Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Messrs Construction Association of Pakistan through Authorized2024 PTD 331 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Cnergyico PL Limited vs Commissioner-Supervision Division, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2024 CLD 1532 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-09-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs Axis Global Limited vs The Commissioner (SMD)2024 CLD 681 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-08-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Axis Global Limited vs Executive Director/HOD Adjudication I2024 CLD 442 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-08-31Read full judgment →
- Messrs Amal Steel through duly Authorized Attorney vs Anti-Dumping2024 CLC 1002 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Akd Securities Limited vs Director/HOD, Adjudication-I, SECP2024 CLD 480 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-08-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs Aitimad Polyma Pipe vs Chief Commissioner and others2024 PTD 1501 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-10Read full judgment →
- Meshiat-ur-Rahman and others vs Fazal Rouf and others2024 PHC 262 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-22Read full judgment →
- Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab etc vs Sheraz Khan2024 SCP 341, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-04Read full judgment →
- Mehwish Mughal and another vs Amira Bukhari etc.2024 LHC 726 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mehwish Hameed and another vs School Education and Literacy2024 SHC 1378 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-20Read full judgment →
- Mehtar Abbas vs Provincial Government of G.B. through Chief Secretary2024 PLC (C.S.) 294 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under Article 86(2) of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Girdawar (BS-11) in the Settlement Office, rather than the Steno-typist (BS-14) position he was already granted following his father's death in service. The core legal question was whether a legal heir of a deceased government employee, entitled to employment under the Prime Minister/Chief Minister Assistance Package, possesses a fundamental right to demand appointment to a specific post of their choosing. The Court held that the petitioner had no such right. The ratio of the decision is that the Assistance Package allows for the appointment of a legal heir against available posts between BPS-1 and BPS-15, subject to the nominee's qualifications, but does not grant the nominee the discretion to select a specific post. Consequently, as the petitioner had already been appointed to a post in accordance with the rules, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing that government authorities are not legally bound to accommodate a nominee's preference for a particular designation.
Questions settled- Does a legal heir of a deceased government employee have a fundamental right to be appointed to a specific post of their choice under the Assistance Package?
- Are government authorities legally obligated to appoint a nominee under the Assistance Package to a post requested by the nominee?
- Is a writ petition maintainable when a petitioner seeks to compel the government to appoint them to a specific post despite already being appointed to another post under the Assistance Package?
- Mehtab Hussain Jogi vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 478 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mehran vs Ubaid Ullah, etc.2024 SCP 216, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 843, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a juvenile petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of his post-arrest bail petition by the Peshawar High Court. The petitioner, charged with heinous offences, sought bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly denied bail based on the heinous nature of the offence and by attributing the trial delay to the petitioner's application for age determination. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its reasoning. The Court clarified that Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, mandates bail for a juvenile detained for over six months if the trial is incomplete, provided the delay is not attributable to the juvenile. The Court established that the nature of the offence is irrelevant to the statutory right to bail under Section 6(5), and that time taken for age determination is an act of the court, not the accused. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail.
Questions settled- Does the heinous nature of an offence preclude a juvenile from being granted bail under Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018?
- Can the time taken by a court to determine the age of an accused be attributed to the accused as a delay in the trial?
- Is a juvenile entitled to bail as a matter of right if their trial has not concluded within six months of detention, provided the delay is not caused by them?
- Does the responsibility for determining the age of an accused juvenile lie with the police or the court?
- Mehmood vs The State, etc2024 LHC 1980, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1061, 2024 PLD Lahore 684 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition filed under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the transfer of a criminal trial from the court of a Magistrate to another jurisdiction, on the grounds of perceived bias because the Magistrate and the complainant's counsel belonged to the same caste and because the Magistrate was expediting the trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that mere apprehensions, oral allegations, or the fact that a judge and counsel are caste fellows do not constitute valid grounds for transferring a case or establishing judicial bias. The Court emphasized that a reasonable apprehension of bias must be substantiated by clear, cogent material and facts, rather than presumptions or the normal expeditious conduct of proceedings, and that judges are presumed to act fairly and impartially according to the evidence on record.
Questions settled- Does a mere apprehension in the mind of a party about injustice at the hands of a presiding officer constitute a sufficient ground for the transfer of a criminal case?
- Whether sharing the same caste or brotherhood between a counsel and a judicial officer creates a legal presumption of bias or justifies the transfer of a trial?
- What constitutes a reasonable apprehension of judicial bias under criminal law requiring the recusal or transfer of a judge?
- When does a judge or magistrate become legally disqualified from trying a case due to personal interest under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mehmood Ali vs Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board and others2024 LHC 1129, 2024 CLC 1126, 2024 PLJ Lahore 367 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mehboob-ur-Rehman and Jawar vs The State through Prosecutor General, Balochistan2024 SCP 135, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 639, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants, convicted and sentenced for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, challenged the revisional Court's judgment maintaining their conviction. The Supreme Court office refused to entertain their petition for leave to appeal, citing non-compliance with the surrender requirement under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The core legal question was whether a convict challenging a conviction and sentence of imprisonment must surrender to the sentence before their petition for leave to appeal can be entertained by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on the first proviso to Order XXIII, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, the Court affirmed that surrender to an order of imprisonment is a condition precedent for the entertainment of a criminal petition by the Court's office. The principle laid down is that while petitions involving bail before arrest may be entertained without prior surrender, a convict challenging a conviction and sentence of imprisonment must first surrender to the sentence to render their petition maintainable.
Questions settled- Is surrender to a sentence of imprisonment a condition precedent for the entertainment of a criminal petition for leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
- Does the requirement of surrender to an order of imprisonment apply to criminal petitions seeking bail before arrest?
- Can a criminal petition challenging a conviction and sentence be entertained by the Supreme Court office if the petitioner has not surrendered to the sentence?
- Mehboob son of Saifal, Ghulam son of Haji Ahmed & Haider son of Saifal vs The State2024 SHC 964 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicants sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 363/2024 registered under Sections 380, 457, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sukhan, after their bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the parties have reached an amicable settlement (Sulh) outside the court, despite the offences being non-compoundable, and when the punishment falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that a compromise between the parties can be considered for bail even in non-compoundable offences, and that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause warrant the grant of bail as a rule and refusal as an exception. The key principle laid down is that the settlement of differences between parties outside the court supports the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause.
Questions settled- Does a compromise between the parties outside the court justify the grant of bail in non-compoundable offences?
- Whether bail should be granted when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a case be considered for further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon settlement between the parties?
- Mehboob Hussain vs Provincial Election Commission & Others2024 SHC 58 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mehboob Hassan vs Akhtar Islam etc.2024 SCP 59, 2024 SCMR 757 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 365-A, 201, 34 PPC and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution's case rested primarily on a jail identification parade and alleged recoveries of ransom money after more than two years. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of a joint identification parade, the reliability of delayed recoveries, and the locus standi of a complainant to challenge an acquittal in an abduction case. The Supreme Court held that a joint identification parade is a nullity in the eyes of the law, that delayed recoveries without unique identification marks hold no evidentiary value, and that only the aggrieved abductee—not merely the complainant—has locus standi to challenge an acquittal in such matters. The Court laid down that identification parades must strictly adhere to the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, that investigating agencies must preserve the secrecy of suspects' identities prior to parades, and that trial courts must actively exercise powers under the Cr.P.C. to prevent frivolous litigation and delays, upholding the constitutional guarantees of a fair trial and due process.
Questions settled- Whether a joint identification parade conducted under one roof holds any evidentiary value under Article 22 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Does a complainant have the locus standi to challenge a judgment of acquittal in an abduction case where the abductee is the aggrieved person?
- Can a delayed recovery of currency notes without distinctive identification marks form the basis of a criminal conviction?
- What are the legal consequences when police fail to take precautionary measures to conceal the identity of suspects prior to an identification parade?
- Mehboob Ali vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1106 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mehboob Ali Channa and others vs Province of Sindh2024 SHC 670, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 913 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This larger bench was constituted by the High Court of Sindh to resolve issues arising from an order of a Division Bench at Circuit Court Larkana concerning appointments in the District Judiciary under the "son quota" and related administrative directions. The core legal question centered on whether the policy decisions of the Administration Committee of the High Court, communicated via circulars by the Registrar, possessed lawful backing and statutory authority under Rule 4 of the Sindh Judicial Staff Service Rules, 1992 to govern appointments of children of deceased, retired, and serving employees. The court held that the policy decisions and instructions issued by the High Court from time to time, read with Rule 4 of the Sindh Judicial Staff Service Rules, 1992, do possess valid legal backing and are binding. The court laid down the key principle that administrative policies and instructions regarding staff appointments issued by the High Court's Administration Committee pursuant to service rules are legitimate, have full legal efficacy, and are enforceable across all subordinate courts in the province.
Questions settled- Whether the policy decisions of the High Court's Administration Committee regarding son quota appointments have statutory backing under the Sindh Judicial Staff Service Rules, 1992?
- Can a subsequent bench of equal strength re-examine or scrutinize a previous decision of a Division Bench that has attained finality?
- Whether Rule 6 of the Court Roster concerning cases involving the Registrar applies to all Benches and Circuit Courts of the High Court?
- Mehboob Ali Channa and others vs District & Sessions Judge, Larkana &2024 SHC 446, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1070 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought appointments in the judicial district of Larkana based on a 'son quota,' relying on the precedent set in Aslam Kalhoro. The Court examined the maintainability of these petitions and the existence of any legal basis for such a quota. It held that there is no statutory provision, including the Sindh Judicial Staff Service Rules 1992, that supports a 'son quota' in the judicial establishment. The Court emphasized that public sector recruitment must be merit-based and transparent, and that employment cannot be treated as an inheritable right. Furthermore, the Court found that the reliance in Aslam Kalhoro on overruled precedents and administrative letters without statutory force rendered it legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court instructed the office to place the matter before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench to resolve the controversy, while also initiating contempt proceedings against the Registrar for failing to comply with court orders. The judgment reaffirms that lower benches must adhere to Supreme Court authority and established judicial discipline.
Questions settled- Is there a legal basis for a 'son quota' in the judicial establishment of Sindh?
- Can public sector employment be claimed as an inheritable right?
- What is the procedure for a Division Bench when it intends to take a view contrary to an earlier Division Bench judgment?
- Are administrative letters sufficient to create a binding quota policy for public appointments?
- Meharchand & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1090 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-09Read full judgment →
- Mehar Badshah vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others2024 SCP 372, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition initially pertained to the illegal cutting of 218 Shisham trees, but the Supreme Court expanded the scope to address the broader and critical issue of rampant deforestation and climate change in Pakistan. The core legal question concerned the protection of forest cover, the responsibilities of the Forest Department, and the newly established constitutional status of environmental rights. The Court held that forests must be vigorously preserved to combat climate change, prevent natural disasters such as floods and landslides, and protect the environment. The Court highlighted that the insertion of Article 9A into the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 explicitly guarantees every person the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, building upon earlier expansive interpretations of the right to life under Article 9. The matter was disposed of with the recording of the Additional Advocate-General's statement that the provincial government will implement best sustainable environmental practices.
Questions settled- Whether the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- How does deforestation impact climate change and vulnerability to natural disasters in Pakistan?
- What are the legal obligations of the Forest Department regarding the preservation of forest cover?
- Meezan Beverages (Pvt.) Limited vs Competition Commission of Pakistan2024 LHC 3218, 2024 CLD 1107, 2024 PLD Lahore 615 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-26Read full judgment →
- Meer Zaman vs The State2024 SHC 322 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the possession of 1500 grams of chars under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of prosecution evidence, specifically regarding alleged contradictions in police witness testimonies and the integrity of the chain of custody. The Court held that minor contradictions, such as discrepancies in the description of sealed parcels, were attributable to typographical errors rather than malice, as the chemical examiner’s report and malkhana records confirmed the safe custody of the contraband. Affirming the conviction, the Court emphasized that police officers are credible witnesses whose testimony suffices for conviction, and that Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, shifts the burden of proof to the accused once the prosecution establishes recovery. While upholding the conviction, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence from ten years to nine years, citing the appellant’s status as a first-time offender and potential for reformation, while maintaining the fine and default sentence.
Questions settled- Does a minor contradiction in police witness testimony regarding the number of sealed parcels automatically invalidate the chain of custody in a narcotics case?
- Are police officers considered credible witnesses in narcotics cases, and is their testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent private witnesses?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once the prosecution establishes the recovery of contraband?
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence for a narcotics offense based on the appellant's status as a first-time offender?
- Meer Muhammad vs The State2024 YLR 1548 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code for allegedly desecrating the Holy Quran and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the reliability of eye-witness testimony, the voluntariness and legal validity of a judicial confession, compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the benefit of doubt arising from sectarian enmity and delayed reporting. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable testimony, procedural lapses in recording the confession, failure to put material incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342, and evidence of false implication stemming from sectarian bias. The court laid down the principle that a judicial confession and recovered material cannot be used to convict an accused if they are not specifically put to him during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when material contradictions and doubts pervade the prosecution case.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction can be sustained based on a judicial confession and recovered material that were never put to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a confession recorded under oath and followed by the handing over of the accused back to police custody rather than judicial custody suffer from material legal defects?
- Whether an accused is entitled to an acquittal when eye-witness accounts are riddled with unexplained delays, major contradictions, and an underlying sectarian enmity between the parties?
- What is the evidentiary value of alleged desecrated religious texts recovered in an unsealed and dry condition from a waterlogged location days after the incident?
- Meer Gul vs Raja Zafar Mehmood through legal heirs & others2024 SCP 217, 2024 SCMR 1496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit for specific performance and injunction concerning agricultural land in District Sanghar. The Trial Court dismissed the appellant's suit, but the First Appellate Court decreed it, directing the appellant to deposit the balance sale consideration, which he complied with. In Second Appeal, the Sindh High Court set aside the Appellate Court's decision and dismissed the suit solely because the appellant had failed to deposit or apply to deposit the balance sale consideration at the time of instituting the suit. Reversing the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court held that depositing balance consideration upon suit filing is not a mandatory statutory precondition under the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or the CPC, 1908. It clarified that court orders for deposit require a timeline and specified default consequences to entail dismissal. Finding that the High Court failed to frame substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh determination.
Questions settled- Is a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance required by law to deposit the balance sale consideration in court at the time of instituting the suit?
- Can a court dismiss a suit for specific performance for failure to deposit balance sale consideration without an express court order specifying penal consequences?
- What are the jurisdictional limitations of a High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding findings of fact made by the first appellate court?
- Meer Ahmed @ Nooro vs The State2024 SHC 922 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Criminal Jail Appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under the amended provisions of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for an offence committed prior to the enactment of the Control of Narcotics Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022. The core legal question is whether the application of amended sentencing provisions to an offence committed before the amendment violates the constitutional protection against retrospective punishment. The Court held that applying the amended sentencing regime to a past offence constitutes an ex post facto application of law, which is prohibited by Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Consequently, the Court set aside the sentence imposed under the amended law and modified it to align with the sentencing policy applicable at the time of the offence, specifically the guidelines established in the Ghulam Murtaza case. The key principle laid down is that under Article 12 of the Constitution, no person can be subjected to a penalty greater than or different from that prescribed by law at the time the offence was committed.
Questions settled- Can an accused be sentenced under an amended provision of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for an offence committed before the amendment was promulgated?
- Does Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prohibit the application of increased penalties for criminal offences retrospectively?
- What is the appropriate sentencing guideline for the possession of 1500 grams of charas under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, as per the Ghulam Murtaza case?
- MCB Bank Limited vs Malik Abdul Rehman through his legal heirs2024 IHC 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-14Read full judgment →
- MCB Bank Limited vs Emadul Hassan2024 SHC 80, 2024 CLD 665 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
- MCB Bank Limited through Authorized Officer vs Messrs City Steel UAE Mills2024 CLD 387 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
- MCB Bank Limited and others vs Province of Punjab and others2024 CLD 418 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-20Read full judgment →
- Mazharuddin vs The Manager Sme Leasing Ltd2024 SHC 1222 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mazhar-Ul-Haq Siddiqui vs Hod, Adjudication Department-I, SECP2024 CLD 1225 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-01-16Read full judgment →
- Matloob Ellahi Paracha vs Raja Arshad Mahmood & another2024 SCP 24, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the maintainability of a second suit for the recovery of earnest money following the withdrawal of a prior suit for specific performance. The core legal questions addressed are whether a plaintiff can subsequently file a suit for the recovery of earnest money after withdrawing a specific performance suit, and what the applicable limitation period is. The Supreme Court held that the second suit is maintainable, as it constitutes a fresh cause of action that does not attract the bar of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or Order XXIII Rule 1, and that Sections 19 and 29 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 do not preclude such a claim. The Court laid down that a suit for the recovery of earnest money paid under an agreement to sell upon failure of consideration is governed by Article 97 of the Limitation Act 1908, where limitation begins from the date of failure of consideration rather than the date of the original agreement.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff, after withdrawing a suit for specific performance, can institute a fresh suit for the recovery of earnest money paid under the agreement?
- Does Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent suit for the recovery of earnest money when the earlier suit was solely for specific performance?
- What is the applicable article and starting point of limitation for a suit filed for the recovery of earnest money paid upon an agreement to sell that failed to materialize?
- Do Sections 19 and 29 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 prohibit an independent suit for the recovery of earnest money after the termination of a specific performance claim?
- Masroor Ahmed Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 139 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, filed by the appellant to challenge the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon him following allegations of inefficiency, misconduct, and corruption related to a financial scam involving bogus pension bills and treasury cheques during his posting at the District Accounts Office, Jamshoro. The core legal questions involved the legality of initiating a second charge-sheet and holding a de novo inquiry on the same set of allegations without withdrawing the first charge-sheet or assigning reasons, as well as the validity of inquiry proceedings conducted without associating the accused or providing an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Federal Service Tribunal held that issuing a second charge-sheet and holding a de novo inquiry without withdrawing the first or justifying the departure was illegal, and that an inquiry report lacking proper examination of witnesses and opportunity of defence is defective and cannot sustain a major penalty. The Tribunal laid down the principle that an inquiry conducted in violation of due process rights, such as denying the accused the right to be associated and to cross-examine witnesses, vitiates the consequent penalty, and a de novo inquiry cannot be initiated without formally withdrawing the earlier proceedings or recording cogent reasons.
Questions settled- Can a second charge-sheet be issued on the same set of allegations without formally withdrawing the first charge-sheet or assigning reasons?
- Whether an inquiry report that fails to examine witnesses and denies the accused the opportunity to cross-examine can form the basis for a major penalty?
- Does the competent authority have the power to order a de novo inquiry without recording cogent reasons for disagreeing with a prior inquiry report?
- Masooma and another vs Federal Government through Ministry of Interior2024 PLD Balochistan 33 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
- Masood-ul-Hassan vs Additional District Judge, etc2024 LHC 3367, 2024 PLJ Lahore 683, 2024 CLC 1744 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-02Read full judgment →
- Masood Haider and 3 others vs Government of Gilgit-Baltistan through Chief Secretary Gilgit Baltistan, Gilgit and 5 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 286 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed by candidates who, after participating in a competitive examination for the post of Naib Tehsildar, were placed on a waiting list rather than being selected. The petitioners sought appointment against newly created posts of Naib Tehsildar, arguing their status as waiting list candidates entitled them to these positions. The core legal questions were the validity period of a recruitment waiting list and whether such candidates possess a vested right to be appointed against newly created posts. The Court held that while the validity period of a waiting list is one year, candidates on such a list have no vested right to appointment. The Court clarified that a waiting list serves only as a contingency reserve to fill vacancies arising from the non-joining or resignation of selected candidates. It cannot be used to claim newly created posts, which must be filled through a fresh, transparent recruitment process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that waiting lists are restricted to the specific recruitment process for which they were created.
Questions settled- What is the validity period of a waiting list prepared during a recruitment process?
- Does a candidate on a waiting list have a vested right to be appointed against a newly created post?
- Is a waiting list intended to serve as a source of recruitment for posts created after the initial selection process?
- Masood Alam Niazi vs Secretary Ministry of Industries and Production2024 PLC (C.S) 10 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These writ petitions were filed by employees of the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (USCP) seeking reinstatement following their acquittal by the High Court of Sindh, which set aside their previous convictions by an Accountability Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to adjudicate service disputes of USCP employees, specifically whether the USCP's service rules constitute statutory rules. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable. The ratio decidendi is that the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Service Rules, 1981 are non-statutory, having been created by the Board of Directors rather than the Federal Government. Consequently, the relationship between the USCP and its employees is governed by the principle of 'master and servant.' Therefore, in the absence of statutory rules, the High Court cannot invoke its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to resolve individual service grievances, and the petitioners must seek remedies in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Are the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Service Rules, 1981 considered statutory rules?
- Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to adjudicate service disputes of employees of the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan?
- Is the relationship between the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan and its employees governed by the principle of master and servant?
- Mashooque Ali vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1152 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-04Read full judgment →
- Maseetullah through Attorney vs Naimatullah and 5 others2024 YLR 830 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
- Market Committee, Karachi through Secretary vs Haji Amir Muhammad2024 CLC 1081 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-03Read full judgment →
- Mariam Sajjad vs Prof. Dr. Rasool Ahmed Chaudhary2024 LHC 205 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
- Mariam Jan vs Ilyas Khan and 13 others2024 YLR 2666 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-10-25Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmed vs The State2024 YLR 1489 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken and safe chain of custody for the narcotic substance from the time of recovery to its receipt by the chemical examiner, and whether the trial court properly considered the defence plea and evaluated the evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered charas, as neither the arresting officer nor the mashir nor the Moharir deposed regarding the proper deposit and transmission of the parcel to the Malkhana, thereby vitiating the chemical examiner's report. The High Court laid down the principle that the chain of custody of narcotics from recovery to the testing laboratory must be strictly proved and unbroken, and any break in this chain impairs the reliability of the chemical report, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does a failure by the prosecution to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics to the chemical examiner vitiate the conviction?
- Is an unbroken chain of custody from the spot of recovery to the Narcotics Testing Laboratory fundamental for sustaining a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- What is the effect of the trial court's failure to consider the defence version set up by the accused during the trial?
- How many infirmities or circumstances creating doubt are required to entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Maqsood Ahmed vs Commissioner CRD, SECP and another2024 CLD 1412 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-09-15Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, etc2024 LHC 2947, 2024 CLC 1712 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Hussain vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 1841 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for offences related to the attempted rape of a minor victim and sexual abuse, resulting in concurrent and consecutive prison sentences. The core legal questions involved whether a conviction under the provincial Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 can be sustained when the federal Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 occupies the same field regarding sexual abuse, and whether moving a victim a short distance solely for the purpose of committing assault constitutes kidnapping under section 364A of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Peshawar High Court held that under the doctrine of occupied field and Article 143 of the Constitution, federal legislation prevails over conflicting provincial legislation, necessitating the conversion of the conviction under the provincial Act to section 377B of the Pakistan Penal Code. Furthermore, moving the victim a short distance merely to facilitate the assault without intent to remove her from lawful guardianship does not constitute an independent offence of kidnapping. The appeal was partially allowed, modifying the convictions and reducing the sentences in light of the appellant's juvenile status at the time of the occurrence.
Questions settled- Does a provincial law on sexual abuse give way to federal legislation under the doctrine of occupied field and Article 143 of the Constitution due to a conflict in sentencing quantum?
- Does moving a victim a short distance solely for the purpose of committing sexual assault constitute kidnapping under section 364A of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can penal amendments that enhance punishment be applied retrospectively to offences committed prior to the enactment of such amendments?
- Maqbool Ahmad vs Addl. District Judge and others2024 LHC 6308 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-24Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Elahi vs Rehmat Ali2024 LHC 4854, 2025 CLC 306 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-18Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed vs Province of Sindh through Home Secretary and 32024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 74 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal was preferred against the original and appellate orders whereby the appellant, a former Station House Officer (SHO), was dismissed from service on allegations of misappropriation and shortage of case properties. The core legal question was whether major penalties could be imposed without conducting a regular departmental inquiry involving the right of cross-examination and the opportunity to lead defense when disputed questions of fact were involved. The Sindh Service Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal and appellate orders, reinstated the appellant, and remanded the matter back to the competent authority for a fresh regular inquiry. The Tribunal held that where charges involve disputed facts and lack clear documentary proof of direct culpability, holding a regular departmental inquiry with opportunities for cross-examination and defense is a mandatory prerequisite before imposing a major penalty like dismissal from service.
Questions settled- Whether a regular departmental inquiry is mandatory when the charges against a civil servant involve disputed questions of fact?
- Is the right of cross-examination and leading defense a precondition in a regular departmental inquiry before imposing a major penalty?
- Can an order of dismissal from service be sustained when no proper regular inquiry was conducted in accordance with applicable efficiency and discipline rules?
- Manzoor Ahmed Phulpoto vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 528 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Muhammad Umar Farooq etc2024 LHC 2159, 2024 PLD Lahore 702 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to a juvenile respondent accused of an offence under section 337-F(vi) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that section 6(3) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, which deems major and minor offences bailable for juveniles, only applies when a juvenile is already arrested or detained, thus precluding its use for pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 is remedial and beneficial legislation that must be interpreted purposively to advance the best interests of the child. It ruled that the eligibility for bail should not depend on the procedural mechanism—whether post-arrest or pre-arrest—but on the nature of the offence and the juvenile's status. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the benefit of section 6(3) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 extends to pre-arrest bail applications, dismissing the petition for cancellation.
Questions settled- Does section 6(3) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 apply to applications for pre-arrest bail?
- Is the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 considered remedial and beneficial legislation requiring a purposive interpretation?
- Can a juvenile seek pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 not explicitly mentioning it?
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Chiragh Khan (deceased) through LRs2024 LHC 4112, 2025 MLD 573 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Azam Ali2024 MLD 603 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-11Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Ali vs Mst. Anam Hussain, etc2024 LHC 6335 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-24Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Ali vs District Returning Officers N-a 231 and N-a 230 and others2024 MLD 1259 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-09Read full judgment →
- Manjhi Khan and another vs Noor Alam through Legal heirs and others2024 YLR 752 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-13Read full judgment →
- Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and 8 others vs Presiding officer, Consumer Protection Court Kashmore at Kandhkot and another2024 PLD Sindh 480 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-11Read full judgment →
- Managing Director, SSGCL and Eight (8) Others vs The learned Presiding2024 SHC 14 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
- Mamoon-Ur-Rasheed vs Hamid Khan and another2024 PLD Islamabad 378 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-12Read full judgment →
- Malook Khan vs The State through ASI Incharge Traffic Branch Ghakuch2024 YLR 2571 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2024-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge District Ghizer convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, resulting in a death sentence and a murder reference. The core legal question revolved around the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, including police officials present at the scene, the presence of independent witnesses, and the legal effect of an unproved or absent motive in a capital punishment case. The court held that the ocular testimony, corroborated by medical and forensic evidence as well as prompt arrest at the scene with the weapon, remained unshattered and fully established the guilt of the appellant. The court laid down the principle that the absence, weakness, or insufficiency of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case in murder trials, nor can it serve as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence when direct, reliable ocular evidence is available.
Questions settled- Whether the absence or weakness of a motive is fatal to the prosecution case in a murder trial?
- Does the absence of motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser sentence in capital cases?
- Can the testimony of police officials who witnessed the crime on the spot be relied upon without independent corroboration?
- What is the legal effect of a perfunctory evaluation of evidence by a trial court in a capital punishment case?
- Malik Zaheer Abbas vs Returning Officer and others2024 LHC 47 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-06Read full judgment →
- Malik Tariq Ayub vs The State through S.H.O., P.S. Shalimar, Islamabad and 3 others2024 YLR 355 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition seeks the enhancement of a life imprisonment sentence awarded to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 by the Trial Court for offences including qatl-e-amd. The core legal question is whether the Trial Court erred in awarding life imprisonment instead of the death penalty for an offence under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without explicitly recording the mitigating circumstances justifying the departure from the normal sentence of death. The Court held that while Section 302(b) grants discretion to award either death or life imprisonment, this discretion is not absolute or arbitrary. It must be exercised judiciously, and the Court is mandatorily required under Section 367(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to provide specific reasons and identify the mitigating circumstances when opting for the lesser sentence. Because the Trial Court failed to articulate these reasons in its judgment, the Court found the sentencing process procedurally defective and issued notice to the respondents to address the potential enhancement of the sentence.
Questions settled- Is the discretion to award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty for qatl-e-amd under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, absolute?
- Does Section 367(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, mandate that a court must record reasons when awarding a sentence other than death in a capital case?
- Can a trial court award a lesser sentence of life imprisonment without specifying the mitigating circumstances in the judgment?
- Malik Shah Muhammad and others vs Amanullah and others2024 PLJ Quetta 136 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-08-19Read full judgment →
- Malik Pervaiz Majeed Shahzada vs Rizwan Malik2024 LHC 4388 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-07Read full judgment →
- Malik Nazar Hussain vs Multan Development Authority, etc2024 LHC 5396 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Tahir Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2024 CLC 1071 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-14Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Asif, etc2024 LHC 998, 2024 PLJ Lahore 310 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-23Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Altaf vs Muhammad Ashraf (Deceased) through Legal2021 LHC 7914, 2024 CLC 205 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-10Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Akhlaq and another vs Honourable Full Bench, National2024 IHC 114 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which dismissed the petitioners' grievance petitions on the ground that they failed to serve a proper grievance notice under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The petitioners, employees of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL), had submitted 'appeals' to the Managing Director regarding pay scale revisions instead of formal grievance notices. The core legal question was whether such departmental appeals could be legally construed as a valid grievance notice under Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Khushal Khan v. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, held that a departmental appeal is not a substitute for a grievance notice. The ratio established is that Section 33(1) mandates a grievance notice be addressed specifically to the 'employer' (the appointing authority) within the statutory timeframe. Because the petitioners' appeals were not addressed as required by law, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the NIRC and dismissed the petition, affirming that a grievance notice is a distinct, mandatory procedural requirement.
Questions settled- Can a departmental appeal be treated as a valid grievance notice under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Is the service of a grievance notice on the employer a mandatory pre-requisite for filing a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Does Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 require a grievance notice to be served upon the appointing authority specifically?
- Malik Mahmood Ahmad Khan vs Malik Moazam Mahmood, etc2024 SCP 416, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the dismissal of an appeal against a trial court decree awarding maintenance to a child against his father. The core legal question concerned whether the lower courts erred in their adjudication and the necessity of applying a child-centered lens to such proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order contained no jurisdictional error, illegality, or procedural irregularity, and consequently declined leave to appeal, dismissing the petition. The Court emphasized that the judiciary must adopt a dedicated "child justice approach" in all cases involving children, whether in contact or conflict with the law. This approach mandates that the "best interests of the child" remain the primary consideration, recognizing their unique vulnerabilities and developmental needs. This principle is grounded in the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, particularly Articles 25, 25A, 35, and 37, and international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Judicial processes must prioritize the child's dignity, rehabilitation, and well-being, ensuring that legal proceedings are sensitive, protective, and conducive to the child's growth and reintegration into society.
Questions settled- What is the scope of the child justice approach that courts must adopt in proceedings involving children?
- Does the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 provide a framework for the protection and rehabilitation of children in the justice system?
- Is the best interests of the child a primary consideration in judicial proceedings involving children in contact with the law?
- Malik Imtiaz Ahmad vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Irrigation2024 LHC 4669 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged administrative orders regarding the transfer and cancellation of transfer of civil servants, which derived their authority from Notification No.PS/SCM/CMO/24/OT47/ dated 01.03.2024 issued by the Chief Minister Punjab imposing a complete ban on all postings and transfers. The core legal question was whether the executive authority of the Chief Minister includes the power to impose a blanket ban on transfers and postings of civil servants without express statutory authorization. The Lahore High Court allowed the petitions in part, declaring the Notification to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court held that executive powers are strictly circumscribed by law, and the Chief Minister cannot arrogate legislative power or centralize posting/transfer powers in the absence of enabling legislation. The Court relied on established principles that executive action must derive directly from a valid law and cannot undermine statutory administrative frameworks or civil service independence.
Questions settled- Does the executive authority of the Chief Minister empower the imposition of a blanket ban on postings and transfers of civil servants without statutory authorization?
- Can executive notifications centralize posting and transfer powers contrary to statutory provisions and service rules?
- Does Article 202A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply automatically to provincial High Courts without a resolution passed by the respective Provincial Assembly?
- Malik Arshad Hussain Awan vs M/s United Bank Limited2024 SCP 122, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 595, 2024 CLD 708, 2024 PLJ SC 473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arose from a recovery suit filed by the respondent Bank under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The petitioner sought appointment as guardian for the suit of his brother, asserting his brother was of unsound mind. The Banking Court dismissed the application on merits, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent appeal, holding that the brother must first be adjudged mentally disordered by the Court of Protection under the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 before an application under Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be entertained. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a Banking Court can independently appoint a guardian for a suit under Rules 3 and 15 of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that Rule 15 of Order XXXII recognizes two categories of persons of unsound mind: those already adjudged, and those not so adjudged but found by the court on inquiry to be incapable of protecting their interests. The Court ruled that a court is not precluded from appointing a guardian ad litem under Order XXXII merely because no guardian has been appointed under the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001. The petition was converted into an appeal, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court.
Questions settled- Can a Banking Court appoint a guardian for a suit under Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without the defendant first being adjudged as mentally disordered under the Mental Health Ordinance 2001?
- What is the distinction between a guardian for the suit appointed under Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and a guardian appointed under the Mental Health Ordinance 2001?
- Does a Banking Court have the power to conduct an inquiry into a party's unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity for the limited purpose of court representation?
- Malik Amanullah vs Haji Muhammad Essa etc2024 SCP 344, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the ownership of land in Quetta. The appellant, a subsequent purchaser, challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had declared the respondents as the lawful owners. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens to a property sale executed during the interregnum between the dismissal and subsequent restoration of a suit, and whether a purchaser is bound by the title of their transferor. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to transfers made during the period between a suit's dismissal and its restoration, as the restoration order relates back to the original proceedings. The Court affirmed that a purchaser for value, even without notice, is bound by the result of the litigation and cannot acquire a title superior to that of their transferor. Additionally, the Court emphasized that administrative cancellation of mutations without notice violates due process and the right to a fair trial under the Constitution.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to a property sale made during the period between the dismissal and the restoration of a suit?
- Is a subsequent purchaser bound by the outcome of a suit if the property was transferred during the pendency of that suit?
- Can revenue authorities cancel mutation entries without providing notice and an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties?
- Malik Amanat Rasul vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 LHC 5274, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 262 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Petitioner challenged a quasi-judicial order passed pursuant to court directions, which had rejected his claim for the allotment of a residential plot in the Officers Colony, POF Society, Wah Cantt. The Petitioner had previously served the POF Board for nearly 14 years before moving to another government ministry, retaining his lien temporarily, and eventually regularizing his service elsewhere. The core legal questions involved whether the Petitioner met the minimum length of service and eligibility criteria under the POF Rules for Allotment of Residential Plots to Officers, 2002, and whether the petition was barred by laches. The Lahore High Court held that the POF Rules of 2002 have no retrospective application to reverse an action from 1999, that the Petitioner was not an employee of the POF at the time of the promulgation of the rules, and that the petition was afflicted with inordinate delay. The Court established that subsidiary rules cannot apply retrospectively to create rights prior to their commencement, that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked after gross laches, and that constitutional petitions enforce existing rather than establish new rights.
Questions settled- Whether rules promulgated for the allotment of residential plots can be applied retrospectively to an employee who left the organization prior to their enactment?
- Does the retention of a lien in a parent department entitle an employee to benefits under rules enacted after their departure?
- What is the effect of inordinate delay and laches on the invocation of the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be utilized for the establishment of a new legal right rather than the enforcement of an existing one?
- Malik Ahmed Nawaz and others vs Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd thr. its G.M.2024 SCP 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the legality of the transfer and conversion of land originally belonging to the defunct Revenue Employees Cooperative Housing Society. The land was transferred to Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd via an agreement in 2005, and subsequently transferred to the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) through a Trade Off Agreement in 2007. The Advocate-General of Punjab raised serious concerns regarding the authority of the Society's Administrator to execute the initial agreement after his term had expired, and questioned the legality of the then Chief Minister's approval to exempt the application of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The Court directed the involved parties to file detailed concise statements, site plans, and financial disclosures regarding the transactions. Additionally, the Court issued notices to the federal and provincial governments to address broader policy questions regarding the conversion of agricultural land for residential use, food security, environmental degradation, and the legal framework governing land use conversion.
Questions settled- Can an administrator of a cooperative housing society legally execute a land transfer agreement after the expiration of their official term?
- Does a provincial Chief Minister have the legal authority to exempt the application of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and approve a merger without statutory backing?
- What are the legal and policy implications of converting agricultural land to residential or commercial use regarding food security and environmental degradation?
- Malik Ahmad Usman Nawaz vs The Appellate Tribunal (Elections Act, 2017)2024 SCP 50, 2024 SCP 158, 2024 SCMR 1202, 2024 PLJ SC 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the rejection of the petitioner’s nomination papers for the Punjab Assembly constituency PP-254. The core legal questions were whether the status of a proclaimed offender disqualifies a candidate from contesting general elections and whether an alleged signature mismatch on nomination papers constitutes valid grounds for rejection. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the status of a proclaimed offender does not, in the absence of specific statutory prohibition, disentitle a person from exercising their civil right to contest an election. Regarding the signature mismatch, the Court held that the relevant provision, Section 62(9)(d) of the Elections Act 2017, applies only to the signatures of proposers and seconders, not candidates. Furthermore, any signature discrepancy is not a material false declaration under Section 62(9)(c) and is a remediable defect. The Court established that nomination papers cannot be rejected on grounds not strictly supported by the Elections Act 2017, emphasizing that remediable defects do not justify disqualification.
Questions settled- Does the status of being a proclaimed offender in a criminal case automatically disqualify a candidate from contesting a general election?
- Does the provision in the Elections Act 2017 regarding the genuineness of signatures apply to the candidate or only to the proposer and seconder?
- Can a returning officer reject nomination papers based on an alleged signature mismatch that is remediable?
- Is a candidate's signature on a nomination paper considered a declaration or statement under Section 62(9)(c) of the Elections Act 2017?
- Malik & Company through Proprietor vs Chairman Pakistan Tobacco2024 CLD 491 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-26Read full judgment →
- Makhdoom Shahab-Ud-Din vs Judge Family Court, Islamabad (West) and another2024 YLR 2854 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-19Read full judgment →
- Majid Ali vs Province of Sindh through Home Secretary, Government of Sindh, New Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 2 others2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 70 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against an order of discharge from service passed against the appellant, a police constable on probation who suffered from a medical condition (Schizophrenia) and was discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934 for unauthorized absence. The core legal questions involved were whether an appeal is maintainable against an order of discharge under Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934, and whether the service appeal was barred by limitation. The Tribunal held that following the precedent of the Supreme Court regarding similar bar provisions, an appeal against an order under Rule 12.21 is maintainable. However, the Tribunal further held that since the appellant's departmental appeal was filed well beyond the prescribed period from the date of knowledge, the service appeal was consequently time-barred and incompetent. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on the ground of limitation without entering into the merits.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal is maintainable against an order of discharge passed under Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934?
- What is the effect on a service appeal if the departmental appeal filed by a civil servant is found to be time-barred?
- Does a bar on appeals contained in the Police Rules 1934 prevail over the statutory right of appeal provided to civil servants?
- Majeed ur Rehman vs Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination through its2024 IHC · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Maj. (R) Matloob Ahmed Baig vs Oil and Gas Development Company2024 IHC 108, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 894 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Senior Security Officer appointed after the conversion of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL), impugned the order dismissing his departmental appeal against the major penalty of removal from service. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable for an employee whose terms and conditions of service are governed by non-statutory rules. The Islamabad High Court held that since the petitioner was appointed after the promulgation of the Oil and Gas Development Corporation (Re-Organization) Ordinance, 2001, his service terms were governed by the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited Employees' Service Rules, 2002, which lack statutory status as they were framed by the Board of Directors. Consequently, the relationship between the parties is governed by the principle of master and servant, rendering the constitutional petition not maintainable. The key principle laid down is that employees of government-owned companies whose service rules are non-statutory cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for individual service grievances.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable by an employee whose service terms are governed by non-statutory rules?
- Do the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited Employees' Service Rules, 2002 possess statutory status?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of OGDCL appointed after the promulgation of the Oil and Gas Development Corporation (Re-Organization) Ordinance, 2001?
- Are the terms and conditions of OGDCL employees appointed prior to the 2001 Ordinance protected under Section 5 of the said Ordinance?
- Mahtab Hussain vs Muhammad Aslam2024 CLC 2038 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-25Read full judgment →
- Maemona Azhar etc. vs Capital Development Authority through its2024 IHC 90, 2024 CLC 1299 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-17Read full judgment →
- M.L. Traders, etc vs Habib Bank Ltd, etc2024 LHC 3270, 2024 CLD 1137 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-06Read full judgment →
- M.B. Javed Awan and another vs Muhammad Tahir Nizami and others2024 IHC 236 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
- M. Rafique vs FIA through its Director General, Islamabad and others2024 IHC 174 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-07Read full judgment →
- M. N. Construction Company through Authorized Officer_Attorney vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, Quetta and 10 others2024 PLD Balochistan 38 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-29Read full judgment →
- M. Ihsan @ Malkoo etc. vs The State etc.2024 LHC 2091, 2025 PCRLJ 334 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed under Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the conviction and sentences of two appellants under Sections 302, 324, 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, acting in furtherance of a common intention, shot and killed the deceased and injured another witness. The High Court analyzed the applicability of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding vicarious liability, noting that mere presence at the scene without proof of a pre-arranged plan or prior concert is insufficient to establish common intention. Consequently, the co-accused, to whom no overt act was attributed and whose knowledge of the principal's design was unproven, was acquitted. Regarding the principal accused, the ocular account of closely related and injured witnesses was found consistent and supported by medical evidence and motive. However, due to mitigating circumstances, including the negative forensic report on the recovered weapon, his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Can an accused be held vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 merely for being present with the principal offender without proof of a pre-arranged plan?
- Can the testimony of a prosecution witness be recorded and relied upon at trial if their statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was not recorded by the police?
- Is the testimony of eye-witnesses liable to be discarded solely on the ground of their close relationship with the deceased?
- What quantum of mitigating evidence is required to justify the alternative lesser sentence of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- M /S Haripur Foods Industries Haripur vs Govt of KPK etc...2024 PHC 352 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
- M / S Nwepdi-Tepc-Ucc (JV) vs National Transmission & Dispatch Co. Ltd.2024 LHC 942 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Lutfullah Virk vs Muhammad Aslam Sheikh2024 SCP 235, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 887, 2024 PLJ SC 905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a trial court’s order closing the defendant’s right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses due to non-appearance. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully in closing this right after the petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled time despite prior adjournments. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Order XVII, Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court affirmed that adjournments are not a right and cannot be used as delaying tactics; they require 'sufficient cause' supported by written applications. It clarified that when a party fails to appear or perform necessary acts, the court may proceed to decide the suit forthwith, meaning the case must proceed without further delay. The Court emphasized that curbing the 'adjournment culture' is essential to address judicial backlog and ensure the fundamental right to a fair trial and speedy justice.
Questions settled- Can a court close a party's right to cross-examine witnesses if that party fails to appear on the date fixed for evidence?
- Does the phrase 'decide the suit forthwith' under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require the court to pronounce judgment immediately?
- Are adjournments a matter of right for litigants in civil proceedings?
- What is the procedure for a court when a party fails to appear on an adjourned date of hearing?
- Luqman Zafar, Advocate vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice and 7 others2024 IHC 178 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the exercise of judicial powers by Executive Magistrates within the Islamabad Capital Territory, arguing it violates the constitutional mandate for the separation of the judiciary from the executive. The core legal question was whether the conferment of judicial authority upon executive officers, who remain under the administrative control of the Executive rather than the High Court, is consistent with the Constitution. The Court held that such exercise of judicial power is unconstitutional as it contravenes Articles 175(3), 202, and 203 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the right to 'access to justice' is a fundamental right that cannot be guaranteed without an independent judiciary. Consequently, the Court directed the Federal Government to immediately issue the notification required to enforce the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001. Pending this, Executive Magistrates are restrained from passing final judgments. The key principle laid down is that judicial power must be exercised by forums subject to the High Court's exclusive administrative and supervisory control to ensure independence and impartiality.
Questions settled- Does the exercise of judicial powers by Executive Magistrates in the Islamabad Capital Territory violate the constitutional mandate for the separation of the judiciary?
- Is the right to access to justice under the Constitution contingent upon the existence of an independent judiciary separate from the executive?
- Can the Federal Government indefinitely delay the enforcement of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 by failing to issue the required notification?
- Does the High Court have the authority to restrain Executive Magistrates from exercising judicial powers if such exercise contravenes the Constitution?
- Lucky Core Industries Limited, Karachi vs The Director, D.G I & I (Customs)2024 SHC 1420, PTCL 2025 CL. 285 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-13Read full judgment →
- London Gypsies and Travellers and others vs Wolverhampton City Council and others2024 SCMR 215 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
- Live Securities Limited vs Muhammad Salim Khan2024 IHC 206 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →