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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Fayyaz Ahmad, et, Hassan Ali vs The State, etc2025 LHC 4859 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-27
  criminal revisionbenefit of the doubtdishonest improvementsdelay in FIRacquittalweapon recoverymedical jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arises from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioners under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court, which was subsequently upheld by the appellate court. The core legal questions involve the reliability of prosecution evidence characterized by delayed FIR registration, general allegations without specific role attribution in the initial report followed by dishonest improvements at trial, lack of crime empties and forensic reports for alleged weapon recoveries, and the safety of maintaining a conviction on the same set of evidence that led to the acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions, unexplained delay in reporting, dishonest improvements by witnesses, and lack of corroborative forensic evidence create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the lower courts' judgments, accepted the revision petition, and acquitted the petitioners, laying down that the benefit of doubt arising from such structural flaws must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on the basis of the same set of evidence and witnesses whose testimony has been disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of the First Information Report create doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Can improvements made by witnesses at trial regarding specific role attribution to the accused be relied upon?
  • What is the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries when no crime empties are recovered from the place of occurrence and no positive Forensic Science Laboratory report is obtained?
  Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Ltd. vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others2025 PTD 562 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-05Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Limited vs M/s Tahir Omer Industries Limited, etc.2025 LHC 2346 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-26Read full judgment →
• Fawad Ghani Siddiqui son of Dr. Abdul Ghani Siddiqui vs Mst. Fiza Saleem2025 SHC HYD 1800 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
• Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 22, PTCL 2025 CL. 385 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-28Read full judgment →
• Fauji Cement Company Limited vs Govt. of Punjab etc2025 LHC 685, PTCL 2025 CL. 569, 2025 PLJ Lahore 607 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-04Read full judgment →
• Fatima Noor vs Dow University of Health Science and Others2025 SHC 104 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-24
  service mattermisconductdepartmental inquirynatural justicedue processright to fair trialjudicial reviewreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner, a Medical Technologist at Dow University of Health Sciences, following allegations of misconduct regarding an unauthorized financial scheme. The core legal question was whether the university could dismiss the petitioner based on a fact-finding report without conducting a regular departmental inquiry, particularly when the petitioner denied the allegations. The Court held that the dismissal was unlawful and violated the principles of natural justice and due process. It emphasized that when a public servant denies charges, the disciplinary authority must conduct a regular inquiry to substantiate allegations, as dispensing with such procedures is only permissible in exceptional circumstances. The Court ruled that the university’s failure to provide a fair hearing and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses rendered the dismissal invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, directed the petitioner's reinstatement, and ordered the university to conduct a fresh, regular inquiry within four months, ensuring the petitioner is afforded a meaningful opportunity to defend herself.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public servant be dismissed for misconduct based solely on a fact-finding inquiry without a regular departmental inquiry when the charges are denied?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 mandate a regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings where allegations are contested?
  • What is the scope of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding the disciplinary proceedings of a university employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad Mughal & others vs Ghulam Muhammad Sahito &2025 SHC 368 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad Mubejo & others vs Shah Bux Mubejo & others2025 SHC SUK 1125 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-04Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan and others vs The State etc2025 SCP 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  interested witnessbenefit of doubtblood feudadverse inferenceocular testimonyabscondencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions for murder and related offenses arising from a 2007 incident involving a blood feud. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given that the primary witnesses were interested parties, their statements were delayed, and there were material contradictions and dishonest improvements in their testimony. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court emphasized that the testimony of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration, which was absent here. Furthermore, the court drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, due to the prosecution's failure to produce key witnesses. The court held that abscondence alone is insufficient for conviction without substantive incriminating evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, dismissing the complainant's appeals for sentence enhancement and against the acquittal of co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a firearm injury on a prosecution witness automatically render their testimony credible?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an accused's abscondence in the absence of other substantive evidence?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to produce key witnesses during a criminal trial?
  • Is independent corroboration required for the testimony of interested witnesses in cases involving previous enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Farrah Mehmood & 2 Others vs Adnan Amin & 2 others2025 IHC 548 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-14Read full judgment →
• Farooq Zaman and another vs Additional Sessions Judge-III (East)2025 IHC 458 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Farooq Dashti vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1593 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-26
  juvenile offenderjuvenile justice systemde novo trialjoint trial with adultsoverriding effect of special lawdiversionillegal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, a juvenile, under the Sindh Arms Act, 2023, and sentencing him to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether trying a juvenile under general criminal law instead of the special procedure prescribed by the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 vitiates the trial. The Sindh High Court held that conducting a trial of a juvenile under ordinary criminal law in disregard of the mandatory provisions and exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile courts renders the proceedings a nullity. The court established that the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 has an overriding effect, mandating a reformatory approach, separate trials from adults, and adherence to specific procedural safeguards. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence, and remanded the matter back for a de novo trial to be conducted strictly in accordance with juvenile laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does trying a juvenile offender under general criminal law instead of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 vitiate the entire trial proceedings?
  • Whether the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 has an overriding effect over ordinary criminal laws when dealing with juvenile offenders?
  • Is it permissible to hold a joint trial of a juvenile offender with adult co-accused without recording reasons demonstrating the welfare of the child under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to provide a separate trial and special procedural safeguards to a juvenile accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Farman Ullah vs The State2025 MLD 875 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-30
  rapecriminal intimidationbenefit of doubtforensic evidenceevidentiary contradictionsburden of proofacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a conviction under Section 376 and Section 506(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for rape and criminal intimidation. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidentiary inconsistencies. The High Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with significant contradictions regarding the date of occurrence, the age of the victim, and the timing of the medical examination. Furthermore, the court noted a critical conflict between the initial medical examination and the subsequent Punjab Forensic Science Agency report, which the Police Surgeon ultimately declared negative. The court held that where two interpretations of evidence are possible—one pointing to guilt and one to innocence—the view favorable to the accused must be adopted. Emphasizing that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits without relying on defense weaknesses, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the principle of benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory testimony regarding material facts like the date of occurrence and the victim's age?
  • Does a conflict between an initial medical examination and a subsequent forensic report entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case against an accused without relying on the weaknesses of the defense?
  • Should an accused be acquitted if there is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Farid Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs vs Kiran Naz etc2025 LHC 5430 · Lahore High Court · 2025-08-20Read full judgment →
• Farid Akhtar and 4 others vs Yasir Latif and 3 others2025 YLR 1054 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-12-24
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtdouble presumption of innocencecircumstantial evidencemurderrecoveryconfessional statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli, dated 11.07.2019, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of charges under sections 302, 459, and 392 of the Azad Penal Code. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding circumstantial evidence, delayed nomination, dubious recoveries of a weapon and ornaments, and a disputed confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the prosecution's evidence suffered from material contradictions and dents, and that multiple circumstances created reasonable doubt regarding the respondent's guilt. Reaffirming the principle that an acquittal creates a double presumption of innocence which should not be disturbed lightly unless the trial court's findings are perverse or arbitrary, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal, ruling that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal based on a double presumption of innocence?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Whether a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be relied upon when the accused was in judicial custody without a formal application and subsequently retracted it?
  • What are the strict limitations on the power of an appellate court to convert an acquittal into a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhan Saleem vs Anwar Hussain and three others2025 LHC 1575 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-22
  criminal appealacquittalinjured witnessappreciation of evidencepost-mortem delayrecovery of weaponsdouble presumption of innocenceQatl-i-Amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents by the Model Criminal Trial Court, Rawalpindi, in a case involving murder and assault. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of an injured witness's testimony, the impact of unexplained delays in post-mortem examinations, and the necessity of independent witnesses for recovery proceedings. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquittal was sound. The court affirmed that while an injured witness’s presence at the scene is established by their injuries, such status does not guarantee the truthfulness of their testimony, which must still undergo rigorous scrutiny. Furthermore, the court held that significant, unexplained delays in conducting post-mortem examinations create an inference that the prosecution’s narrative was fabricated. Additionally, the failure to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of weapons violated the mandatory requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that an acquittal grants the accused a double presumption of innocence, the court concluded that interference is only warranted if the trial court’s judgment is perverse, shocking, or based on a misreading of evidence, none of which applied here.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a witness automatically render their testimony truthful and reliable?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination on the prosecution's case?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of weapons a violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Fareedullah Khan & others vs Province of Balochistan through Secretary2025 SCP 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-07-14
  Leave to appealConstitutional petitionWrit jurisdictionFactual inquirySecurity depositContract disputeJurisdictional limitsExecution application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment concerning a contractor's forfeited security deposit. The contractor, blacklisted in 1991, had his suit decreed in 2006, declaring his blacklisting illegal, but without specifically ordering the release of the security amount. His subsequent execution application for the security amount was dismissed by the executing court. The High Court, converting an appeal into a constitutional petition, conducted a factual inquiry, summoned records, and directed the C&W Department to pay a partial security amount of Rs. 20,12,668/- to the contractor's legal heirs. The Supreme Court held that the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, exceeded its authority by undertaking a detailed factual inquiry and directing payment, as such jurisdiction is not meant for resolving convoluted or disputed questions of fact requiring evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the C&W Department's appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the legal heirs' petition, leaving them to seek relief from an appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, entertain matters requiring a detailed factual inquiry or recording of evidence?
  • Is it constitutionally permissible for courts to expand their jurisdictional domain beyond what is allowed by the Constitution and law?
  • Can a High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, direct the release of a security amount when the original civil suit did not specifically decree such release and the claim involves disputed facts?
  • What is the scope and ambit of the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Faraz Ahmed vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1963 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-29Read full judgment →
• Falak Naz Khan vs The State and another2025 YLR 251 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02
  criminal appealmurder convictionsentence enhancementeyewitness reliabilitysudden provocationacquittalPeshawar High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, convicting the appellant under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased via a brick blow, while acquitting co-accused under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant challenged the acquittal and sought enhancement of the appellant's sentence. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the propriety of the acquittal, and whether the murder fell under Section 302(c) (Taazir) or Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the testimony of an independent police witness present at the scene was reliable and sufficient for conviction. Regarding the sentence, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the occurrence developed suddenly without premeditation, involving a single blow, which justified sentencing under Section 302(c) rather than Section 302(b). The Court upheld the acquittal of co-accused due to lack of specific evidence. The principle established is that conviction can be based on the testimony of an absolutely reliable witness, and sudden provocation without premeditation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on the testimony of an absolutely reliable witness in the absence of corroboratory material?
  • Does a murder committed on the spur of the moment without premeditation qualify for sentencing under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the acquittal of co-accused justified when the prosecution fails to attribute specific roles or recover incriminating weapons?
  Read full judgment →
• Faizullah vs Senior Member Board of Revenue Balochistan, Quetta and 52025 CLC 87 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-05Read full judgment →
• Faizan Basiq vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1707 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-04
  cancellation of bailpost-arrest bailsection 497(5) CrPCfurther inquiryprohibitory clausecivil disputedelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to Respondents 1 and 2 in an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 506, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegations stemmed from a failure to pay an outstanding sum for coal purchased by the respondents, which culminated in alleged live threats. The High Court considered whether the bail-granting order passed by the trial court was patently perverse or illegal so as to justify interference. The High Court affirmed that the principles governing the cancellation of bail are fundamentally distinct from those governing its grant, requiring strong and exceptional grounds such as perversity, misuse of liberty, or interference with investigation. Upon tentative assessment, the Court noted an unexplained 11-month delay in lodging the FIR, the civil nature of the transaction regarding recovery of funds, and that Section 406 PPC did not fall within the prohibitory clause. Finding no perversity, the application was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • What grounds justify the cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail granted by a lower court be cancelled merely because an alternative view of the facts is possible?
  • Whether sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be applied simultaneously in the same FIR against the same accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The State2025 YLR 279 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-24
  post-arrest bailmurderprohibitory clausefirearm recoveryforensic science laboratory reporttentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by applicant Faiz Muhammad Kalhoro seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No.199 of 2023 registered under sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station B-section, Khairpur. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail when he is specifically nominated in the FIR for firing at the deceased, supported by corroborative forensic evidence and matching weapon recovery, and where a co-accused with a similar role has been denied bail. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant is prima facie connected with the commission of an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and deeper appreciation of evidence is unwarranted at the bail stage. The court dismissed the bail application, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of material showing direct attribution, positive forensic reports matching weapon recovery, and dismissal of co-accused's bail on identical allegations disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail under the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused nominated with a specific role of firing in the FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail when supported by positive forensic weapon matching?
  • Does the dismissal of bail for a co-accused on the same set of allegations justify the refusal of bail to another co-accused?
  • Can a deeper scrutiny of evidence be undertaken by the court while deciding a post-arrest bail application under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Zaman vs The State2025 PHC 64 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
• Faisal Rehman Raheem vs The Competent Authority of Lahore High Court, Lahore2025 LHC 2171 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Faisal Irshad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony, Islamabad and another2025 CLC 983 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-23Read full judgment →
• Faisal Athar Hussain vs Mst. Amber Mughal and 4 others2025 MLD 928 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Faisal Ansari @ Soni and Qaiser @ Kala vs Province of Sind and others2025 SHC KHI 2104 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-24Read full judgment →
• Faisal alias Salman alias Lecture vs The State2025 YLR 926 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• Faisal Akram vs Pervaiz Iqbal since deceased Through his legal heirs2025 SHC KHI 1517 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-23Read full judgment →
• Faisal Ahmad and 2 others vs Federal Board of Revenue through Chairman2025 PTD 653 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• Fahim Khan Afridi vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 72 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-05Read full judgment →
• Faheem Arshad and others vs Manzoor-ul-Haq and others2025 SCP 245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-30
  promotionservice rulesTehsildarPMS OfficerDepartmental Promotion Committeestatutory rulesvacant postsadministrative efficiencyequality of opportunityservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerned a dispute between 'Promotee Tehsildars' (promoted from Naib Tehsildar) and 'Inducted Tehsildars' (directly recruited) regarding promotion to Provincial Management Service (PMS) Officers (BS-17). The core legal question was whether the promotion process could be suspended due to a challenge against a 2019 amendment to the Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, which waived the five-year service condition for Promotee Tehsildars. The Supreme Court held that rules framed under a statute have the same force as the statute itself until declared ultra vires by a competent court or tribunal. It ruled that a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) must enforce existing rules and cannot question their legality or defer promotions based on contemplated amendments. The Court emphasized that vacant posts must be filled promptly to maintain administrative efficiency and public confidence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, converted the petition into an appeal, and allowed it, directing that the promotion process for Tehsildars as PMS Officers should continue, setting aside the Punjab Service Tribunal's order that had suspended it.

  Questions settled

  • Can a promotion process be halted due to a challenge to an amendment in service rules that has not been declared ultra vires?
  • Do rules made under a statute have the same force as the provisions of the statute itself?
  • Can a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) question the legality or enforceability of existing service rules?
  • Is it permissible for a DPC to defer promotions on the pretext that amendments to the rules are being contemplated?
  • Should vacant posts in public institutions be filled without undue delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad Hashim son of Habib Hashim vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2087 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-07
  audi alteram partemright to fair trialex-parte orderrecall of ordernatural justiceprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the recall of an ex-parte order dated 11.07.2025, which had suspended a prior order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 12.09.2023. The core legal question was whether an order passed by the High Court, which adversely affected a party without providing them an opportunity of being heard, could be sustained in light of the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial. The Court held that the order dated 11.07.2025 was passed in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem, as the respondent's counsel had not been issued notice despite having filed a power of attorney and being present in previous proceedings. Consequently, the Court recalled the order of 11.07.2025 and restored the status quo, emphasizing that no adverse order should be passed against a party without affording them a fair opportunity of hearing. The key principle laid down is that the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 10-A of the Constitution, necessitates that parties be heard before any interim or final order is passed against them.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate or revisional court pass an adverse order against a party without issuing notice to them?
  • Does the failure to hear a party before passing an interim order constitute a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is an order passed in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem liable to be recalled?
  Read full judgment →
• Exide Pakistan Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & othersPTCL 2025 CL. 381 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-06Read full judgment →
• Erum Shahzadi & another vs Additional District Judge, Sialkot & 04 others2025 LHC 151 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-16Read full judgment →
• Engro Polymer & Chemicals Limited, etc. vs Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Petroleum division), Block-a, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 540 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Engro Polymer & Chemicals Limited, etc vs Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Petroleum division), Block-a, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 540 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Engro Fertilizers Limited, etc vs Assistant Director Agriculture, etc2025 LHC 2701 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
• Engro Fertilizers Limited and others vs Competition Commission of Pakistan and 3 others2025 IHC 536 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Engro Fertilizer Limited vs Ful Bench of NIRC & others2025 SHC 266 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-04
  industrial relationsgrievance petitionmanagement rightsworkforce restructuringNIRC jurisdictionmemorandum of settlementunfair labor practiceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging the orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which had upheld the grievance petitions of employees against their employer, Engro Fertilizer Limited. The employer had restructured its workforce, abolishing 'Group F' and promoting employees to 'Group P-6' (management cadre). The core legal question was whether the NIRC had jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012 to adjudicate these grievances, given that the employer claimed a management right to reclassify jobs under a Memorandum of Settlement. The majority opinion held that the NIRC's concurrent findings were based on a misinterpretation of the employer's management rights and that the employees failed to demonstrate a violation of any right guaranteed by law, award, or settlement. The court concluded that the NIRC lacked jurisdiction because the employer's actions were within its contractual rights under the Memorandum of Settlement, and the grievance petitions did not concern termination, removal, or dismissal as contemplated by the Act. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders, establishing that the NIRC cannot assume jurisdiction over management restructuring decisions absent a clear violation of a guaranteed right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012 to adjudicate a grievance petition regarding the reclassification of employees from a worker cadre to a management cadre?
  • Can an employer exercise its right to reclassify jobs and restructure its workforce under a Memorandum of Settlement without violating labor laws?
  • Is a grievance petition maintainable under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012 if the employee fails to demonstrate a violation of a right guaranteed by law, award, or settlement?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of the NIRC in its constitutional jurisdiction when those findings suffer from jurisdictional errors?
  Read full judgment →
• Engro Corporation Limited and others vs SECP etc2025 IHC 336 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmed vs Addl. District Judge, etc2025 LHC 2082 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary vs The State thr. P.G. Punjab and another2025 SCP 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-02
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquiryanti-terrorismcriminal conspiracysupplementary statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was implicated in FIR No. 103/2023 for various offences, including those under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, not nominated in the initial FIR and implicated only via a supplementary statement based on social media content, was entitled to bail given the prolonged trial and the grant of bail to a co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the case against the petitioner fell within the ambit of further inquiry, noting that the admissibility and evidentiary value of the supplementary statement and digital evidence remained to be determined at trial. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that a co-accused facing identical allegations had already been granted bail. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal and granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment, and where a case requires further inquiry, the rule of consistency mandates equitable treatment of similarly situated co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment for an accused?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused facing the same allegations has already been granted bail?
  • Does the implication of an accused in a supplementary statement based on social media evidence constitute a case of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan-ul-Haq and others vs Muhammad Nawaz and others2025 SCP 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-20
  limited estateIslamic law of inheritancetestamentary dispositionHanafi lawcustomary lawabsolute ownershipSection 2-A
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerned the inheritance of property originally bequeathed via Will to a female heir, Mst. Ghulam Zohra, subject to a condition that she hold it as a limited owner. The appellants, claiming as legal heirs of a collateral, argued that upon her death, the property should devolve according to customary law. The core legal question was whether the condition of a limited estate in a Will is valid under Islamic law and the effect of statutory enactments on such estates. The Supreme Court held that under Hanafi Islamic law, a bequest with a condition derogating from the completeness of the grant is void, rendering the beneficiary an absolute owner. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, retrospectively abolished limited estates, ensuring that property previously held under such customary limitations became the absolute property of the heir. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as the property rightfully devolved upon the heirs of the absolute owner, Mst. Ghulam Zohra.

  Questions settled

  • Is a condition in a Will creating a limited estate for a female heir valid under Islamic law?
  • Does Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, have retrospective effect in abolishing limited estates?
  • What is the legal effect under Hanafi law of a bequest containing a condition that derogates from the completeness of the grant?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr.Tariq Hassan Memon vs Federation of Pakistan & other2025 SHC HYD 1604, 2025 SHC HYD 1616 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityjurisdictional barcivil servantstransfer and postingterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Principal Medical Officer at WAPDA, Hyderabad, challenged an administrative transfer order relocating him to WAPDA Fort Dispensary, Thor (Chilas), Gilgit-Baltistan. The petitioner contended that his service was non-transferable under his initial employment terms, that the transfer violated Section 17 of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, and that he was entitled to the benefit of the federal Wedlock Policy. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Sindh High Court examined Section 17(1-B) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, which deems WAPDA employees to be civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the Court held that Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 categorically ousts the jurisdiction of constitutional courts in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. The petition was dismissed as non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Pakistan Water & Power Development Authority are deemed to be civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from entertaining a writ petition challenging the transfer and posting of a WAPDA employee?
  • Can a WAPDA employee bypass the Federal Service Tribunal to challenge an administrative transfer order under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr.Rahim Bux Khokhar vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC HYD 1536 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-23
  constitutional petitiondismissal from serviceuniversity employeereview applicationexhaustion of remediessyndicatenatural justiceinquiry proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Lecturer (BPS-18) at Mehran University of Engineering and Technology (MUET), challenged his dismissal from service through a constitutional petition. The dismissal was approved by the Syndicate following an inquiry regarding allegations of unauthorized absence, failure to complete PhD studies within the stipulated period, and breach of scholarship terms. The petitioner asserted serious procedural irregularities, including the unlawful constitution of the Inquiry Committee by the Vice-Chancellor rather than the Syndicate, denial of natural justice, lack of personal hearing, and non-provision of necessary documents, violating the MUET Employees Efficiency and Discipline Statutes, 1978 and Article 10-A of the Constitution. The Sindh High Court evaluated the statutory appellate and review remedies under Section 36 of the Mehran University of Engineering and Technology Act, 1977. Finding that the dismissal order originated from the Syndicate, the Court held that the petitioner's pending Review Application before the Syndicate was the proper statutory forum. Disposing of the petition as premature, the Court directed the Syndicate to decide the review application expeditiously with full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee whose dismissal was approved by the University Syndicate can maintain an appeal or must seek a review before the Syndicate under Section 36 of the Mehran University of Engineering and Technology Act, 1977?
  • Does the pendency of a separate constitutional petition regarding financial claims justify a statutory body in delaying or withholding the adjudication of a pending service review application?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable to challenge a dismissal order when a statutory review application before the competent departmental authority remains pending and unexhausted?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr.Mehboob Ali and 03 others vs Government of Sindh and others2025 SHC 684 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-07
  regularization of servicescontract employeesdoctors regularizationequality of citizensconstitutional petitioncivil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, by contractual doctors seeking directions for the completion of their regularization process under the Regularization of Doctors Appointed on Contract or Ad-hoc Basis Act, 2018, parity of treatment with colleagues who had already been regularized, and protection from discriminatory treatment. The core legal question involved the interpretation of Section 3 of the said 2018 Act and Section 3 of the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Abdullah Jumani's case, which set aside earlier restrictive findings regarding the constitutionality of regularizing employees without commission selection. The Sindh High Court held that the regularization of contract-based doctors under the 2018 Act is legally valid, that the Supreme Court's ruling in Abdullah Jumani has restored the validity of such statutory regularization, and that denying the petitioners regularization while granting it to similarly situated colleagues violates the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution. The court laid down the principle that statutory regularization acts enacted pursuant to Article 240 are valid, and contractual employees eligible under such acts cannot be arbitrarily denied regularization once their qualifications are verified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contractual doctors are entitled to regularization under the Regularization of Doctors Appointed on Contract or Ad-hoc Basis Act, 2018?
  • Does the regularization of contract employees in higher grades without initial selection through the public service commission violate the Constitution?
  • Whether the refusal to regularize petitioners while granting the same benefit to similarly situated colleagues constitutes a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • What is the effect of the Supreme Court's judgment in Abdullah Jumani's case on the interpretation of regularization statutes in Sindh?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zaib-Un-Nisa vs Mudasar Shabbir and 7 others2025 PCRLJ 162 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-02
  Illegal Dispossession Act 2005property disputefamily disputeland grabbingcriminal appealcivil jurisdictionpossession of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the dismissal of a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, concerning a family dispute over property possession. The core legal question was whether the Act applies to disputes arising from inheritance or family conflicts between co-owners. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decision. The Court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is a special law designed to protect lawful owners from professional land grabbers, the 'Qabza Group,' and land mafia. It is not intended for run-of-the-mill civil disputes, such as those between co-owners, co-sharers, landlords and tenants, or parties vying for possession based on competing inheritance or title claims. The Court emphasized that where property possession is already being regulated by civil or revenue courts, the Act cannot be invoked. Consequently, the Court affirmed that trial courts must filter out complaints that lack the requisite criminal intent and do not fall within the specific scope of the Act, as such matters must be resolved through civil proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to family disputes arising out of inheritance or co-ownership?
  • Can a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be entertained when the matter of possession is being regulated by a civil or revenue court?
  • What is the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 regarding the class of persons it intends to target?
  • Are courts required to filter out complaints under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 that do not disclose requisite criminal intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Waqar Un Nisa Faizi vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Cheif Secretary & others2025 PHC 224 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Tehsin Mazhar Sheikh vs Additional District Judge etc2025 LHC 4309 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Tashfeen Khan vs NAB through its Chairman and another2025 IHC 378 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Muhammad Zeeshan Hashmi & others vs Abbasi Shaheed2025 SHC KHI 2154 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Ali Sana Bokhari vs Chief Justice and Judges of the Lahore High Court _ Authority through the Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore2025 LHC 2177 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Shamim Razak & others vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2147 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahbaz Haider vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2142 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-22Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz and 9 others vs The State2025 MLD 351 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sana Daniyal vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC KHI 1116 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-05
  contractual employmentmaster and servantwrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionservice lawmaintainabilitytermination of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a contractual employee of Dow University of Health Sciences, challenged the termination of her services via a constitutional petition, arguing that the termination was illegal in the absence of misconduct. The core legal question was whether a contractual employee, whose service terms are not governed by statutory rules, can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge a termination based on a contract. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that contractual appointments are distinct from regular appointments and are governed by the principle of 'master and servant.' Consequently, where employment is purely contractual and not regulated by statutory rules, the relationship is governed by the terms of the contract rather than public law. The Court affirmed that the High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 199 to enforce the terms of such private employment contracts, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the University was performing governmental functions involving the exercise of public power.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for the enforcement of terms of a contract of employment?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate service grievances of contractual employees not governed by statutory rules?
  • Are contractual employees of a statutory body governed by the principle of master and servant?
  • Does the mere adoption of internal rules by a corporation make those rules statutory for the purpose of invoking writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Samia Altaf vs Lahore University of Management Sciences etc2025 LHC 510 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Saeeduddin vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2139 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Saddam Zia & others vs The State2025 SHC 242 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nasir Mehmood Cheema and another vs Federation of Pakistan2025 IHC 2, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 183 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-15Read full judgment →
• Dr. Munir Ahmed Sharer vs Muhammad Asad2025 SHC 212 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-21Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Suleman and another vs Federation of Pakistan and 52025 SHC 688 · Sindh High Court
  regularization of contract servicelength of service for promotionseniority of civil servantsacting charge appointmentconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the eligibility and promotion of Respondent No.6 as Professor of Physiology (BS-20) on an acting charge basis under Rule 8-A of the Sindh Civil Servants [Appointment, Promotion and Transfer] Rules, 1974, as well as her earlier promotion as Associate Professor (BS-19). The core legal question concerns whether pre-regularization contract service can be counted toward length of service and seniority for promotion, and whether an employee meeting shortfalls in mandatory length of service and teaching experience is eligible for promotion. The Sindh High Court held that regularization of a contract employee constitutes a fresh appointment into the regular civil service stream, and prior contract service cannot be counted for seniority or length of service for promotion. The Court laid down the principle that minimum length of service must be strictly calculated from the date of regular appointment, and promotion granted without completing the mandatory length of service and teaching experience is unlawful, rendering subsequent acting charge appointments invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service rendered on a contract basis prior to regularization can be counted towards length of service and seniority for promotion in civil service?
  • Does regularization of a contract employee constitute a fresh appointment into the regular stream of civil service?
  • Whether an employee lacking the mandatory length of service and teaching experience for a basic pay scale can lawfully hold an acting charge appointment to that post?
  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution examine matters of promotion and eligibility of civil servants despite the bar under Article 212?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Sharif Nizami vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 CLC 469 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-13Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Bashir Qasim through his legal heirs vs Gulzar Mehmood &2025 SHC KHI 1956 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Asif vs Dr. Sana Sattar and others2025 SCP 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-16
  custody disputewelfare of minorbest interests of the childvoice of the childupdating constructionworking motherchild justicereview petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a custody dispute between parents concerning two minor children, one of whom has special needs. The High Court and the appellate court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and the Supreme Court had dismissed the father's leave petition. The primary legal question was whether statutory custody provisions must be interpreted in light of international conventions, particularly regarding the child's voice and best interests, and whether the mother's employment disqualifies her from custody. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, maintaining custody with the mother while affirming the father's visitation rights. The Court held that Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 must be interpreted through the doctrine of updating construction and aligned with Articles 3 and 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and domestic constitutional protections. Consequently, courts are obligated to actively hear and consider the child's perspective in custody determinations, and a mother's status as a working professional cannot be used to deny her custody.

  Questions settled

  • How must Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 be interpreted in light of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the doctrine of updating construction?
  • Does a procedural obligation exist for courts to directly hear and consider the voice and preferences of a child in custody and guardianship proceedings?
  • Can a mother's status as an employed working professional be held against her to deny her custody of minor children?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Ali Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others2025 PHC 160 · Peshawar High Court
  transfer and postingterms and conditions of servicecivil servantconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunaljurisdiction bar
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, approached the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging his transfer order on the grounds of premature transfer and violation of the government's transfer and posting policy. The core legal question was whether the High Court has constitutional jurisdiction to entertain service-related disputes concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants, particularly regarding transfers. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, holding that 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, which ousts the jurisdiction of High Courts. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked by civil servants for service disputes, and such grievances must be agitated before the administrative courts and tribunals established for that purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain petitions relating to the transfer of civil servants?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of High Courts in matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  • Can a civil servant approach the High Court when an adequate remedy is available before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Maqbool Khan vs Mir Alam Jan Khan2025 PHC 156 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-30Read full judgment →
• Dr. Lubna Ansari Baig vs The Province of Sindh through Secretary, Universities and Boards Department and 3 others2025 PLC (C.S.) 147 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-08
  vice-chancellor appointmentsearch committee recommendationsdiscretionary powerschief ministerplaint rejectioncivil procedureeducational institutions
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a professor and former pro-vice-chancellor, filed a suit challenging the notification appointing defendant No. 3 as the Vice-Chancellor of Jinnah Sindh Medical University (JSMU), arguing that the appointment violated the dicta of the Supreme Court and bypassed her top merit ranking by the Search Committee. The core legal questions concerned the extent of the Chief Minister's discretionary powers under the relevant university legislation in appointing a Vice-Chancellor from the panel recommended by the Search Committee and whether such appointment warranted judicial interference. The Sindh High Court held that under Section 13(1) of the Jinnah Sindh Medical University Act, 2013, the Chief Minister possesses the statutory discretion to appoint any candidate from the panel recommended by the Search Committee, and these recommendations are not strictly binding. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff's own appointment as a professor had been declared unlawful by a judgment upheld by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court upheld the exercise of discretion by the Chief Minister, allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and rejected the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recommendations of a Search Committee for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor are binding on the appointing authority under the Jinnah Sindh Medical University Act, 2013?
  • Does the Chief Minister have the discretion to select any candidate from the panel recommended by the Search Committee for the post of Vice-Chancellor?
  • Under what circumstances can a court interfere with the discretionary appointment of a Vice-Chancellor made by the competent authority?
  • Whether a suit seeking to challenge the appointment of a public functionary is barred under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Imtiaz Ali Shah vs University of Engineering and Technology through Registrar UET Peshawar2025 MLD 282 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-09
  ex-parte decreestudy bondrecovery suitpower of attorneysufficient causebreach of contracthigher studies
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex-parte decree in a recovery suit filed by the University of Engineering and Technology against a former faculty member for breach of a study bond. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of an appeal filed when the appellant is abroad through a general power of attorney, and whether sufficient cause was shown under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the ex-parte decree. The court held that the appeal was competently filed through the duly authorized counsel/brother holding a valid wakalatnama, but dismissed the appeal on merits, holding that the appellant failed to provide plausible or reasonable grounds for his repeated non-appearance despite the application being within limitation. The key principle laid down is that an application to set aside an ex-parte decree requires cogent, convincing, and justified reasons for non-appearance, and limitation alone does not suffice without showing sufficient cause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal can be validly filed by a counsel on behalf of an appellant residing abroad on the strength of a wakalatnama executed prior to departure?
  • Does the mere filing of an application to set aside an ex-parte decree within the period of limitation entitle the applicant to relief without showing plausible grounds for non-appearance?
  • What constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside an ex-parte judgment and decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hazrat Bilal and others vs Athar Ahmad Arbab and others2025 CLC 531 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Fakhar Munir Sial vs Government of the Punjab, etc2025 LHC 4469 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Chakar Riaz vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary Civil2025 PLC (C.S.) 235 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-03-28
  constitutional petitionstopgap arrangementpublic officestatutory appointmentquo warrantoservice lawadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the transfer of the petitioner from the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Pak-Oman 50-bedded Hospital, Pasni. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's initial appointment and the subsequent appointment of the respondent were lawful under the governing statute. The Court held that both appointments were illegal, as they were made by the Chief Minister and the Secretary of Health, bypassing the mandatory procedure involving the Board of Governors and the Special Selection Committee as required by the Pak-Oman Pasni Hospital Act, 2021. The Court affirmed the principle that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be strictly followed. Furthermore, the Court clarified that 'stopgap' or 'look-after' arrangements do not confer substantive rights to a post and can be revoked without reason. Consequently, the Court directed the Board of Governors to initiate a fresh, lawful selection process for the CEO position in accordance with the statutory framework.

  Questions settled

  • Does a stopgap or look-after arrangement for a public post confer any substantive right to the incumbent?
  • Can a court direct the appointment of a public official when the existing appointments are found to be made in violation of statutory procedures?
  • Is an appointment to a public office valid if it bypasses the selection committee and board mandated by the governing statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Asif Ahmed Qureshi and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of National Health Services and 2 others2025 PLC (C.S.) 172 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-08
  JPMCdevolutioncontractual recruitmentcivil servantspromotion rightspublic interestconstitutional agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs, federal civil servants working at the Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC), filed suits for declarations and permanent injunctions challenging various notifications, notices, and an Operating and Management Agreement entered into between the Federal Government and the Government of Sindh regarding the administration and contractual recruitment at JPMC. The core legal questions involved whether the provincial government and JPMC could make contractual appointments and transfers after previous judicial determinations regarding JPMC's status, and whether such recruitments infringed upon the statutory promotion rights of existing federal employees. The court held that while JPMC is under federal control pursuant to earlier judgments, the Federal and Provincial Governments could validly enter into an arrangement under Article 146 of the Constitution of Pakistan to manage healthcare services in the larger public interest. The court disposed of the suits by permitting the Government of Sindh to make purely contractual recruitments to meet urgent medical staffing needs, subject to the strict condition that the plaintiffs' existing service rights and future promotion prospects would not be prejudiced by these temporary appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government can entrust executive functions to a Provincial Government under Article 146 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can contractual appointments made to meet emergent public healthcare needs override the statutory promotion rights of permanent civil servants?
  • Whether federal civil servants working at JPMC are entitled to restrain the administration from making contractual recruitments necessary for hospital functioning?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Hanan and 3 others vs Province of Punjab through Chief2025 MLD 923 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-11Read full judgment →
• Dr Feroz Alam Jafferi vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 1722 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-13Read full judgment →
• Dr Fakhur un Nisa Memon vs Chief Minister Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 1719 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-13Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad and others vs Province of Sindh, through Secretary, Agriculture, Supply & Prices Department2025 SHC 732 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-08Read full judgment →
• Dost Ali Solangi son of Din Muhammad vs Manzoor Ali son of Allah2025 SHC SUK 2223 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• District Officer Frontier Constabulary Hayatabad, Peshawar vs Haji Amir2025 SCP 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  doctrine of mergerexecution petitionlimitation periodappellate decreeland acquisitioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal concerns the limitation period applicable to an execution petition following an appellate court's judgment. The core legal question is whether a fresh execution petition, filed after an appellate court has affirmed a trial court's decree, is governed by the six-year limitation period under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or by the three-year period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the execution petition was filed within time, dismissing the petitioner's plea. The Court affirmed that the doctrine of merger applies when an appellate court affirms, reverses, or modifies a lower court's decree. Consequently, the trial court's decree merges into the appellate court's decree, which becomes the operative and executable final decree. Therefore, the limitation period for executing the decree commences from the date of the appellate court's judgment, making Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable rather than Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908. This establishes that the final decree of the last court in the series is the one to be executed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of merger apply to appellate decrees that affirm the judgment of a lower court?
  • Is a fresh execution petition filed after an appellate judgment governed by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the limitation period for an execution petition commence from the date of the trial court's decree or the appellate court's decree when the latter affirms the former?
  Read full judgment →
• District Education Officer (Female), Charsadda, etc (C.R.P. 5/2023)2025 SCP 160, 2025 SCP 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  review jurisdictionerror apparent on the face of the recordfrivolous litigationimposition of costsdomicile certificateabuse of processSupreme Court review
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought a review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment which had upheld the dismissal of challenges by candidates denied appointments as Primary School Teachers due to discrepancies between their domicile certificates and CNIC addresses, affirming that domicile certificates determine permanent residence for employment under Section 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors and Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011. The core legal question revolved around whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence warranting a re-examination of the settled matter. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that review jurisdiction is strictly confined to correcting patent errors or addressing newly discovered evidence, rather than serving as an appellate forum for rehearing or re-arguing previously rejected points. Emphasizing the menace of frivolous litigation and the necessity of conserving judicial resources, the Court laid down that review cannot be invoked merely because a different view is possible, and it reaffirmed the imposition of costs as an essential deterrent against the abuse of judicial processes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be maintained as a mechanism for the rehearing of a case or as an appeal in disguise?
  • What constitutes an 'error apparent on the face of the record' under review jurisdiction?
  • What are the statutory grounds and procedural requirements for filing a review petition before the Supreme Court under the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules?
  • What role does the imposition of costs play in deterring frivolous and vexatious litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• District & Sessions Judge (Authority), Jhang, etc vs Ghulam Shabbir2025 SCP 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-07
  doctrine of proportionalitydisciplinary proceedingsdismissal from servicePunjab Service Tribunalmisconduct and corruptionjudicial integrityfour-stage proportionality test
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal arose from disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1999 against a court Ahlmad found guilty of accepting bribes for employment favors. The competent authority dismissed the employee, but the Punjab Service Tribunal modified the major penalty to forfeiture of two years of service on grounds of leniency. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was legally justified in converting the dismissal into a lesser penalty under the doctrine of proportionality after finding proved corruption charges against a judicial employee. The Supreme Court held that the principle of proportionality requires a structured four-stage evaluation (legitimacy, suitability, necessity, and strict balancing) rather than subjective impressions or unreasoned compassion. Given the paramount public interest in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and public trust, dismissal from service was fully proportionate to the grave misconduct. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and restored the dismissal order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service tribunal reduce a disciplinary penalty of dismissal without applying a structured four-stage proportionality analysis?
  • Is the reduction of a disciplinary penalty based on subjective compassion legally sustainable where corruption by a judicial employee is proved?
  • What are the constitutional requirements for applying the principle of proportionality to administrative and disciplinary penalties under Articles 4, 14, and 25 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation-FBR, through its Director & others2025 SCP 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-04
  tax fraudsales tax assessmentcriminal prosecutiondue processstatutory interpretationarrest and detentionFBRadjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter concerns the legality of initiating criminal proceedings, including the registration of FIRs and arrests, by the Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation (FBR) against taxpayers for alleged tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, prior to any formal assessment of tax liability. The core legal question was whether criminal prosecution under Section 37A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, can proceed independently of the assessment and adjudication mechanism provided under Section 11 of the same Act. The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings for tax fraud cannot be initiated without first determining the tax liability through the statutory assessment process. The Court reasoned that penal provisions under the Act, particularly those involving fines linked to the amount of tax involved, are dependent on the quantification of tax loss. Consequently, initiating criminal proceedings without prior adjudication is without jurisdiction, violates the principles of due process and fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution, and renders the statutory scheme redundant. The Court affirmed that criminal prosecution must follow, not precede, the assessment of tax liability.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings for tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 be initiated without prior determination of tax liability under Section 11?
  • Is the imposition of criminal penalties under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 dependent on the prior assessment of tax liability?
  • Does the initiation of criminal proceedings without prior tax assessment violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Director, Intelligence and Investigation (Customs), Federal Board of Revenue vs Zaman Khan & others2025 SCP 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  customs seizuresmuggled vehicleburden of proofmotor vehicle registrationlawful excuseimport documentsstatutory limitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Director, Intelligence and Investigation (Customs) under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the custom reference application and upheld the Custom Appellate Tribunal's decision to unconditionally release a detained vehicle. The core legal question involved the authority of customs officials to intercept and seize a motor vehicle, which was duly registered with the Motor Vehicle Registration Authority and was more than five years old, on the ground of non-production of original import documents. The Supreme Court held that once a vehicle is duly registered and more than five years have elapsed, the owner is not under a legal obligation to maintain import records under Section 211 of the Customs Act 1969, and the production of a valid registration book constitutes a lawful excuse and satisfies the initial burden under Section 187 of the Customs Act 1969, shifting the onus onto the customs authorities to prove through positive evidence that the vehicle is smuggled or the documents are forged.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a motor vehicle duly registered with the Excise and Taxation Department can be seized by customs authorities for failing to produce import documents after the lapse of the statutory period under Section 211 of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Does the production of a registration book and related official transfer documents constitute a sufficient discharge of the initial burden of proof under Section 187 of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Can customs authorities detain a registered vehicle on the mere allegation of smuggling without establishing that the registration documents are forged or bogus?
  • Whether the concept of 'lawful excuse' under Section 156(1) of the Customs Act 1969 differs from 'lawful authority' under Section 187 of the same Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Director, Directorate I&I-FBR vs Muhammad Bilal2025 PTD 395 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
• Director, Directorate General, Intelligence & Investigation (Customs) vs Altaf Hussain & another2025 SCP 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-29
  Customs Act 1969extension of timeexceptional circumstancesFederal Board of RevenueAppellate Tribunaltax referenceadjudication powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a tax reference under the Customs Act, 1969, challenging the judgment of the High Court. The core issues concerned whether the Federal Board of Revenue's power to extend time under Section 179(4) of the Customs Act, 1969 could be treated equivalently to Section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 as interpreted in Super Asia (2017 SCMR 1427), and whether a document granting an extension could be relied upon if it was not produced before the Appellate Tribunal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 179(4) is much narrower and strictly circumscribed to 'exceptional circumstances', unlike the broader 'appropriate' standard under Section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Court further laid down that in tax reference proceedings, the High Court and Supreme Court are confined to questions of law based strictly on the record before the Appellate Tribunal; parties cannot add to or alter the factual record post-Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • How does the scope of the Federal Board of Revenue's power to extend time under Section 179(4) of the Customs Act, 1969 differ from that under Section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Can a document not produced before the Appellate Tribunal be introduced or relied upon in a tax reference before the High Court or Supreme Court?
  • Is the factual record capable of being supplemented or altered in a tax reference arising from an Appellate Tribunal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Director of Customs Valuation, Customs House, Karachi and others vs M/s.2025 SHC 274 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Director General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Revenue Authority, Peshawar vs M/s.PTCL 2025 CL. 527 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dildar Khan, etc vs Shoaib Javed Hussain, Chairman, State Life Insurance2025 IHC 404 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-21
  contempt of courtservice benefitsbasic pay increaseCollective Bargaining Agreementwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a contempt petition filed against the respondent for alleged non-compliance with a judgment dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Islamabad High Court in a writ petition concerning employee service benefits, specifically regarding a 20% increase in basic pay and promotion increments. The core legal question was whether the respondent willfully defied the court's judgment directing them to decide the petitioners' pending representations regarding the withheld 20% increase in basic pay. The court held that the respondent had substantially complied with the judgment by affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, evaluating their claims, and passing a reasoned order rejecting the representations upon finding that the petitioners had already availed overlapping benefits under a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Consequently, the court laid down that contempt proceedings are unwarranted where the judgment in question has been duly complied with in letter and spirit, and no willful defiance is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contempt proceedings can be initiated against a respondent who has complied with the court's directions by deciding the petitioners' representation?
  • Does granting overlapping benefits under a Collective Bargaining Agreement preclude employees from claiming additional pay increases for the same period?
  • Whether the respondent's compliance with a direction to decide a representation absolves them of willful defiance?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilbar Masih vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore etc.2025 LHC 2401 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-09
  permanent workmandaily wage workersregularizationverbal terminationindustrial and commercial employmentright to livelihoodstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges a judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside a Labour Court decision reinstating and regularizing daily wage workers of WASA. The core legal questions involve determining whether daily wage workers continuously serving for several years against permanent posts attain the status of permanent workmen under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether verbal termination without written reasons violates statutory provisions and fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court held that workers who complete nine months of service on work of a permanent nature attain the status of permanent workmen by operation of law, overriding executive categorization or administrative discretion. Furthermore, the court held that verbal termination of service is illegal under Section 12(3) of the Ordinance and violates constitutional guarantees of due process and livelihood. The court laid down the principle that statutory rights conferring permanent status cannot be arbitrarily denied by employers and that termination without a written order stating explicit reasons is a nullity in law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether daily wage workers who complete nine months of service against posts of a permanent nature attain the status of permanent workmen under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can an employer terminate the services of a workman through a verbal order without issuing a written order containing explicit reasons?
  • Does executive discretion or administrative policy override statutory rights conferred by the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does arbitrary exclusion of certain daily wage employees from regularization while regularizing similarly situated employees violate the principle of equality under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar vs The State2025 YLR 671 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-15
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayprolonged incarcerationright to libertynon-bailable offencetrial delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Dilawar, in connection with FIR No. 35 of 2021 registered under sections 324 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail on the statutory ground of prolonged incarceration, given that the trial had not concluded despite the accused being in custody for over one year and nine months. The court held that the accused was entitled to the grant of bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the delay in the trial was not attributable to the accused, and the statutory period for mandatory consideration of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been exceeded. The court reaffirmed the principle that the liberty of a person is a precious right that cannot be curtailed without exceptional grounds, and that under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an accused in a non-bailable, non-capital offence is entitled to bail if detained for over a year without trial delay caused by them.

  Questions settled

  • Does the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandate the release of an accused on bail if the trial has not concluded within one year?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the delay in the trial is not attributable to their own acts or omissions?
  • Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of statutory delay even if a previous bail application was dismissed on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• DG Khan Cement Company Limited etc. vs The Province of Punjab etc2025 LHC 3979 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-16Read full judgment →
• Deedar Ali Golo vs Attaullah Golo and Others2025 SHC 444 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-07
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailabductioncriminal procedurediscretionary powerSection 164 statementfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This application, filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Trial Court in a case involving alleged abduction and other offences. The core legal question was whether the trial court's order granting pre-arrest bail was perverse, illegal, or contrary to the material on record, thereby warranting cancellation. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's orders. The court noted significant discrepancies between the FIR and the statements of the alleged abductees recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, suggesting the case required further inquiry. The court reaffirmed that the scope of interference in bail cancellation is limited and restricted once a trial court exercises well-reasoned discretion. Cancellation is only justified if the order is patently illegal, erroneous, or if the accused has misused the concession of bail, hampered evidence, or if fresh material establishes guilt. The court emphasized that bail granting orders should not be interfered with unless they are capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with a trial court's order granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Does a discrepancy between the FIR and statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • What are the established legal grounds for the cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Dawood Ahmed Bhutto vs M. Khalid Saleem & another2025 SHC SUK 195 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• Dawn Convertec SMC-Private Limited and others vs National Tariff2025 IHC 8 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Danish vs The State2025 SHC 136 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-03Read full judgment →
• Danish Riaz Dar vs The State, etc2025 LHC 2901 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-29
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustprohibitory clausefurther inquirycivil disputemala fidemaster-servant relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising from FIR No. 249 registered under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station RA Bazar, Rawalpindi, regarding alleged criminal breach of trust by an employee. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the ingredients of criminal breach of trust are missing, the case falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the dispute appears to be of a civil and contractual nature, and the accusation warrants further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the petition is allowed and the pre-arrest bail is confirmed, observing that the lack of specific entrustment details, potential mala fides, and the civil flavor of the dispute bring the case within the scope of further inquiry. The key principles laid down are that pre-arrest bail may be granted where accusations stem from mala fide intent or where a tentative assessment reveals that the case requires further investigation and falls outside the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust are missing from the FIR?
  • Does an offence under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can criminal proceedings be used to resolve what is essentially a civil and contractual dispute for rendition of accounts?
  • Is pre-arrest bail justified where a tentative assessment of the record reveals that the case calls for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Danial Siddiqui vs The Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 640 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• Daily Khabrian vs Nasir Iqbal and another2025 IHC 188 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-28
  wage board awardnewspaper employeesimplementation tribunallimitation periodwage recoverywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Implementation Tribunal under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, which granted salary arrears to newspaper employees based on the 7th Wage Board Award. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims, whether former or contract employees maintained standing to file such claims, and whether the applications were barred by limitation. The Court held that the Tribunal has the authority to enforce Wage Board Awards and that the definition of 'newspaper employee' is broad enough to encompass former, contract, and part-time workers. However, the Court affirmed that claims for wage recovery are subject to a three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1908. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's orders for claims filed within the limitation period but set aside orders for claims filed beyond the three-year threshold. The principle established is that while the Tribunal has jurisdiction over wage recovery for all categories of newspaper employees, such claims must be brought within the three-year limitation period prescribed by law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Implementation Tribunal constituted under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 have the jurisdiction to adjudicate wage recovery claims?
  • Are former, contract, or part-time newspaper employees entitled to seek wage recovery through the Implementation Tribunal?
  • What is the applicable limitation period for filing applications before the Implementation Tribunal for the enforcement of a Wage Board Award?
  Read full judgment →