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. 232594 judgments in total.

• Ch. LATIF AKBAR, FORMER FINANCE MINISTER, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR2017 PLD 32 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. RAKHMAT JAN Versus UMAR MEHMOOD (Minor)2013 PLD 8 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-02-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Versus Mst. ZATOON AKHTAR2013 PLD 27 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-05-20Read full judgment →
• FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary2010 PLD 7 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2010-01-30Read full judgment →
• AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR COUNCIL through Secretary Versus PAIDAR BUILDERS (PVT.) LTD. Through Engineer, Chief Executive2010 PLD 12 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2010-02-01Read full judgment →
• Khawaja IFTIKHAR AHMED Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, GOVENRMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad2007 PLD 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2006-12-22Read full judgment →
• AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad Versus Messrs AMEEN GENERAL ENTERPRISES through Managing Director, Muzaffarabad Azad Kashmir2006 PLD 5 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2006-03-02Read full judgment →
• GENUINE RIGHTS COMMISSION through Munir Ahmed Farooqi, Advocate Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Islamabad2006 PLD 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2002-01-29Read full judgment →
• AQAL HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN2004 PLD 17 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2004-03-27Read full judgment →
• Dr. MOHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKI, ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad2025 PLD 21 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. MUSSARAT FAYYAZ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad2025 PLD 18 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• FAROOQ BROTHERS Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED2023 PLD 47 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-04-28
  Riba prohibitionIslamic bankingFederal Shariat Court jurisdictionrepugnancy to Islamic Injunctionsinterest-free economyconstitutional interpretationShariah compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the re-determination of the prohibition of Riba (interest) within Pakistan's legal and financial framework, following a remand by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. The core legal questions addressed whether the Federal Shariat Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the repugnancy of various fiscal laws to the Injunctions of Islam and whether the term Riba encompasses all forms of interest. The Court held that it possesses exclusive jurisdiction to examine laws on the touchstone of Islamic Injunctions. It ruled that Riba is absolutely prohibited in all manifestations, rejecting distinctions between personal and commercial loans or simple and compound interest. The Court affirmed that interest and usury are synonymous and that Islamic banking is a practical, feasible reality. Consequently, the Court declared several statutory provisions repugnant to Islamic Injunctions, directing the government to amend these laws by December 31, 2027, to align with Shariah principles. The judgment establishes that while international financial commitments remain binding, the state must transition toward Shariah-compliant economic modes, emphasizing that the prohibition of Riba is absolute and foundational to the Islamic economic system.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the repugnancy of fiscal laws to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Is the prohibition of Riba in Islam limited to compound interest or personal loans, or does it extend to all forms of commercial interest?
  • Are the terms 'interest' and 'usury' synonymous under Islamic law?
  • Can the government be directed to set a timeline for the transformation of the conventional banking system into an interest-free system?
  Read full judgment →
• HAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad2022 PLD 9 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAKINA BEGUM Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2022 PLD 64 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. SAKEENA BIBI Versus SECRETARY LAW, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD2022 PLD 57 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• HAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad2022 PLD 21 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
• FAROOQ OMAR BHOJA Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Law and Justice of Pakistan through Secretary, Islamabad2022 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
• HAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2021 PLD 50 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-11-04Read full judgment →
• FAREHA BOKHARI Versus State2019 PLD 13 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-15Read full judgment →
• FIAZ AHMED Versus State2018 PLD 6 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-02-20
  QazfHaddcompromisepardonFederal Shariat Courtcriminal appealright of individual
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, and sentencing them to eighty stripes of whipping for committing Qazf liable to Hadd against the complainant. During the proceedings, the complainant submitted an application stating she had effected a compromise with the appellants and pardoned them. The core legal question was whether the offence of Qazf liable to Hadd, being a violation involving both individual and divine rights, is compoundable and susceptible to pardon by the victim. The Federal Shariat Court held that in the offence of Qazf, the right of the individual is predominant, and therefore, the complainant can validly compromise the matter and grant a pardon to the accused, even after conviction. The court laid down the principle that the sentence of Hadd for Qazf can be waived off or remitted if the victim pardons the offender, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction and acquittal of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the offence of Qazf liable to Hadd is compoundable through a compromise between the parties?
  • Can a complainant grant a pardon to an accused convicted of Qazf after the trial has concluded?
  • Is the right of the individual predominant over the right of Allah in the offence of Qazf?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights of Pakistan, Islamabad2018 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
• KHAMISO Versus State2017 PLD 98 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-06-09
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtrobberywrongful confinementdelayed FIRacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 392 and Section 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the inordinate three-month delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of recovery of stolen property, and material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The court observed that the key eye-witness failed to identify the appellant, and the complainant's testimony contained significant contradictions regarding the items allegedly robbed. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that for the purpose of granting the benefit of doubt, it is not necessary for multiple circumstances to exist; a single reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, rather than as a concession or grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the primary eye-witness fails to identify the accused and no recovery is made?
  Read full judgment →
• SYEDA VIQUAR UN NISA HASHMI Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2017 PLD 8 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
• FAROOQ SIDDIQUI Versus Mst. FARZANA NAHEED2017 PLD 78 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-02-16Read full judgment →
• SHAHID ORAKZAI Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary Law, Ministry of Law, Islamabad2017 PLD 63 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-12-15Read full judgment →
• ABID ALI BANGSH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Justice and Law Division, Islamabad2017 PLD 39 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
• SHAHID ORAKZAI Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs, Hajj and Auqaf, Islamabad2017 PLD 33 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
• Col (Retd.) MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Defence, Rawalpindi Cantt.2017 PLD 24 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-10-31Read full judgment →
• DIRECTOR AND MEMBERS AL-QURAN RESEARCH ACADEMY, KHYBER BAZAR, PESHAWAR Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2017 PLD 12 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
• Dr. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2017 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN COTTON GINNERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) PAKISTAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Commerce2016 PLD 9 · Federal Shariat Court · 2015-04-16Read full judgment →
• NADEEM SIDDIQUI Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2016 PLD 4 · Federal Shariat Court · 2015-04-30Read full judgment →
• SALEEM AHMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Attorney General of Pakistan2014 PLD 43 · Federal Shariat Court · 2009-05-28Read full judgment →
• MUKHTIAR AHMED SHAIKH Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law, Islamabad2014 PLD 23 · Federal Shariat Court · 2014-03-05
  Service Tribunals ActFederal Shariat CourtInjunctions of Islamlaw of limitationequality of mankindcasting vote of Chairmanprocedural law versus substantive law
  Summary & questions settled

  This review shariat petition challenged the constitutional and Islamic validity of section 3-A(2)(c), section 4(1) with Proviso (A), and sections 6 and 7 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The core legal questions involved whether granting a casting or prevailing vote to the Chairman of a Service Tribunal when a bench is equally divided violates Islamic injunctions regarding human equality, and whether statutory limitation periods for filing appeals are repugnant to Islamic jurisprudence. The Federal Shariat Court held that section 3-A(2)(c), in giving preferential weight to the Chairman's opinion in judicial decision-making, violates the Islamic principle of equality of human beings and is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, making it void after a specified date. However, the court upheld the provisions concerning limitation, holding that procedural time limits and laws of limitation do not extinguish substantive rights improperly, are well-founded in Islamic jurisprudence (Tamadi), and are necessary for the administration of justice to prevent stale claims and evidentiary difficulties.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 3-A(2)(c) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 violate the Injunctions of Islam by giving preferential weight to the Chairman's opinion on an equally divided bench?
  • Are statutory limitation periods and procedural timeframes for filing appeals against the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Does Islamic jurisprudence recognize the concept of limitation of time (Tamadi) for the enforcement of rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi MUHAMMAD HAROON, ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT, BALOCHISTAN Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2013 PLD 7 · Federal Shariat Court · 2012-10-22Read full judgment →
• Dr. MAHMOOD-UR-REHMAN FAISAL Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2013 PLD 55 · Federal Shariat Court · 2013-01-07Read full judgment →
• Professor KAZIM HUSSAIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2013 PLD 18 · Federal Shariat Court · 2012-12-12
  house rent allowancerepugnancy to injunctions of Islamcivil servantgender discriminationFederal Shariat Courtconstitutional interpretationdelegated legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged government Office Memoranda that denied house rent allowance to one spouse if the other was provided government accommodation, arguing this was repugnant to Islamic Injunctions. The core legal question was whether such rules, which penalized married government servants by denying individual entitlements, violated Islamic principles of equality and justice. The Federal Shariat Court held that the impugned rules were indeed repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court reasoned that marriage is not a disqualification for service benefits, and that civil servants, as separate individuals, are entitled to their own earnings and allowances. The holding established that rules formulated under delegated authority cannot contradict constitutional provisions or Islamic injunctions. The Court directed the Federal and Provincial Governments to amend the offending rules by June 30, 2013, failing which they would cease to have effect. The key principle laid down is that the State cannot discriminate against employees based on marital status, as equality before the law is a fundamental tenet of both the Constitution and Sharia.

  Questions settled

  • Are government rules denying house rent allowance to one spouse if the other is provided government accommodation repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Can rules framed under delegated authority contradict the Constitution or Islamic injunctions?
  • Does marriage constitute a valid ground for denying service benefits like house rent allowance to a government servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian ABDUR RAZZAQ AAMIR Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN2011 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2010-12-22Read full judgment →
• MOHTARMA BENAZIR BHUTTO Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance Islamabad2010 PLD 229 · Federal Shariat Court · 2010-04-15
  Peoples Foundation TrustMartial Law OrdersInjunctions of IslamRepugnancy to Injunctions of IslamTrust propertyRule of lawFederal Shariat CourtConstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Shariat petition challenged the validity of Martial Law Order No. 21 (1977), MLO 26 (1977), President's Order No. 4 (1978), and President's Order No. 6 (1979), which seized and reorganized the 'Peoples Foundation Trust' established by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The core legal question was whether these instruments were repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Federal Shariat Court held that the impugned instruments were indeed repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, declaring them void and of no legal effect, thereby restoring the status quo ante. The court established that Islamic law mandates the preservation of trusts, prohibits arbitrary confiscation of property, and requires due process. It affirmed that trust assets must be returned to rightful owners and that administrative actions lacking transparency, consultation, or legal basis—particularly those violating fundamental rights and Islamic principles of justice—are ultra vires. The court asserted its jurisdiction to review such instruments despite their inclusion in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, emphasizing that no executive authority can override Islamic injunctions or fundamental constitutional protections.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the jurisdiction to examine Martial Law Orders on the touchstone of the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Are Martial Law Orders that confiscate trust property without due process repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Does the inclusion of a law in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan bar the Federal Shariat Court from reviewing it for repugnancy to Islamic Injunctions?
  • Is the unilateral alteration of a trust's objectives and administration by executive fiat permissible under Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD JAMALUDDIN KAZMI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through President of Pakistan2010 PLD 221 · Federal Shariat Court · 2009-05-08Read full judgment →
• Dlr. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2010 PLD 191 · Federal Shariat Court · 2009-05-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKHI Versus STATE2010 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2009-08-28Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR AHMAD SHAIKH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2009 PLD 65 · Federal Shariat Court · 2009-02-11Read full judgment →
• ZAFAR Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2009 PLD 62 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi2009 PLD 36 · Federal Shariat Court · 2008-09-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEEDULLAH KHAN Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR2009 PLD 33 · Federal Shariat Court · 2008-08-28Read full judgment →
• FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS2009 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2008-10-24Read full judgment →
• SUO MOTU CASE NO.1/K OF 2006 Versus2008 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2007-12-12Read full judgment →
• Moulvi IQBAL HAIDER Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2006 PLD 26 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-12-15Read full judgment →
• Syed SHABBIR HUSSAIN KAZMI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2006 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-10-10
  bonded labourpeshgi systembrick kiln industryrepugnancy to Islamfundamental rightsforced labourFederal Shariat Courtlabour rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of eight Shariat petitions filed under Article 203-D of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by brick kiln owners challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992, including its definitions and sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11, on the ground that they are repugnant to the Injunctions of the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The core legal question is whether the abolition of the traditional 'peshgi' (advance) and 'jamadari' systems and the criminalization and penalization of bonded labour under the 1992 Act violate Islamic injunctions. The Federal Shariat Court held that the impugned provisions are entirely consistent with Islamic injunctions, which strictly forbid forced labour, exploitation, and unconscionable contracts, and that the legislation was enacted in pursuance of authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The court laid down the principle that Islam mandates the protection of workers' dignity, the prompt payment of wages, and the elimination of all forms of economic servitude and exploitative bondage, thereby dismissing the petitions as both non-maintainable and devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 regarding the abolition of the peshgi system are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Are the judgments of the Supremeitor of Pakistan rendered under Article 184 of the Constitution binding on persons who were not parties to the original proceedings?
  • Whether the practice of taking advances (peshgi) and binding brick kiln workers under unconscionable terms constitutes forced labour prohibited by Islam?
  • Do sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 violate any provisions of the Holy Quran and Sunnah?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MAJID Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2004 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2003-11-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAFRAN BIBI Versus THE STATE2002 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2002-06-06
  ZinaHaddstoning to deathpregnancyconfessionrapelegitimacy of childcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kohat, which convicted the appellant under Section 5 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentenced her to stoning to death (Rajm). The prosecution's case was initiated after the appellant reported being subjected to rape (Zina-bil-Jabr) by a co-accused while her husband was imprisoned. Due to a discrepancy between the estimated duration of her pregnancy and the date of the alleged rape, the police arraigned her as a co-accused. The trial court subsequently acquitted the co-accused but convicted the appellant based on her pregnancy and statements. The Federal Shariat Court accepted additional evidence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the appellant's husband testified and owned the legitimacy of the child. The Court held that pregnancy alone does not constitute conclusive proof of Zina, especially for a married woman, and cannot justify a Hadd punishment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that exculpatory statements alleging rape cannot be treated as confessions of consensual Zina. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the pregnancy of a married woman can be treated as sole or conclusive proof of Zina to impose a Hadd punishment?
  • Can an exculpatory statement alleging rape (Zina-bil-Jabr) be construed as a confession of consensual Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Is a conviction for a graver Hadd offence legally sustainable if the accused was originally charged only with a lesser Ta'zir offence without altering the charge during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM ASGHAR Versus STATE2000 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-05-13Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus ANITA GHOSH NOTE 3, P.1997 PLD 5 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
• FARZAND ALI Versus RAJA MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1996 PLD 29 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• MST. NUZHAT JABIN Versus JAMIL HUSSAIN SHAH1996 PLD 15 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MALIK Versus THE STATE1996 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BANARAS Versus THE STATE1995 PLD 7 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
• AHMED SHER Versus THE STATE1995 PLD 20 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
• BALI KHAN Versus THE STATE1995 PLD 13 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• TAHIR MAJEED Versus THE STATE1995 PLD 10 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• SAID MAHMOOD Versus THE STATE1995 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABBAS Versus THE STATE1994 PLD 46 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
• RAZIA BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD1994 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 61993 PLD 6 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 441993 PLD 44 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-11-12Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 381993 PLD 38 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-24Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 331993 PLD 33 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 311993 PLD 31 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 251993 PLD 25 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-11Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 211993 PLD 21 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 201993 PLD 20 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 171993 PLD 17 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-11Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 121993 PLD 12 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-31Read full judgment →
• 1993 PLD 11993 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
• DR. MAHMOOD-UR-RAHMAN FAISAL, CHAIRMAN, TEHRIK INQILAB, ISLAM, RAWALPINDI Versus SECRETARY, M/O JUSTICE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD1992 PLD 530 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-11-14Read full judgment →
• CH. IRSHAD AHMAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, ISLAMABAD1992 PLD 527 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
• HABIB-UL-WAHAB ALKHERI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1992 PLD 484 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL QURESHY Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD1992 PLD 445 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
• MST. RABIA SULTANA Versus RIAZ AHMAD1992 PLD 427 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-01Read full judgment →
• NUSRAT BAIG MIRZA Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1992 PLD 412 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-23Read full judgment →
• THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT (I OF 1894) Versus THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT (I OF 1894)1992 PLD 398 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
• M. NAEEM VIRK Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1992 PLD 385 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
• SYED NAZIR ALI SHAH Versus THE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD1992 PLD 361 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
• ASHFAQ AHMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1992 PLD 286 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-10-01Read full judgment →
• MAQBOOL AHMAD QURESHI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1992 PLD 282 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• AMIN JAN NAEEM Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1992 PLD 252 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-08-12Read full judgment →
• DR. MAHMOOD-UR-RAHMAN FAISAL Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD1992 PLD 195 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
• MUFTI IFTIKHARUDDIN Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT1992 PLD 188 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• DR. MAHMOOD-UR-RAHMAN FAISAL Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD1992 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL QURESHI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1991 PLD 80 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHABBIR Versus THE STATE1991 PLD 71 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• ARIF NAWAZ KHAN Versus THE STATE1991 PLD 53 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD USMAN Versus THE STATE1991 PLD 39 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
• DR. MAHMOOD-UR-RAHMAN FAISAL, CHAIRMAN, TEHRIK-E-INQALAB ISLAM, RAWALPINDI Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD1991 PLD 35 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• THE N: W.F.P. PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY (POWERS, IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILECFS) ACT, 1988 Versus THE N: W.F.P. PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY (POWERS, IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILECFS) ACT, 19881991 PLD 283 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
• ARSHAD MAHMOOD Versus THE STATE1991 PLD 268 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
• HABIB-UL-WAHAB ALKHAIRI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1991 PLD 236 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-08-08Read full judgment →
• SANAULLAH Versus THE STATE1991 PLD 186 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• HAIDER HUSSAIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1991 PLD 139 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-23Read full judgment →