murder and causing injuries. The petitioner was originally convicted under sections 324, 337-D, 337-F(iii), and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of the injured witness, when corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the injured witness's testimony was straightforward, confidence-inspiring, and fully corroborated by medical evidence regarding the nature and locale of the injuries, as well as by forensic reports matching the weapon recovered from the petitioner to the crime scene empties. The Court affirmed the principle that the testimony of an injured witness, when consistent with medical evidence, is sufficient to support a conviction, particularly when there is no possibility of misidentification or substitution.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient for conviction if it is corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon and matching forensic reports of empties corroborate the ocular account of an injured witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Nawaz vs Atta Muhammad (Deceased) through his LRs2021 P SC 1087, 2021 SCMR 857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-01
  Local Commissionerrecording of evidencede novo trialremand orderCode of Civil Procedurecivil revisionevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges a High Court judgment that remanded a suit for de novo trial, citing the trial court's failure to personally record evidence as required by Order XVIII, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal question was whether evidence recorded by a court-appointed Local Commissioner is legally valid or if it necessitates a de novo trial for non-compliance with Order XVIII, Rule 8. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its application of the law. The Court clarified that Order XVIII, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates a judge to record evidence or a memorandum of substance, does not apply to evidence recorded by a Local Commissioner appointed under Order XXVI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Once a Commission's report and evidence are returned to the court, they form part of the judicial record and are treated as evidence recorded by the court itself. The principle laid down is that evidence recorded through a Commission is valid, and a remand for de novo trial is unjustified absent proof of prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XVIII, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to evidence recorded by a Local Commissioner?
  • Is a trial court required to record evidence personally in all civil proceedings?
  • Can a High Court order a de novo trial solely because evidence was recorded by a Local Commissioner rather than the trial judge?
  • Does evidence recorded by a Local Commissioner under Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 form part of the judicial record?
  Read full judgment →
• Hasnain Raza vs Lahore High Court, Lahore & others2021 SCP 408, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-09
  StrictureJudicial conductAppellate courtLower judiciaryJudicial independenceBinding precedentDisciplinary actionExpungement of remarksConstitutional mandate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned petitions by two District Judiciary judges challenging strictures and a direction for inquiry against them issued by the Lahore High Court in an appellate judgment. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can record strictures against a lower court judge concerning their efficiency or conduct. The Supreme Court, converting the petitions into appeals, allowed them and expunged the impugned stricture and direction. The Court reiterated and affirmed principles previously laid down in Nusrat Yasmin v. Registrar, PHC and Aijaz Ahmed v. State. These principles dictate that appellate courts should not pass strictures or summon lower court judges to explain their orders. Instead, procedural errors should be communicated confidentially, and matters of grave inefficiency or serious misconduct should be reported confidentially to the competent disciplinary authority on the administrative side. Public reprimand of judges by appellate courts is deemed inappropriate, as it undermines public trust in the judiciary and negatively impacts judicial morale. The Court emphasized the binding nature of its decisions on all other courts under Article 189 of the Constitution.

  Read full judgment →
• Haroon-Ur-Rasheed and others vs The State and others2021 SCMR 1106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-13
  narcoticscannabiscriminal appealsentence reductionforensic reportjoint arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition assailing the judgment of the Islamabad High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns the sustainability of the conviction for transporting a heavy consignment of cannabis based on the evidence, forensic reports, and joint arrest. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence was consistent, the forensic report confirmed the contraband, and the defense failed to rebut the findings during trial. However, considering that the prosecution's case itself saddled each convict with distinct quantities ranging from 2 to 5 kg, indicating a makeshift union rather than a concerted joint detour, the Court exercised discretion to proportionately modify the sentence. The key principle laid down is that while concurrent findings of guilt based on solid forensic and testimonial evidence will be maintained, the quantum of sentence may be proportionately adjusted where the specific individual attribution of contraband amounts reveals a makeshift rather than a deeply coordinated enterprise.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be maintained when supported by consistent witness testimony and unrebutted forensic analysis?
  • Can the sentence of convicts be proportionately reduced when the prosecution's own case attributes distinct individual quantities of contraband indicating a makeshift association rather than a deeply coordinated joint enterprise?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Sheraz and another vs Riaz Mehmood (deceased) through L.Rs2022 PLD Supreme Court 3, 2022 PLJ SC 22, 2022 PSC 924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-28
  pre-emption suitdeposit of sale priceshortfall in depositrevisional jurisdictionmandatory provisiondismissal of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, wherein the High Court set aside two concurrent judgments of the subordinate courts that had dismissed a pre-emption suit. The dismissal was based on the plaintiff's failure to deposit the exact one-third of the sale price within thirty days as mandated by Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991, resulting in a shortfall of three hundred and thirty-three rupees and thirty-five paisas. The Supreme Court examined whether courts possess the discretion to condone a shortfall or extend the statutory deposit period under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991. The Court held that Section 24 is a self-contained, clear, and mandatory provision that prescribes the automatic dismissal of the suit for non-compliance. The Court ruled that the quantum of the shortfall is irrelevant and that courts have no discretion to condone such mistakes. Consequently, the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction was declared illegal, and the concurrent judgments dismissing the suit were restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the discretion to condone a shortfall in the deposit of one-third of the sale price required under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
  • What is the legal consequence if a pre-emptor fails to deposit the exact one-third of the sale price within the thirty-day statutory period?
  • Can the High Court exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to allow a pre-emptor to deposit a shortfall in the pre-emption money after the statutory period has expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali etc vs Mst. Feroza Begum (deceased) thr. L.Rs., etc2021 PLJ SC 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-19
  civil petitionrejection of plaintlimitationcondonation of delaysale deedconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises out of concurrent decisions of the lower forums dismissing the petitioners' suit for declaration and permanent injunction as time-barred. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners' suit, instituted on 20.11.2013 challenging a sale deed dated 05.04.1961—with knowledge of the same acknowledged by the petitioners at least by 17.03.2006—was within the period of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the suit was manifestly barred by time, as the petitioners failed to institute it within the statutory period from the date of their admitted knowledge. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the refusal to condone delay under the Limitation Act 1908, laying down that a suit filed long after acquiring knowledge of the contested transaction cannot be entertained and is liable to outright rejection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit filed years after acquiring clear knowledge of a disputed sale deed is barred by limitation?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when it is manifestly barred by time?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the dismissal of a time-barred suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Shah Behram vs The State and others2021 SCMR 1983, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-03
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationmurderous assaultfurther inquiryprohibitory clausefirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order of the Peshawar High Court granting post-arrest bail to respondents in a murderous assault case arising from a property dispute. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry and outside the prohibitory clause. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and cancelled the bail. The Court held that the High Court misdirected itself by treating the matter as one for further inquiry despite direct incriminating evidence from the injured complainant, eye-witnesses, and medical reports. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that the additional punishments provided for specific hurts under Islamic injunctions do not override or substitute the primary punishment prescribed for murderous assault under Section 324, and that an erroneous application of law by a lower court constitutes a strong ground for the annulment of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere possibility of further inquiry in a criminal case justifies the grant of bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the specific punishment provided for hurt under Islamic injunctions substitute or override the primary punishment prescribed for murderous assault under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Is an erroneous application of law by a competent tribunal a sufficient ground for the annulment of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Latif vs Muhammad Sharif & another2021 SCP 294, 2021 SCMR 1430, 2022 PSC 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-09
  ejectment petitionleave to defendrent controllerinterim orderfinal orderPunjab Rented Premises Act 2009writ jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a common order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed writ petitions against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller in ejectment proceedings. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller, after refusing leave to defend to a tenant under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, can direct the landlord to adduce evidence and grant the tenant the right to cross-examine, rather than immediately passing a final order. The Supreme Court held that under Section 22(6) of the Act, once leave to contest is refused, the Rent Tribunal is mandated to pass a final order rather than treating the proceedings as an ordinary civil trial requiring evidence. The Court ruled that while appeals against interim orders are barred, the High Court erred in ignoring the patent illegality of the Rent Controller's procedure, converting the petitions into appeals, and directing the Rent Controller to pass final orders pursuant to Section 22(6).

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal consequence under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 when a Rent Controller refuses to grant a tenant leave to contest an ejectment petition?
  • Can a Rent Controller direct a landlord to adduce evidence and allow a tenant to cross-examine after declining leave to defend?
  • Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge an interim order of a Rent Tribunal when appeal against it is barred by statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Ali vs The State and others2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 240, 2021 SCMR 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysupplementary statementunnamed accuseddivergent stancecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition impugning the order of the High Court declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 107 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Madina Town, Faisalabad. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the delayed identification and divergent stance taken by the complainant in the supplementary statement regarding an initially unnamed accused. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the divergent stance of the complainant regarding the identification of the accused makes the case one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a divergent stance between the initial FIR, where the accused is unnamed, and a subsequent supplementary statement naming the accused creates a reasonable doubt warranting the grant of post-arrest bail under the purview of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a divergent stance in a supplementary statement regarding the identification of an initially unnamed accused make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an accused not named in the initial FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail when subsequently identified in a supplementary statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Hadayat Ullah etc. vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2021 SCP 434, 2022 SCMR 1691, 2022 PSC 1216, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1603, 2022 PLC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-17
  Review PetitionConstitutional LawSacked Employees Reinstatement ActFundamental RightsJudicial ReviewLegislative SupremacyEquality before lawRight to acquire propertySecurity of personDignity of man
  Summary & questions settled

  These review petitions concerned the constitutionality of the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010. The Supreme Court, by a majority, dismissed the petitions, holding the Act to be violative of Articles 25, 18, 9, and 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and thus void under Article 8. Exercising jurisdiction under Articles 184(3) and 187, the Court ordered the restoration of certain re-instated employees from the date of the judgment under review. This restoration was conditional: employees whose posts did not require aptitude/skill tests were restored on original terms, and those whose posts did require such tests were also restored on original terms. However, employees terminated for absence, misconduct, corruption, misappropriation, or medical unfitness, if such termination was not set aside by a court, were excluded from this relief. The judgment emphasized the protection of fundamental rights and the limits of legislative power under Article 8 of the Constitution.

  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar vs The StatePLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 202, 2021 SCMR 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-28
  narcoticscannabissafe transmissionchemical examinerchain of custodycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the appellant was sentenced to 10-1/2 years of rigorous imprisonment following the recovery of a significant cache of cannabis. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the prosecution had established a secure chain of custody regarding the transmission of the seized contraband to the Chemical Examiner. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the prosecution witness responsible for the transmission failed to provide testimony confirming the delivery of the entire cache to the examiner's office. The Court held that in the absence of evidence proving safe transmission, the narcotic character of the recovered substance could not be legally established. Consequently, the appellant could not be held culpable for possession without resorting to conjecture. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the integrity of the chain of custody is essential for a conviction in narcotics cases.

  Read full judgment →
• Gulshan Shah vs The State2021 SCMR 1456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-30
  criminal appealmurder convictionocular evidenceinterested witnessesabscondenceconcurrent sentencescorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a conviction for the murder of two brothers, Safdar Shah and Iqbal Shah, in 2003. The petitioner, Gulshan Shah, was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to death, which the High Court subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained despite the acquittal of a co-accused and the alleged lack of corroboration for interested witnesses in a family dispute. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of one co-accused did not undermine the prosecution's case against the petitioner, as the ocular evidence, supported by medical evidence, clearly established the petitioner's specific role in the fatal assault. The Court affirmed that the testimony of natural witnesses, when credible and corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction even in cases of family animosity. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's abscondence was a factor reflecting against his innocence. The petition for leave to appeal was declined, and the concurrent sentences were maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically invalidate the prosecution's case against the remaining accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of ocular testimony from interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused person serve as a factor relevant to the assessment of their innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Zarin and others vs Fazal Khaliq and another2021 SCMR 1461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-06
  murderous assaulthomicideacquittaldying declarationinjured witnessabsconsionleave to appealreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a petition assailing the acquittal of the respondent by the Peshawar High Court vide judgment dated 03.05.2014, which overturned his conviction for murderous assault and two counts of homicide recorded by the trial court on 10.10.2011. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent despite ocular testimony, an injured witness, a dying declaration, and evidence of absconsion, notwithstanding the absence of an autopsy due to local custom. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case warranted a reappraisal of the prosecution evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The key principle laid down is that where an appellate acquittal relies on artificial and illusory reasoning overlooking strong circumstantial and direct evidence including dying declarations and injured witnesses, the Supreme Court will grant leave for reappraisal of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent in the face of an injured witness and a dying declaration?
  • Does the non-performance of an autopsy due to local custom adversely affect the prosecution case where homicidal death is undisputed?
  • Whether the acquittal based on artificial and illusory reasoning warrants interference and reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Roz vs The Government Of Pakistan through Secretary Safron and others2021 SCMR 1527, 2021 PSC 1676, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-24
  service lawpromotioninterim suspensiontenure of servicepremature retirementMalakand Leviessuperannuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the promotion and retirement of a Subedar in the Malakand Levies. The petitioner challenged his premature retirement, which was based on the application of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) Levies Force Service (Amended) Rules, 2013, following an interim order that had suspended his promotion to the rank of Subedar Major. The core legal question was whether an interim suspension of a promotion order constitutes a final annulment of that promotion, thereby affecting the officer's tenure and retirement eligibility. The Supreme Court held that an interim suspension order merely postpones the implementation of a promotion and does not equate to its cancellation or reversal. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner's retirement, based on the assumption that his tenure as a Subedar had expired during the period of suspension, was illegal. The principle laid down is that service rendered under the shadow of an interim suspension order cannot be counted towards the exhaustion of tenure for retirement purposes, and such an order does not validate the premature retirement of an officer.

  Questions settled

  • Does an interim order suspending a promotion constitute a final reversal or cancellation of that promotion?
  • Can service rendered while a promotion is under interim suspension be counted towards the exhaustion of tenure for retirement purposes?
  • Is a retirement order based on the assumption that a suspended promotion is equivalent to a cancelled promotion legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Rehman vs The State through Ag, KP, Peshawar2021 PLD Supreme Court 795, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 827, 2021 SCP 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-07
  post-arrest bailinvestigation reportchallanprohibitory clauserule of lawcriminal proceduretrial delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, for possessing unlicensed weapons. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the prosecution's failure to submit the investigation report (challan) within the statutory timeframe mandated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the fact that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497. The Supreme Court held that the delay in submitting the challan, which prevented the commencement of the trial, coupled with the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause, entitled the petitioner to bail. The Court emphasized that the persistent failure of law enforcement agencies to comply with the mandatory timelines for investigation reports undermines the rule of law and results in unnecessary incarceration or delayed justice. Consequently, the Court granted bail and issued a directive to the Chief Secretary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to convene a high-level meeting to resolve the endemic issue of delayed investigation reports and submit a compliance report to the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the police to submit an investigation report within the statutory period justify the grant of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the obligations of the officer in charge of a police station regarding the submission of an interim report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Nawaz & others vs Rashid Ahmed & others2021 PLJ SC 295, 2021 P SC 878, 2021 SCMR 529, 2021 SCP 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-02
  specific performanceagreement to sellsecondary evidenceunlawful agreementpublic policyTaliban decisionsconstitutional sovereigntydismissal of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition against three concurrent judgments dismissing the petitioners' suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The petitioners failed to lead evidence despite multiple opportunities granted by the Trial Court and sought to rely on a document described alternatively as an agreement or a decision issued by the 'Emarat-e-Islami Taliban'. The core legal question concerns the admissibility and legality of relying upon purported decisions or agreements issued by unauthorized militant groups within the territory of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the Taliban had no legal authority to decide cases and that any physical occupation or decision by them contravenes the Constitution of Pakistan and is unconstitutional, unlawful, and of no legal effect. Furthermore, the Court held that the purported agreement was forbidden, unlawful, and opposed to public policy under section 23 of the Contract Act 1872. The key principle laid down is that parallel systems or decisions by unauthorized entities within Pakistan's territory violate state sovereignty and the Constitution, rendering any related agreements void and incapable of forming the basis of a legal suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decision or agreement issued by an unauthorized militant group within the territory of Pakistan has any legal effect?
  • Can an agreement or document emanating from an unconstitutional parallel system form the basis of a suit for specific performance?
  • Is a purported agreement issued by the Taliban forbidden and unlawful as being opposed to public policy under section 23 of the Contract Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad and another vs The State through Prosecutor-General BalochistanPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 203, 2021 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-25
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionpost-mortem examinationbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurdermedical evidencepolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition against the conviction and life imprisonment of the petitioners for murder under Section 302(b)/34 PPC. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, including 'last seen' testimony, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries of the deceased's belongings. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions made in police custody and the necessity of a formal autopsy to establish the cause of death. The Court observed that the extra-judicial confessions were recorded while the petitioners were in handcuffs and in the presence of police, rendering them a nullity in law. Furthermore, the Court found that the medical evidence was insufficient as only a provisional external examination was conducted without a full post-mortem, making the cause of death speculative. Applying the principle that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain incompatible with innocence, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, the convictions were set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted.

  Read full judgment →
• Gul Manan vs The State2021 SCMR 1804, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 733 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-21
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsconscious knowledgefurther inquirycriminal appealpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenges the Peshawar High Court's order refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a narcotics case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was a passenger and not the driver of the vehicle from which narcotics were recovered, could be held to have conscious knowledge of the contraband, thereby disentitling him to bail. The Supreme Court observed that the narcotics were recovered from secret cavities, and the State conceded that nothing was recovered from the petitioner's personal possession or on his pointation. The Court held that the petitioner's mere presence in the vehicle did not conclusively establish conscious knowledge, and the issue required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where there is no evidence of personal possession or pointation, the mere presence of an accused as a passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics constitutes a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused as a passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics establish conscious knowledge of the contraband?
  • When does a case of narcotics recovery fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a passenger in a vehicle entitled to bail when narcotics are recovered from secret cavities and not from the passenger's personal possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others vs Sher Ali etc2021 SCMR 494, 2021 SCP 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-25
  service regularizationcontract employeescivil servantKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization Act 2009administrative transferestoppelservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter concerns the regularization of contract employees serving at the Rehman Baba Shrine and the Khushal Khan Khattak Library, which were subsequently transferred to the Archives and Libraries Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal question was whether these employees were entitled to regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization Act 2009. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to regularize the respondents. The Court held that the respondents satisfied the three pre-conditions under Section 3 of the 2009 Act: they were employed on a contract basis before the Act's promulgation, held their posts at the relevant time, and possessed the requisite qualifications. The Court emphasized that the government, having previously issued notifications recognizing the respondents as civil servants, could not subsequently deny their regularization status without valid legal justification. The judgment establishes that administrative transfers of entities to government departments do not extinguish the acquired service rights of employees who otherwise meet statutory criteria for regularization, and the government cannot adopt contradictory positions regarding the employment status of its staff.

  Questions settled

  • Are contract employees who were employed prior to the promulgation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization Act 2009 entitled to regularization under Section 3 of the Act?
  • Does the administrative transfer of a project or entity to a government department negate the existing service rights of contract employees?
  • Can the government deny the regularization of employees when it has previously issued notifications recognizing them as civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab, through Secretary, Schools Education2021 SCP 394, 2022 SCMR 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-18
  recruitment policyquasi-judicial powerstatutory right of appealreview petitioncoram non judiceexhaustion of remediesex debito justitiaeservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arose from a dispute regarding the recruitment of Assistant Education Officers (AEOs) under the Punjab Recruitment Policy 2016-17. The respondents, whose candidatures were initially rejected, successfully obtained a favorable order from the Complaints Redressal Cell (CRC). However, the Chief Executive Officer of the District Education Authority bypassed the review mechanism and filed a direct appeal to the Secretary of Schools Education, who overturned the CRC's decision. The High Court subsequently set aside the Secretary's order as being without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that under Clauses 21 and 22 of the Recruitment Policy, filing a review petition before the CRC was a mandatory prerequisite before invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the Secretary. The Court emphasized that the right of appeal is a statutory creation and must be exercised strictly within the prescribed hierarchy. It further held that the Secretary's order was coram non judice due to the failure to exhaust the primary remedy of review.

  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab through Secretary Cooperative Societies2022 SCMR 739, 2023 PLC (C.S) 763, 2022 PSC 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-27
  waiting listpublic appointmentmerit list expiryfundamental rightsequality before lawadministrative negligencejudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order directing the appointment of the respondent as a Sub-Inspector (BPS-11) in the Punjab Cooperatives Department. The core legal question was whether a candidate on a waiting list can be denied appointment due to the alleged expiry of the merit list, despite vacancies existing and other candidates above the respondent having declined the position. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that the department’s failure to timely process the appointment or request a substitute should not prejudice a qualified candidate. The Court established that when vacancies remain unfilled, the department must consider available candidates on the waiting list rather than leaving posts vacant. Furthermore, denying appointment in such circumstances violates the principle of equality before the law under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that administrative lethargy cannot be used to deprive a qualified candidate of their right to employment when the post remains vacant and un-advertised.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department deny appointment to a candidate on a waiting list solely due to the department's own failure to timely request a substitute?
  • Does the expiry of a merit list preclude the appointment of a candidate from the waiting list if vacancies remain unfilled and the post has not been re-advertised?
  • Is it a violation of the right to equality for a department to deny an appointment to a qualified candidate on a waiting list when vacancies exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of KPK through Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education, Peshawar & Others vs Latif Ullah Khan2021 PLC (C.S.) 1120, 2021 PLJ SC 256, 2021 P SC 1082, 2021 SCMR 829, 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-03
  civil revisionrecruitment policymerit-based appointmentdiscretionary jurisdictionservice mattereducational qualification preference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a civil suit filed by the Respondent, a candidate for the post of Primary School Teacher (PST), challenging his non-selection by the Appellants. The Respondent claimed entitlement to the post based on his R.I.T.E. diploma, which he argued should be preferred over other diplomas, and sought five additional marks for his teaching experience. The Trial Court and the appellate courts ruled in favor of the Respondent. The core legal questions were whether the Respondent was entitled to preference based on his diploma despite lower merit scores, and whether he was entitled to additional marks for experience in the absence of an implemented policy. The Supreme Court held that preference for specific diplomas only applies when candidates have equal merit scores, not when a candidate's score is significantly lower. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of an implemented policy granting extra marks for experience. The Court established that discretionary revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 must be exercised lawfully, and that courts cannot grant relief based on non-existent or unimplemented policies.

  Questions settled

  • Does a preference for a specific educational diploma in a recruitment policy apply when a candidate's merit score is significantly lower than other applicants?
  • Can a court grant relief based on a recruitment policy that is merely a proposal and has not been implemented?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of KPK through Chief Secretary and others vs Syed Sadiq2021 PLC (C.S.) 643, 2021 SCMR 747, 2021 SCP 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-04
  ad-hoc relief allowanceintelligible differentiareasonable classificationArticle 25judicial reviewsalary disparitypolicy mattersSpecial Judicial Allowance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Peshawar High Court judgment that struck down a Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa notification. The notification granted a 5% ad-hoc relief allowance to employees in BPS-17 to BPS-19 but excluded those already receiving special allowances, such as the Special Judicial Allowance. The High Court had deemed this exclusion discriminatory under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether the classification was based on 'intelligible differentia' and whether the executive could sub-classify employees for financial benefits. The Court held that Article 25 does not forbid reasonable classification based on substantial distinctions related to the object sought. It found that the government's aim to reduce salary disparity and manage financial constraints constituted a rational nexus. The Court ruled that grouping low-paid and high-paid employees differently for monetary benefits is a permissible classification. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, affirming that judicial review should not interfere in policy matters where the classification is logical and not arbitrary.

  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Public Health2021 PSC 1470, 2021 SCMR 1871, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-14
  regularization of serviceproject employeescontract employeescivil servantsstatutory interpretationwrit jurisdictionservice lawdiscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arose from Peshawar High Court judgments directing the regularization of various employees appointed on contract or project bases. The Supreme Court examined whether project employees and those appointed without prescribed competitive processes could claim regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005, and the KP (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. The Court held that Section 2(b) of the 2009 Act explicitly excludes project employees from the definition of 'employee' eligible for regularization. Furthermore, regularization under Section 19(2) of the 2005 Act requires appointment in the 'prescribed manner,' involving open competition and transparency, which the respondents lacked. The Court also clarified that the High Court cannot pre-date regularization against statutory cut-off dates or extend benefits to excluded classes, as doing so transgresses Article 199 and usurps legislative authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments, ruling that project and contract employees not meeting statutory criteria have no vested right to regularization.

  Read full judgment →
• Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Industries, Commerce and Technical Education, Manpower Training Department, Peshawar and others vs Shahzad Iqbal and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 747, 2021 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-25
  regularization of servicesproject employeescontract employeescivil serviceconstitutional petitionjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges judgments of the Peshawar High Court whereby writ petitions filed by the respondents seeking regularization of their services were accepted. The respondents were initially appointed on a contractual basis in Skill Development Centers established by a federal subsidiary company under an agreement before the project was handed over to the Provincial Government. The core legal question was whether project employees of a federal subsidiary company subsequently transferred to the provincial government fall under the purview of the provincial regularization statute and are entitled to regularization. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that project employees recruited for a definite period by a company do not become employees of the provincial government and are explicitly excluded from the purview of the provincial regularization act by virtue of their employment status. The Court set aside the High Court judgments, establishing the principle that project-based contract employees hired by autonomous or federal bodies are not entitled to regularization under provincial civil service regularization acts designed strictly for direct government appointees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether project employees recruited by a federal subsidiary company for a specific project can be considered provincial government employees for the purpose of regularization?
  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 extend to persons appointed on project posts?
  • Whether employees hired on a contract basis for a time-bound development project are entitled to the benefit of service regularization upon transfer of the project to the provincial government?
  Read full judgment →
• Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health, Civil2022 SCMR 673, 2022 PLJ SC 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-06
  service appealremoval from servicecompulsory retirementquantum of punishmentmisconductwilful absencedeputation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a service appeal concerning the removal of a government employee from service due to wilful absence after the expiry of his deputation period in Saudi Arabia. The core legal question is whether the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal is justified in modifying a penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement merely on the ground of long service length without strong and justifiable reasons. The Supreme Court held that the quantum of punishment falls within the domain of the competent authority, and courts or tribunals should not arbitrarily interfere with or mitigate penalties without assigning strong, legally sound reasons. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restored the penalty of removal from service. The key principle laid down is that the authority's discretion regarding the quantum of punishment for misconduct is final unless interfered with for robust, well-reasoned justifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service tribunal can modify the penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement solely on the ground of length of service?
  • Is the quantum of punishment within the exclusive domain of the competent authority?
  • Under what circumstances can a court or tribunal interfere with the penalty imposed by a competent authority for misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Excise and Taxation Department, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others vs Sarfraz Khan and another2021 PLJ SC 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-05-11
  vehicle seizurechassis tamperingmotor vehicle registrationbona fide purchaserstatutory complianceProvincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside the seizure of a vehicle with a tampered chassis. The core legal question was whether a vehicle with a welded and refitted chassis frame, where such alteration was not reported or approved by the registering authority, could be lawfully seized, and whether the purchaser could claim bona fide status despite the non-compliance. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the seizure was lawful because the mandatory requirements of Section 33 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, regarding the reporting and approval of vehicle alterations, were not met. The Court established that any alteration to a motor vehicle, including chassis tampering, must be reported to the registering authority within fourteen days. Furthermore, a purchaser of a vehicle with a tampered chassis cannot claim to be a bona fide purchaser if they failed to exercise due care in verifying compliance with statutory registration requirements, as the liability for such alterations rests with the owner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the welding and refitting of a chassis frame constitute an alteration requiring reporting under Section 33 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965?
  • Can a purchaser of a vehicle with a tampered chassis claim to be a bona fide purchaser if the vehicle's alteration was not reported to the registering authority?
  • Is the seizure of a motor vehicle lawful when the owner fails to comply with the statutory requirements for reporting vehicle alterations?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Communication &2021 SCP 432, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1284, 2022 PSC 903, 2022 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-16
  public service commissionhigher qualificationeligibility criteriadraftsman appointmentservice regulationsrecommendations
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which allowed a writ petition directing the consideration of respondent No.1 for appointment to the post of Draftsman (BPS-11). The petitioner-Government challenged the recommendation on the grounds that respondent No.1 possessed a 3rd Division in Secondary School Certificate (SSC), whereas the advertisement required a 2nd Division, notwithstanding his higher qualification of DAE (Civil). The core legal question was whether a candidate possessing a higher qualification in the relevant field could be considered eligible under the applicable service regulations despite lacking the exact basic academic division prescribed in the advertisement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Regulation 19(f)(ii) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations 2017, candidates possessing higher qualifications than prescribed in the relevant field of studies are eligible. The Court laid down the principle that Public Service Commission recommendations made in accordance with express statutory regulations permitting higher qualifications are valid and binding upon the competent authority absent justifiable or justiciable reasons for rejection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate possessing a higher qualification in the relevant field of study can be considered eligible when the advertisement prescribes a specific lower academic division?
  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission have the power to recommend candidates with higher qualifications under its regulations?
  • Can the competent authority discard the recommendations of the Public Service Commission without justifiable or justiciable reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Agriculture, Livestock & Cooperative Department Peshawar & Others vs Saeed-ulHassan & Others2021 SCP 292, 2021 PSC 1576, 2021 SCMR 1376, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-21
  Contractual employmentProject employeesRegularization of serviceTermination of serviceKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization Act 2009Constitutional petitionJudicial reviewTrichotomy of powersSimilarly placed employeesPublic Service Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard Civil Appeals challenging Peshawar High Court judgments that directed the reinstatement and regularization of contract and project employees whose services were terminated upon project completion. The core legal questions involved whether project employees had an automatic right to regularization, if they were covered by the KP Regularization Act 2009, the effect of their appointment terms, and the application of the "similarly placed" principle. The Court held that long or satisfactory contractual service does not confer a vested right to regularization without statutory support, and project employees are specifically excluded from the KP Regularization Act 2009. It ruled that the creation of regular posts does not automatically grant regularization rights, as such posts must be filled through prescribed procedures (KPPSC/DSC). The High Court erred in interfering with executive policy and in indiscriminately applying the "similarly placed" principle, which cannot override specific legal exclusions or appointment terms. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court judgments set aside.

  Read full judgment →
• Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Administration2021 PLC (C.S.) 721, 2021 SCMR 630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-18
  regularization of servicescontract employeestatutory interpretationservice lawadministrative lawestoppelKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment directing the regularization of the respondent, a contract employee in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Benevolent Fund Cell. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent qualified as an "employee" under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, whether he satisfied the conditions for regularization under Section 3 of said Act, and whether his alleged overage status precluded such relief. The Supreme Court held that the respondent fell within the statutory definition of an employee and fulfilled the pre-conditions of Section 3, as he was appointed on a contract basis prior to the Act's promulgation. The Court further ruled that the government could not rely on the respondent's age to deny regularization after having extended his contract for years without objection. The judgment establishes that statutory regularization provisions override contractual disclaimers and that the government cannot benefit from its own administrative defaults regarding age eligibility. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's directive for regularization.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract employee appointed before the promulgation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 qualify for regularization under Section 3 of the Act?
  • Can the government deny regularization to an employee on the grounds of being overage if the government previously extended the employee's contract for years?
  • Do statutory provisions for regularization override contractual disclaimers in an appointment order?
  • Does an employee appointed by the Benevolent Fund Cell qualify as an employee under Section 2(b) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009?
  Read full judgment →
• Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through District Collector/District2022 PLJ SC 60, 2022 SCMR 277, 2022 PSC 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-14
  land acquisitionenhanced compensationinterest on compensationSection 28 Land Acquisition ActSection 34 Land Acquisition ActReferee Courtreview petitionstaking possession
  Summary & questions settled

  Review petitions were filed by the Government of KPK against a consolidated order of the Supreme Court dismissing civil appeals relating to land acquisition compensation. The petitioner contended that Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, as amended by the North-West Frontier Province Land Acquisition (Amendment) Ordinance 2001, omitted the explicit mention of 6% interest on enhanced compensation and thus barred any interest award for the period between taking possession and actual payment. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, interpreting the distinction between 'sum' (the enhanced compensation) and 'amount as determined by it' under the amended Section 28. The Court held that the amendment retained the Referee Court's power to grant interest for delay in payment after taking possession. Furthermore, the Court noted that Section 34 of the Act remained intact, providing for interest on the original award, and both sections must complement each other. The Court established that under the KPK amendment, courts are no longer capped at 6% interest and may determine any just rate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of a specific percentage rate of interest in Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended in KPK deprive landowners of interest on enhanced compensation?
  • How does the distinction between 'sum' and 'amount' in Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 impact the court's power to award interest?
  • Can a Referee Court award interest on enhanced compensation beyond or below the 6% rate under the amended Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in KPK?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar2021 PLC (C.S.) 848, 2021 PLJ SC 271, 2021 P SC 1094, 2021 SCMR 816, 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-01
  Provincial Management Serviceservice quotaadministrative policyin-service candidatesjudicial reviewservice ruleseligibility criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Peshawar High Court judgment that allowed constitutional petitions filed by government employees (Caretakers) seeking to participate in the Provincial Management Service (PMS) competitive examination under a 10% quota reserved for in-service candidates. The core legal question was whether the respondents, whose specific posts were not enumerated in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Management Service Rules, 2007, were entitled to the benefits of the reserved quota. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by expanding the scope of the Rules, which specifically identified eligible posts and excluded others. The Court emphasized that determining eligibility criteria for service appointments is an administrative function within the exclusive domain of the executive. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, ruling that courts cannot read in categories not provided by the rules or interfere with policy decisions regarding service structure without compelling legal grounds. The principle established is that service rules defining specific classes of employees for quota benefits are exhaustive and must be interpreted strictly according to their plain language.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court expand the scope of a service rule to include categories of employees not explicitly mentioned in the rule?
  • Is the determination of eligibility criteria for government service appointments an administrative matter within the exclusive domain of the executive?
  • Does a government employee have a vested right to be included in a promotion quota not specifically applicable to their post?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others vs Hizbullah Khan and another2021 SCP 212, 2021 PSC 1422, 2021 SCMR 1281, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-08
  service lawpromotionseniority-cum-fitnessDepartmental Promotion Committeeservice tribunal jurisdictionante-dated promotionback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service dispute where the respondent, a Senior Scale Stenographer (BPS-16), challenged the failure of the provincial government to consider his promotion to Superintendent (BPS-17), despite his seniority and the existence of applicable promotion rules. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal had directed the department to grant the respondent ante-dated promotion with back benefits. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the department's refusal to promote the respondent, citing pending new service rules, was legally justified. The Court held that the department's inaction was illegal, as existing rules mandated the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to decide on promotion cases based on seniority-cum-fitness. However, the Court ruled that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering direct promotion and back benefits, as the determination of fitness involves subjective evaluation by the competent authority. The Court set aside the Tribunal's direction for automatic promotion and instead ordered the DPC to consider the respondent's case for promotion on its merits within three months, emphasizing that such decisions must be fair, just, and non-arbitrary.

  Questions settled

  • Can a department refuse to consider an employee for promotion on the ground that new service rules are pending finalization when existing rules are already in force?
  • Is a Service Tribunal empowered to direct the grant of ante-dated promotion and back benefits, or must it remand the matter to the competent authority for consideration?
  • Does the determination of an employee's fitness for promotion fall within the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal or the departmental competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary etc vs Muhammad Khurshid2021 SCP 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitionmala fidesaudi alteram partempublic purposedue processwrit jurisdictionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the validity of a land acquisition process for a police station, challenged by the respondent whose land was notified for acquisition after previous notifications regarding other lands were withdrawn. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly set aside the acquisition notification on the grounds of mala fides and restored a previous notification without hearing the affected parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding of mala fides lacked evidentiary support and legal foundation. Furthermore, the Court held that the High Court erred by restoring a previous acquisition notification affecting third parties without providing them an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principle of audi alteram partem. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing that the acquiring authority possesses the competence to select land for public purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provided the process is free from extraneous considerations and adheres to due process requirements, including the right to a fair hearing for all affected entities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court set aside a land acquisition notification based on allegations of mala fides without sufficient evidentiary material?
  • Is it permissible for a court to restore a previous land acquisition notification that affects the rights of third parties without providing them an opportunity to be heard?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem require that all affected parties be heard before a court restores a previously withdrawn land acquisition notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others vs Muhammad Khurshid2021 PLJ SC 191, 2021 P SC 1102, 2021 SCP 32, 2021 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-14
  land acquisitionmala fidesaudi alteram partemnatural justicepublic purposewrit jurisdictionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to a High Court judgment that set aside land acquisition notifications issued by the provincial government for the construction of a police station. The High Court had invalidated the acquisition of the respondent's land and restored an earlier notification for acquiring other parties' land, primarily citing mala fides and political influence. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's findings on mala fides were supported by the record and whether the principles of natural justice were followed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding of mala fides lacked evidentiary foundation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred by restoring a previous acquisition notification affecting third parties without providing them an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principle of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision, mandating that all affected parties be given a proper opportunity of hearing in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court restore a previous land acquisition notification that affects third parties without providing them an opportunity of hearing?
  • Is a finding of mala fides in land acquisition proceedings sustainable without evidentiary support?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply when a court order potentially affects the rights of entities not party to the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary 36 Others vs Muhammad Younas2021 SCMR 1045, 2021 SCP 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-22
  regularization of servicesproject employeescontractual appointmentstatutory interpretationservice lawcut-off date
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that ordered the regularization of a project-based employee, Muhammad Younas, who had been appointed on a contract basis. The core legal questions were whether project employees appointed to a project converted to the regular budget after the cut-off date of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization of Services Act 2009 were eligible for regularization, and whether the respondent's employment was dependent on the project's lifespan. The Supreme Court held that the respondent did not qualify for regularization under the 2009 Act, as the Act explicitly excludes project employees and sets a cut-off date of October 24, 2009, which the respondent's 2014 conversion date exceeded. The Court emphasized that judicial interpretation cannot rewrite statutes or extend cut-off dates based on subjective sympathy. Furthermore, the Court held that the respondent’s appointment terms clearly stipulated that services would terminate upon project completion or conversion, granting no right to absorption. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, establishing that project employees have no inherent right to regularization against regular budget posts.

  Questions settled

  • Are project employees appointed to a project converted to the regular budget after the cut-off date of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization of Services Act 2009 eligible for regularization under said Act?
  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization of Services Act 2009 include project employees within its definition of 'employee' for the purpose of regularization?
  • Can a court extend the cut-off date prescribed by a statute based on sympathetic grounds?
  • Do ex-project employees have a vested right to adjustment against regular posts upon the conversion of project posts into regular budgetary posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others vs Sher Ali etc2021 P SC 1009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-25
  regularization of servicecontractual employeescivil servantsKP Regularization Act 2009service lawadministrative takeoverconstitutional petitions
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging judgments of the Peshawar High Court which allowed constitutional petitions and directed the regularization and reinstatement of contractual employees working at a shrine and library subsequently transferred to the Archives and Libraries Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal questions were whether the respondents met the statutory conditions for regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, and what impact the departmental takeover had on their employment status. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court's judgments, holding that the respondents satisfied all three conditions under Section 3 of the 2009 Act, having been appointed on contract prior to the statutory cutoff date with prescribed qualifications. The Court further laid down that where the provincial government converted contractual staff into civil servants through unrevoked notifications and formally endorsed their eligibility through departmental orders, the executive cannot resile from its position or arbitrarily dispense with civil servants without following due process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contractual employees appointed prior to the statutory cutoff date under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act 2009 are entitled to deemed regularization?
  • Does the administrative transfer of an institution to a provincial department disentitle its existing contractual employees from regularization against sanctioned posts?
  • Can the government resile from a valid and unrevoked notification conferring civil servant status on contractual employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim and others vs Mst. Razia Begum and others2021 SCP 310, 2022 PSC 539, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-25
  inheritanceIslamic law of inheritancegift mutationfemale inheritance rightslimitationconstructive possessionPrinciples of PolicyShari'ah
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from a dispute over the inheritance of Muhammad Yar, whose daughter (respondent No. 1) challenged a gift mutation (No. 88 dated 27 July 1986) in favor of her brothers. The petitioners argued the suit was time-barred and that the gift was validly made during the father's lifetime. The Supreme Court found that the petitioners failed to prove the gift, as witnesses admitted the deceased never appeared before revenue authorities. Crucially, the Court accepted a death certificate showing the father died on 15 May 1986, rendering the July 1986 gift mutation void as a posthumous fabrication. The Court held that under Islamic law, succession opens immediately upon death, and possession by one heir is constructive possession for all, meaning limitation does not run against a co-heir unless there is an express repudiation or ouster. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the constitutional and Shari'ah obligation to protect female inheritance rights and criticizing the failure of the State to implement Principles of Policy under Article 29(3).

  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The State2022 SCMR 750, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-25
  pre-arrest bailmurderous assaultdelay in FIRmedical evidencecriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in a case of murderous assault involving multiple injuries sustained by the complainants. According to the prosecution, the petitioner and co-accused inflicted injuries following a trivial dispute. The petitioner pleaded denial, innocence, and mala fide due to a delay in the registration of the First Information Report. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the injured persons were promptly examined medically shortly after the incident, rendering the delay in formal registration inconsequential. The Court held that in the absence of apparent mala fide and given the medical evidence confirming multiple injuries, the petitioner was not entitled to the extraordinary equitable concession of pre-arrest bail. The arguments advanced by the petitioner pertained to a post-arrest stage and could not be entertained for pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused by the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the formal registration of a First Information Report automatically justify the grant of pre-arrest bail when the injured parties were promptly examined medically?
  • Can arguments relating to a post-arrest defense be entertained at the stage of seeking pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail in the absence of apparent mala fide on the part of the complainant or police when multiple injuries are confirmed by medical reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs StatePLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 84 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-29
  criminal appealQatl-i-Amdocular accountacquittalbenefit of doubtcorroborationdelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court which had altered the appellant's death sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of the ocular account, the presence of an injured eye-witness whose medical certificate was missing, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the sustainability of conviction when co-accused assigned effective roles were acquitted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that where the prosecution's case suffers from a manifestly flawed ocular account, unexplained delay, suppressed medical evidence, and failure to prove motive and recovery—coupled with the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence—it is unsafe to maintain a conviction. The key principle laid down is that the uncorroborated testimony of a discredited or doubtful witness cannot sustain a conviction when the genesis of the crime is shrouded in doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on an ocular account that has been rejected qua co-accused in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay in reporting the crime and an intriguing interregnum cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused assigned effective roles undermines the prosecution's case against the remaining appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs The State2021 SCMR 149, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-27
  Criminal AppealMurderHouse TrespassOcular AccountCorroborationEye-witness TestimonyMitigating CircumstancesConvictionSentencePakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a criminal appeal filed by Ghulam Murtaza challenging his conviction and sentence under sections 302(b) and 459 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) for murder and house trespass. The central legal question addressed was the reliability and sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the ocular account provided by an eye-witness and its corroboration by forensic and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Peshawar High Court. The Court held that the eye-witness's testimony was confidence-inspiring and trustworthy, despite her relationship with the victim, and was strongly corroborated by the contents of the FIR, the site plan, the recovery of crime empties, and a positive FSL report linking the weapon to the appellant. The Court further affirmed that the lack of motive was appropriately considered a mitigating circumstance by the courts below.

  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Zohran Bibi and others2021 SCMR 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-20
  Leave to appealFraudulent mutationParda nasheen ladyOnus of proofImpersonationInheritance disputeRevenue recordConcurrent findingsOral sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a Regular Second Appeal, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of three lower fora. The core legal questions revolved around the validity of inheritance and oral sale mutations alleged to be fraudulent, depriving a parda nasheen and illiterate lady of her lawful share in her deceased mother's estate, and whether the non-impleadment of revenue functionaries vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that the mutations were patently illegal and fraudulent, based on impersonation and misrepresentation. It reiterated the principle that the beneficiary of any transaction involving parda nasheen and illiterate women bears the onus to prove free consent, awareness of implications, and availability of independent advice. The Court also clarified that impleading revenue officials is not a universal rule but depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, and was not necessary here given the irrefutable documentary evidence of fraud.

  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder vs The State2021 SCP 344, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 865, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilityhomicidewider netfacilitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a homicide case registered under the criminal law. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have held the deceased along with four other co-accused while another co-accused fired a fatal shot, was entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of further inquiry. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution's account—wherein five persons clutched the deceased while a single co-accused fired a fatal shot at short range in the dark—invoked the possibility that a wider net was cast to implicate the entire family clan. The Court held that the necessity and plausibility of such facilitation without risk of accidental injury required further probe. Converting the petition into an appeal, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the petitioner under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon furnishing a bail bond.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allegation that multiple accused held a victim during a midnight shooting make out a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) CrPC?
  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the prosecution casts a wider net to implicate an entire clan in a homicide case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas and another vs The State2021 SCMR 1474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-06
  Qatl-i-Amdscreening of evidencered-handed arrestmitigation of sentenceocular accountcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which maintained the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for Qatl-i-Amd and screening of incriminatory evidence. The core legal question involves the appraisal of ocular testimony and red-handed apprehension in a sudden altercation resulting in murder, alongside the liability of a co-accused for concealing the weapon and the extent of mitigation applicable for assisting the injured. The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the principal offender for murder based on consistent eyewitness testimony and red-handed arrest is well-founded, but reduced the sentence of the co-accused convicted of screening evidence from five years to three years in view of assistance rendered to the deceased. The key principle laid down is that while assistance rendered to an injured victim does not absolve a co-accused of the charge of screening evidence, it may serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether red-handed apprehension at the spot precludes hypotheses of innocence in a murder trial?
  • Does rendering assistance to an injured victim absolve a co-accused from the charge of screening incriminatory evidence?
  • Can assistance provided to a deceased in an injured condition be considered as a mitigating circumstance to reduce the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas and another vs The State and another2021 SCMR 23, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-24
  murderbenefit of doubtnighttime occurrencemedical evidenceocular accountdelay in FIRabscondenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and petition for leave to appeal arose from a murder case registered under Section 302/34 PPC. The trial court had convicted the appellant, sentencing him to death, and his father to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court reduced the appellant's sentence to life imprisonment and acquitted the father. The Supreme Court, upon reappraising the evidence, identified several critical flaws in the prosecution's case. These included an unexplained five-hour delay in reporting the incident despite the proximity of the police station, lack of credible evidence regarding the source of light in a nighttime occurrence, and significant contradictions between ocular accounts and medical evidence regarding the time of death. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to recover crime empties or provide a forensic report for the weapon, and the motive remained unproven. The Court also noted that evidence of abscondence was not put to the accused during his Section 342 Cr.P.C. statement. Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, setting aside his conviction, and dismissed the complainant's petition for enhancement of sentence and against the co-accused's acquittal.

  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas and another vs StatePLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-06
  Qatl-i-Amdscreening of evidencered-handed arrestocular accountmitigation of sentencecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal petitions filed against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which maintained the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for Qatl-i-Amd and screening of incriminatory evidence. The core legal question involves the appraisal of ocular testimony, red-handed arrest, and the extent of culpability for screening evidence under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court held that the ocular account was consistent and reliable, and the red-handed arrest established the guilt of the principal accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the dismissal of his petition for leave to appeal. However, regarding the co-accused convicted of screening evidence, assistance provided to the injured victim warranted a mitigation in sentence. The Court laid down the principle that while assisting an injured victim does not absolve an accused of screening evidence, it can serve as a mitigating circumstance in determining the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether red-handed arrest at the spot forecloses avenues to entertain hypotheses other than the assassin's guilt?
  • Does assisting an injured victim to the hospital absolve an accused from the charge of screening incriminatory evidence?
  • Can assistance provided to a deceased person in an injured condition be considered as a mitigating circumstance to reduce the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Ahmed vs The State, etcPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 300, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-14
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirytampering of recordcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in a case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after lower courts denied the relief. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of further inquiry and the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused had been granted bail and the record appeared to have been tampered with during investigation. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court admitted the tampering of the police diaries and a co-accused had already been released, the petitioner was equally entitled to bail under the rule of consistency and Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key legal principle laid down is that where investigation records are found to be manipulated and a co-accused similarly situated has been granted bail, the principle of consistency applies, bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when a co-accused has already been granted bail?
  • Does the tampering of police diaries during investigation bring a case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a general allegation without a specific role in the FIR sufficient to deny post-arrest bail when no weapon is recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazan Khan vs Mst. Ameer Shuma and another2021 P SC (Crl.) 821, 2021 SCMR 1157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-17
  post-arrest bailmurderous assaultprohibitory clausecross-versioninvestigation diaryleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a post-arrest bail application by the Peshawar High Court in a case involving a murderous assault. The petitioner, accused of an offense under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought bail, alleging a cross-version of the incident based on an injury sustained by an animal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidence of his active participation in the assault and the statutory prohibitions against bail for offenses carrying significant imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined the record and rejected the petitioner's reliance on a statement purportedly made by the injured party to the Investigating Officer, noting it violated section 172(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner's active participation in the occurrence, which attracted the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justified the denial of bail. The Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing that the bar against bail cannot be circumvented when reasonable grounds exist for believing the accused committed the offense.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded by an Investigating Officer in a case diary be relied upon to support a bail application?
  • Does an offense punishable with ten years imprisonment attract the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when there are reasonable grounds to believe they actively participated in a murderous assault?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghayasuddin Shahani etc vs Akhtar Hussain etc2021 PLJ SC 307, 2021 SCP 202, 2021 PSC 1414, 2021 SCMR 1204, 2022 PLC (C.S.) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-19
  public recruitmentconstitutional jurisdictionmerit-based appointmenttransparency in recruitmentservice lawwrit jurisdictionvaccinator recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to a High Court of Sindh judgment regarding the recruitment of Vaccinators (BPS-6) by the Health Department, Government of Sindh. The core legal questions involved whether the recruitment process adhered to the criteria set out in the advertisement, whether the process was transparent, and whether the High Court’s directions to rectify flaws violated the petitioners' rights. The Supreme Court held that the recruitment process was indeed flawed, characterized by unauthorized relaxation of marks and procedural irregularities. The Court affirmed the High Court’s directions, emphasizing that public appointments must strictly adhere to the terms of the advertisement to ensure transparency and merit. The Court held that the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 199, correctly intervened to rectify administrative irregularities and prevent nepotism. It further established that recruitment conditions, such as mandatory vaccination certificates and union-council-based residency requirements, are binding and cannot be bypassed. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, as the High Court’s judgment was found to be well-reasoned and in the public interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 intervene in a public recruitment process to ensure transparency?
  • Are public appointments required to strictly follow the criteria and conditions specified in the original advertisement?
  • Is a requirement for candidates to be residents of a specific union council for a government post legally permissible?
  • Does a High Court order directing the rectification of a flawed recruitment process violate the rights of candidates already selected through that flawed process?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghaffar Ali vs The State and another2021 SCMR 354, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-26
  murdercapital punishmentimprisonment for lifeocular accountmedical evidenceabscondencesudden provocationbenefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby the petitioner's conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on three counts was maintained, but his sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life, and his conviction under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 along with sentences were upheld, while the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was initially withheld by the High Court. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the effect of sudden provocation on sentencing, and the entitlement to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through prompt lodging of the FIR, reliable and consistent eye-witness accounts supported by medical evidence, forensic reports of crime empties, and unexplained abscondence. The Court affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment on the ground of sudden provocation, but held that withholding the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was contrary to its mandate. The petition was accordingly dismissed with a modification granting the benefit under section 382-B.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ocular account corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports is sufficient to sustain a conviction for multiple murders?
  • Does a sudden altercation at the spur of the moment constitute a mitigating circumstance justifying the alteration of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Is the withholding of the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lawful in a case resulting in imprisonment for life?
  • Whether unexplained long-term abscondence following a jail break serves as strong corroboration of the accused's guilt?
  Read full judgment →