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.
- Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Masood-ul-Hassan Prop: M/s Prism2024 LHC 3179, 2025 PTD 58 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue Sialkot vs Air Sial Limited , Sialkot2024 LHC 4303, PTCL 2025 CL. 242 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-07Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue Corporate Zone, Peshawar vs M/s2024 PHC 246, PTCL 2024 CL. 677 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue and others vs Zahoor Iqbal Awan and others2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 55 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue and others vs SKB-KNK Joint Venture, etc.2024 SCP 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from petitions challenging a notification issued under Section 209 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which transferred jurisdiction over Large Taxpayer Units (LTU) in Quetta and Peshawar to Karachi and Islamabad, respectively. During the proceedings, the Federal Board of Revenue withdrew the impugned notifications, rendering the primary grievance infructuous. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the petitions as having borne fruit. However, the Court highlighted significant systemic concerns regarding the Federal Board of Revenue Act, 2007. Specifically, it questioned the scope of delegation powers under Section 8 of the Act, particularly whether such delegation applies to fiscal laws lacking explicit delegation provisions, and noted the absence of necessary conditions in delegation notifications. Furthermore, the Court observed the failure to operationalize the Policy Board under Section 6 and the lack of a functional data bank as mandated by Section 14. The Attorney General for Pakistan assured the Court that these legislative and administrative concerns would be addressed in the upcoming Finance Act and that the Policy Board would be made functional.
Questions settled- Does the delegation power under Section 8 of the Federal Board of Revenue Act 2007 apply to fiscal laws that do not explicitly provide for such delegation?
- Must delegation notifications issued under Section 8 of the Federal Board of Revenue Act 2007 specify the conditions under which such powers are delegated?
- Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal Division) Legal Taxpayers Unit, Islamabad vs Messrs Khudadad Heights, Islamabad2024 PTD 309, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 173 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
- Commissioner (Legal Division) Inland Revenue vs Messrs Kohinoor Soap2024 PTD 162 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-22Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate vs Messrs S. Star2024 PTD (Trib.) 861 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2023-05-22Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs, Collectorate of Customs Appraisement (East) vs M_s. Bilal Metals Private Ltd2024 SHC 1416, PTCL 2025 CL. 224, 2025 PTD 508 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-13Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs, Collectorate of Customs (Enforcement), Karachi vs Chaker Ali2024 PTD (Trib.) 1415 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2024-01-01Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs, Collectorate of Customs (Enforcement), Custom2024 PTD 747 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs vs M/s. Rohail Enterprises2024 SHC 390, 2025 PTD 645 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs Model and others vs M_s Ahsan & Company and others2024 SHC 704 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Collector of Customs (Enforcement), Custom House Airport Road, Quetta2024 PTD 1542, 2025 PLJ Quetta 42 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-12Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Peshawar vs Messrs Allied2024 PTD 374 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
- Collector Model Customs Collectorate vs M/s. Venus Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. &2024 SHC 392, 2024 PTD 997 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
- Collector Customs, Peshawar vs Syed Aftab-ul-Hassan2024 PHC 304 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-21Read full judgment →
- Collector Customs & another vs M/s Chiniot Enterprises (Pvt) Limited2024 PHC 136 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-03Read full judgment →
- CM Pak Limited vs The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority2024 IHC 276, 2025 CLC 750 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-20Read full judgment →
- Civil Hospital Pharmacy vs Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre and others2024 SHC 306 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-19Read full judgment →
- Civil Aviation Authority of Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2024 SHC 552, 2024 CLD 1518, 2024 PTD 1507 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
- City District Government, Karachi vs Akram Nabi and others2024 SCMR 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment concerning the cancellation of illegal land allotments within a designated public park, the Bagh-e-Ibn-e-Qasim, in Karachi. The core legal questions were whether land earmarked as an amenity plot could be converted to commercial use and whether the High Court possessed the authority to grant relief—specifically the provision of alternate property—that was not requested by the petitioners. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957, strictly prohibits the conversion of amenity plots into commercial use, emphasizing that land reserved for public benefit cannot be diverted for private profit. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the High Court erred by granting relief that was not prayed for, especially when such relief contravened the city's Master Plan and applicable land-use laws. The judgment reinforces the principle that amenity plots are protected for public use, and judicial relief must remain within the scope of the pleadings and the law.
Questions settled- Can land designated as an amenity plot be converted to commercial use?
- Is it legally permissible for a court to grant relief that was not specifically prayed for by the litigants?
- Does the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957, prohibit the conversion of public parks into commercial properties?
- Citizens for Environment through General Secretary vs Director General, Sindh Environmental Protection Agency and 2 others2024 CLD 350 · Sindh Environmental Protection Tribunal · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
- Citibank N.a vs Muhammad Tasleem & others2024 SHC 1170, 2024 CLD 1536 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
- Circlenet Communication Pakistan (Private) Limited and others vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through General Manager2024 CLD 829, 2024 CLC 1478 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
- China Textile Curtains & Blanket Industry and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 PLJ Karachi 127 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-07Read full judgment →
- China Power Hub Generation Company (Pvt.) Limited through authorized2024 PTD 1218 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-11Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Islamabad Electric Supply2024 PLJ Islamabad 169 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
- China Mobile Pakistan Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 166, 2025 PLD Islamabad 130 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-08-21Read full judgment →
- China Mobile Pakistan Limited (Zong) and others vs Pakistan2024 SHC 430 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
- China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. and others vs Z. Z. Enterprises2024 PLD Lahore 421, 2024 CLD 917 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
- Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member (Judicial-v), Board of Revenue,2024 LHC 3230, 2024 PLD Lahore 598 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-10Read full judgment →
- Chief Executive Officer NPGCL, Genco-III, TPS Muzafargarrah vs Khalid2024 SCP 45, 2024 PLC 104, 2024 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution challenged a Lahore High Court judgment which upheld the National Industrial Relations Commission’s (NIRC) refusal to set aside an ex-parte judgment. The respondent, a former employee, had filed a grievance petition against his dismissal. Although the petitioner initially contested the matter, it later failed to appear, leading to an ex-parte decree. The petitioner subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, which was dismissed as time-barred, as was a subsequent appeal to the Full Bench of the NIRC. The Supreme Court examined Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2012, and Regulation 45 of the NIRC Regulations, 2016. The Court held that while CPC procedures apply to NIRC proceedings, the petitioner failed to justify the delay or file a condonation application under Section 85 of the IRA. Applying the 'doctrine of election,' the Court ruled that once a party chooses a specific legal remedy, they cannot later seek concurrent remedies to circumvent limitation periods. The petition was dismissed.
- Chief Engineer (West) Pakistan Public Works Department, Quetta vs M/s2024 MLD 1918 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Chief Commissioner/ Commissioner Ir Zone-II/Zone-III, Rto, Peshawar vs2024 SCP 90, PTCL 2024 CL. 414, 2024 SCMR 858, 2024 PTD 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, the Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, challenged a High Court judgment that favored taxpayers regarding their claims for tax refunds. The respondents, who operated petrol pumps in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), sought refunds for taxes deducted under Section 156A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, arguing that the Ordinance did not extend to FATA. The core legal question was whether income derived from commissions or discounts on petroleum products, where the contractual arrangements and tax deductions occurred outside FATA, was immune from taxation under the Ordinance of 2001. The Supreme Court held that the tax deduction under Section 156A constituted a final tax regime on income arising from the commission or discount, which occurred in taxable areas outside FATA. The Court ruled that mere operation of business premises in FATA does not grant immunity from taxation; the taxpayer must prove the taxable income was not derived from areas where the statute applies. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment, as the respondents failed to establish such immunity.
Questions settled- Does the operation of a business within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) automatically grant immunity from the application of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
- Is tax deducted under Section 156A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, on commissions or discounts for petroleum products considered a final tax?
- Where a contractual arrangement and the resulting income (commission) arise outside the territorial limits of FATA, can the taxpayer claim immunity from the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
- Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Bahawalpur and others vs Baqa Muhammad Lashari2024 SCMR 1164, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1001, 2024 PLJ SC 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that granted the respondent two advance increments for acquiring higher educational qualifications. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, promoted on a seniority-cum-fitness basis, is entitled to advance increments for obtaining a higher qualification (Intermediate) that was the prescribed qualification for the promotional post, pursuant to the Finance Division's Office Memorandum of 1992. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the respondent’s case fell squarely within the ambit of the 1992 Office Memorandum, as clarified by subsequent memoranda in 2011 and 2019. The Court rejected the argument that the claim was time-barred, characterizing it as a continuing claim. The key principle laid down is that civil servants who acquire higher qualifications while in service, which are prescribed for their promotional posts, are eligible for advance increments, and such financial claims arising from service conditions are treated as continuing claims rather than being subject to strict limitation bars.
Questions settled- Are civil servants promoted on a seniority-cum-fitness basis entitled to advance increments upon acquiring higher qualifications prescribed for the promotional post?
- Does the acquisition of higher qualifications while in service entitle a civil servant to advance increments under the Finance Division's 1992 Office Memorandum?
- Is a claim for advance increments by a civil servant considered a continuing claim for the purpose of limitation?
- Chaudhary Ghulam Hussain and another vs M/s Saudi Pak Commercial2024 SCP 397, 2025 SCMR 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of an Execution First Appeal by the Lahore High Court under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The petitioners challenged the auction and subsequent sale confirmation of their mortgaged property, which was executed to satisfy an ex-parte recovery decree. The petitioners contended that the auction lacked transparency, the property was undervalued, and they were denied the opportunity to match the highest bid. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the petitioners failed to deposit the matching sale price despite being granted permission, and failed to demonstrate any material irregularity or fraud in the auction proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that under Article 166 of the Limitation Act, 1908, an application to set aside an execution sale must be filed within thirty days, whereas the petitioners filed their objections after more than three years. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that the execution proceedings and sale confirmation were legally sound and the objection petition was barred by limitation.
Questions settled- What is the limitation period under Article 166 of the Limitation Act 1908 for filing an application to set aside a sale in execution of a decree?
- Can an auction sale be set aside under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without proving substantial injury resulting from a material irregularity or fraud?
- What are the pre-requisites for a judgment-debtor to apply to set aside an execution sale under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Chanzeb Akhtar, Haji Mirza Zafar vs The State and another2024 SCP 189, 2024 SCMR 1413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered a petition for leave to appeal against an Islamabad High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but reduced his sentence from death to life imprisonment. The petitioner was accused of shooting and killing his wife. The case relied on circumstantial evidence, including a 'last seen' witness who saw the petitioner fleeing the scene with a pistol, a positive ballistic report matching crime scene empties to the recovered pistol, and court witness testimony regarding an affidavit from the petitioner's brother. The prosecution failed to establish a motive. The Supreme Court affirmed that while motive is not an essential element to establish guilt for murder, the absence of proved motive serves as a valid mitigating factor justifying the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the High Court's appraisal, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive in a murder case prevent a conviction under Section 302 PPC?
- Can the absence or non-establishment of a motive serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Chaklala Cantonment Board vs M/s Umar Khan and Others2024 LHC 1359, 2025 CLC 386 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-28Read full judgment →
- Chakar Bijarani and 2 others vs Abdul Rasool Bijarani and others2024 CLC 1645 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-18Read full judgment →
- Chairman/Dean Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore vs Amjad Mehmood Khan2024 SCP 338, 2025 SCMR 168, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which allowed the respondent's appeal regarding the inclusion of his prior contractual service in the calculation of his pensionary benefits. The core legal questions were whether a claim for pensionary benefits is barred by laches when filed years after retirement, and whether contractual service followed by regularization qualifies for inclusion in pension calculations under the Civil Service Regulations. The Court held that pensionary benefits constitute a recurring cause of action, meaning claims are not automatically barred by delay or laches. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations, contractual service is considered 'temporary service' and must be included in pension calculations provided it was continuous and followed by regularization. The key principle laid down is that while contractual service counts towards the calculation of pension benefits, it cannot be aggregated with regular service to satisfy the minimum qualifying service period required for pension eligibility; the employee must still meet the qualifying service threshold as a regular employee.
Questions settled- Does a claim for pensionary benefits constitute a recurring cause of action that avoids the bar of laches?
- Does the term 'temporary service' in Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations include contractual service?
- Can contractual service be aggregated with regular service to meet the minimum qualifying period for pension eligibility?
- Under what conditions does contractual service count towards the calculation of pension benefits?
- Chairman, National Highway Authority through its G.M. & another vs Abdul2024 LHC 546, 2024 PLJ Lahore 174, 2025 CLC 797 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-13Read full judgment →
- Chairman, Board of Control, Canteen Stores, HQ, Rawalpindi & others vs Muhammad Azam Khan & others2024 SCP 95, 2024 SCMR 862, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment reinstating terminated employees of the Canteen Stores Department (CSD). The core legal questions were whether CSD employees are in the service of the Armed Forces, thereby barring High Court jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution, and whether the CSD qualifies as a 'person' or 'authority' under Article 199(5) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the CSD is a non-governmental commercial organization, not a government department, and its employees are not in the service of Pakistan or the Armed Forces. The Court determined that the CSD operates autonomously with its own funds, is not a body politic or corporate, and does not perform sovereign functions. Consequently, the relationship between the CSD and its employees is governed by the ordinary law of Master and Servant rather than constitutional law. The Court concluded that the writ petitions were incompetent, allowed the appeal, and set aside the High Court’s orders, affirming that the CSD does not fall within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Questions settled- Are employees of the Canteen Stores Department considered to be in the service of the Armed Forces of Pakistan?
- Does the Canteen Stores Department fall within the definition of 'person' or 'authority' under Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is the relationship between the Canteen Stores Department and its employees governed by the law of Master and Servant?
- Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the Canteen Stores Department?
- Chairman Wapda through Director (Legal) Wapda, Wapda House Lahore2024 PLJ AJ&K 103 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Chairman Pakistan Ordinance Factories, Pof Board, Wah Cantt vs Akhtar2024 SCP 394, 2025 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's decision to convert the respondent's removal from service into compulsory retirement. The respondent, an employee of the Pakistan Ordinance Factories, had been removed for wilful absence after traveling abroad without sanctioned leave. The core legal question concerned the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to interfere with departmental disciplinary penalties. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by arbitrarily reducing the punishment. The Court affirmed that the award of punishment is primarily the function of the competent authority. The Tribunal’s power to modify penalties is not discretionary or unbridled; it must be exercised with circumspection, providing legally sustainable reasons, and only when the penalty is perverse or demonstrably disproportionate. The Court emphasized that wilful absence constitutes gross misconduct, and personal achievements like foreign education do not mitigate such disciplinary infractions. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and restored the original penalty of removal from service.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have unbridled discretion to modify disciplinary penalties imposed by a competent authority?
- Can a Tribunal reduce a major penalty of removal from service based solely on the employee's academic achievements?
- Does wilful absence from duty without sanctioned leave constitute gross misconduct justifying removal from service?
- Is a regular inquiry mandatory when the absence from duty is admitted by the employee?
- Chairman Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad and others vs Dr.2024 SCP 286, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1251, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 915, PLJ 2024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, where a split opinion occurred between two members, one of whom was an Acting Chairman. The core legal question was whether the term 'Chairman' in Section 3A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which dictates the procedure for resolving equally divided opinions among tribunal members, encompasses an 'Acting Chairman' appointed under Section 3(7) of the same Act. The Supreme Court held that the statutory provision creating an exception to the general rule of adjudication—where the Chairman's opinion prevails in the event of a tie—must be construed strictly. Because the legislature explicitly distinguished between the Chairman and an Acting Chairman in the Act, the Court determined that the weightage given to the Chairman's opinion cannot be extended to an Acting Chairman. Consequently, the Court set aside the proceedings and remanded the matter to the Chairman for a fresh decision. The key principle established is that statutory exceptions regarding the powers of specific office-holders must be interpreted strictly and cannot be expanded by implication to include temporary substitutes.
Questions settled- Does the term 'Chairman' in Section 3A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 include an 'Acting Chairman'?
- What is the procedure when members of a Bench of the Federal Service Tribunal are equally divided in opinion?
- Can an Acting Chairman exercise the specific powers granted to the Chairman under Section 3A(2)(c) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board, Lahore & others vs Sufi Nazir2024 SCP 76, 2024 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a Peshawar High Court judgment that declared amendments to clauses 10 and 11 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Urban Evacuee Trust Properties, 1977, as unreasonable and arbitrary. The core legal question was whether the revised procedure for assessing and reassessing rent for evacuee trust properties violated principles of fairness and reasonableness. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the amendments were valid. The Court reasoned that the new procedure, which mandates market-based rent assessment, provides for public inspection, allows for tenant objections, and grants a right of hearing, effectively addresses the procedural deficiencies identified in the Muzzafar Khan case. The Court emphasized that administrative actions must adhere to the principle of legitimate expectation, requiring transparency and predictability. By balancing the interests of the trusts—which rely on rental income for charitable purposes—and the tenants, the Court concluded that the Scheme’s provisions are neither mechanical nor unbridled, thus upholding the legality of the rent assessment framework.
Questions settled- Are the amendments to clauses 10 and 11 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Urban Evacuee Trust Properties, 1977, regarding rent assessment, legally valid?
- Does the principle of legitimate expectation require administrative bodies to provide a fair procedure for rent assessment?
- Can rent assessment procedures for evacuee trust properties be considered reasonable if they include provisions for public inspection and tenant hearings?
- Ch. Umer Aftab Dhillu and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2024 LHC 1, 2024 PLJ Lahore 54, 2024 CLC 615 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) that rejected the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party's intra-party election certificate and withdrew its election symbol, 'BAT.' The petitioners argued that the ECP lacked jurisdiction and that the order violated fundamental rights, including freedom of association. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction over a matter already sub judice before the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Peshawar High Court, where similar issues regarding election processes and a 'level playing field' were pending. The Court held that it could not assume jurisdiction in a matter already pending before the Supreme Court or another High Court, as doing so would violate judicial propriety, risk conflicting judgments, and undermine the judicial process. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine. The key principle laid down is that a High Court must refrain from entertaining petitions on matters already pending before the Supreme Court or parallel High Courts to maintain judicial comity and prevent the multiplicity of litigation.
Questions settled- Can a High Court assume jurisdiction in a matter that is already sub judice before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Does the pendency of a matter before another High Court preclude a court from entertaining a petition on the same subject?
- Is a petition maintainable when it seeks to challenge an order already suspended by another court of competent jurisdiction?
- Can a High Court grant interim relief when the vires of the law being challenged is already under consideration by another court?
- Ch. Rizwan Ali Raa vs Government of Punjab & others2024 LHC 2344, 2024 CLD 1089 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. Pervaiz Elahi vs The State and another2024 LHC 2309, 2025 PCRLJ 685 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 09/2023 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 161, 162, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question involved was whether the prosecution had established sufficient reasonable grounds under the prohibitory clause of section 497 CrPC to warrant withholding bail, particularly where the timeline of alleged forgery conflicted with public records and cash recovery lacked identifying specifications. The Lahore High Court held that the gravity of the offence or the mere possibility of punishment under the prohibitory limb is insufficient to deny bail when the prosecution fails to unveil sufficient material establishing reasonable grounds of guilt and the case falls within the scope of further inquiry. The Court laid down that bail is not to be withheld as punishment, that prosecution bears the burden to show reasonable grounds connecting the accused to the offence, and that where two plausible views exist, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Does the expression reasonable grounds under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 obligate the prosecution to unveil sufficient material to show the accused committed an offence falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Can bail be withheld merely on the ground of the heinousness or gravity of the offence or the possibility of a ten-year sentence?
- Is unspecified cash recovery sufficient by itself to establish reasonable grounds for refusing post-arrest bail?
- When a case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused, is the accused entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Ch. Nadir Khan, Managing Director/Chief Executive Warrantor, M/s PharmaWise Labs (Pvt) Limited 25-M.Q.A. Industrial Estate, Lahore and others vs The State and others2024 F.S.C 2, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 20 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Arshad vs Parvez Elahi and two others2024 LHC 1337, 2024 CLC 1151, 2024 PLJ Lahore 578 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-03Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem (deceased) represented by legal heirs vs Mst. Aziza Khatoon (deceased) represented by legal heirs, etc2024 LHC 4723 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ch. Mohammad Rashid vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu &2024 PLJ AJ&K 142 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Zia-ur-Rehman2024 LHC 2543, 2024 PTD 1029 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-22Read full judgment →
- Ch. Ghulam Muhuyuddin and others vs Sheikh Abid & Co (Pvt.) Ltd. and others2024 SHC 286, 2024 YLR 1907 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-03Read full judgment →
- Ch. Fawad Ahmed vs Election Commission of Pakistan and another, Federation of Pakistan and another2024 IHC 160 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ch. Bilal Ejaz vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2024 LHC 1604, 2024 PLD Lahore 428 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-16Read full judgment →
- Century Roller & Stone Flour Mill (Pvt.) Ltd vs Muhammad Asif & others2024 SHC 750 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-15Read full judgment →
- Cedar (Pvt.) Limited vs Soneri Bank Limited and others2024 SHC 34, 2024 PLJ Karachi 82 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-23Read full judgment →
- Cedar (Pvt.) Limited vs Marina Construction (Pvt.) Limited & Others2024 SHC 888 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-28Read full judgment →
- Capt. (Rtd) Feroz Shah vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary2024 PHC 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil servant challenging multiple decisions of the Central Selection Board (CSB) recommending his supersession for promotion to BPS-21. The core legal question was whether the CSB’s evaluation process, specifically the repeated use of the same Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) for reconsideration after an initial supersession, complied with the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019. The Court dismissed the challenges to the earlier CSB decisions, finding no procedural illegality. However, regarding the most recent decision, the Court held that the CSB acted contrary to Rule 10(5) of the Rules, 2019, by evaluating the petitioner on the same PERs used in a previous supersession, rather than requiring the mandatory new full year's PER. Consequently, the supersession was declared unlawful and converted into a deferment. The Court affirmed the principle that while promotion is not a vested right and courts should not substitute their evaluation for that of the competent body, administrative decisions must strictly adhere to statutory procedures, and supersession requires compliance with mandatory performance reporting requirements before reconsideration.
Questions settled- Can a court substitute its own evaluation for that of the Central Selection Board regarding a civil servant's fitness for promotion?
- Is a civil servant who has been superseded for promotion eligible for reconsideration without earning a new Performance Evaluation Report for a full year?
- Does the Central Selection Board have the authority to evaluate a civil servant for promotion using the same Performance Evaluation Reports that were previously used for a prior supersession decision?
- Capt. (R) Ghulam Murtaza (PSP) vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment, Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad and another2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 80 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a civil servant, assailed a notification imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings on charges of misconduct and corruption. The Federal Service Tribunal examined the record and found that the departmental inquiry was conducted improperly primarily through a questionnaire without affording the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or produce a defense. The Tribunal also noted clear discrimination, as the main accused, an accountant, was not proceeded against despite being implicated by witnesses, while the appellant alone was penalized. Furthermore, the findings of the inquiry officer were based on surmises rather than concrete evidence, rendering the case one of "no evidence". The Tribunal held that a major penalty cannot be sustained on the basis of a flawed inquiry that violates the principles of natural justice and fair play. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned notification of dismissal was set aside, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant with the option to conduct a de novo inquiry in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether a major penalty of dismissal from service can be sustained when an inquiry is conducted merely through a questionnaire without affording the accused an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses?
- Does the failure to take departmental action against co-accused persons while penalizing the principal accused alone constitute discrimination vitiating the penalty?
- Can findings of an inquiry officer based on surmises and without concrete documentary or oral evidence establish charges of misconduct and corruption?
- What is the legal consequence when a departmental inquiry is found to have been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the prescribed rules?
- Capital View Point Restaurant (La Montana), Islamabad and others vs Capital Development Authority through its Chairman, Islamabad, etc2024 SCP 299, 2024 SCMR 2010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses multiple review petitions and miscellaneous applications arising from a previous short order and detailed judgment concerning commercial establishments, including restaurants, operating within the protected Margalla Hills National Park. The core legal questions involve whether review lies against consent orders and undertakings given to the court, the legal status of licenses versus leases in public lands, the binding effect of unregistered partnerships to initiate legal proceedings and make undertakings, and the validity of lease agreements executed by non-legal entities like the Remount Veterinary and Farms Directorate. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions and applications, holding that solemn undertakings given to the court cannot be resiled from, unregistered firms cannot maintain legal proceedings under the Partnership Act 1932, and commercial operations within a protected national park violate environmental and wildlife laws. Furthermore, the Court withdrew a concession of preference previously extended to operators who had promised to vacate voluntarily, due to their subsequent retracting behavior. The key principles established relate to the strict protection of national parks, the inviolability of undertakings given in court, and the incapacity of unregistered entities to enforce contractual rights.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition is maintainable against a consent order or a solemn undertaking given before the Court?
- Can an unregistered partnership firm or its partners initiate legal proceedings to enforce rights arising from a contract?
- Does a partner have the implied authority to bind the firm through commitments and actions?
- Whether commercial restaurants can legally operate within a protected national park under expired licenses or void leases?
- Capital Development Authority, Islamabad thr. its Chairman & others vs M.2024 SCP 182, 2024 SCMR 1381, 2024 PLJ SC 634 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from writ petitions challenging the Capital Development Authority's (CDA) creation and allotment of residential plots in Sector F-11/4, Islamabad, which the petitioners alleged violated the Master Plan. The Islamabad High Court initially cancelled the allotments, directing departmental action against officials. The core legal question was whether the CDA's designation of land for 'Future Use' in the Master Plan prohibited its subsequent allotment for residential purposes, and whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgments and restoring the cancelled allotments. The Court held that the term 'Future Use' in the Master Plan does not imply a prohibition against residential utilization, nor does it reserve land for amenity purposes. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that administrative decisions regarding land use cannot be struck down absent a clear violation of law or the Master Plan. Additionally, the Court noted the procedural failure of the High Court in cancelling property rights without impleading the affected allottees as necessary parties, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Does the designation of land for 'Future Use' in the Capital Development Authority Master Plan prohibit its allotment for residential purposes?
- Can a High Court cancel property allotments in its constitutional jurisdiction without impleading the affected allottees as necessary parties?
- Is the exercise of administrative discretion by the Capital Development Authority regarding land use subject to judicial interference absent a proven violation of law or the Master Plan?
- Capital Development Authority, CDA, through its Chairman, CDA, Islamabad vs Ahmed Murtaza and another2024 SCP 374 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Capital Development Authority (CDA), challenged a judgment of the Islamabad High Court which had accepted a constitutional petition filed by Respondent No. 1. The CDA contended that the disputed plot was non-transferable outside the family of the original allottee under the allotment letter and lease agreement. However, the record revealed that the CDA itself had previously transferred the plot to Respondent No. 2 and several other non-family members, and had conceded to these facts in a prior suit resulting in a consent decree. The High Court in a previous FAO had already decided the transferability issue on merits against the CDA, which the CDA failed to fully disclose in its petition. The Supreme Court held that the CDA's petition was frivolous, vexatious, and a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court by withholding material facts. Emphasizing that public institutions must take responsibility for their decisions and cannot use courts to remedy internal managerial failures, the Court dismissed the petition and imposed special costs of Rs. 500,000 to be deposited in an approved charity.
Questions settled- Can a public authority challenge the transfer of a property on the ground of non-transferability when it has itself repeatedly authorized and executed such transfers to non-family members?
- Whether the failure of a petitioner to disclose prior relevant litigation and orders between the same parties constitutes a misrepresentation that warrants the imposition of special costs?
- Can the Supreme Court impose special costs under the Supreme Court Rules 1980 on a public institution for pursuing vexatious and frivolous litigation?
- Canada Square Operations Ltd vs Potter2024 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
- C.M. Pak. Limited through duly authorized Attorney vs Pakistan2024 CLC 928, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 180 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
- Bux Ali Mazari and another vs The State2024 YLR 1531 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal jail appeals arising from a murder incident and an associated arms offence. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given contentions regarding related and chance witnesses, discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, and delays in lodging the FIR. The court dismissed the appeals, holding that consistent and trustworthy ocular testimony, corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence as well as proved motive, firmly established the guilt of the appellants, and that minor technical discrepancies or delays reasonably explained do not vitiate the conviction. The key principle laid down is that direct ocular evidence, when found credible and consistent, prevails over medical opinion or minor technical lapses during investigation.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related and chance witnesses can be relied upon for conviction in the absence of a proven motive to falsely implicate?
- Does an inconsistency between the ocular version and medical evidence automatically warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- Whether delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case when the delay has been plausibly explained?
- Can minor discrepancies and technical lapses during police investigation weaken an otherwise trustworthy and corroborated prosecution case?
- Bushra Imran Khan vs The State and another2024 IHC 202, 2025 PCRLJ 15 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Bushra Imran Khan, sought post-arrest bail in an FIA case registered under Sections 109 and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, concerning the alleged retention and undervaluation of a Bvlgari jewellery set received as a state gift from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The core legal question revolved around whether the non-deposit of the gift under the Cabinet Division's Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2018—where the receipt was duly reported but the item was not deposited—attracted penal consequences, and whether a case for further inquiry was made out. The Islamabad High Court held that the applicable O.M. of 2018 did not penalize the mere non-deposit of a reported gift (unlike a subsequent 2023 O.M.), thus bringing the matter within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court laid down the principle that penal provisions in administrative policy documents like Office Memorandums cannot be applied retrospectively, and that where the evidentiary foundation for criminal liability is tentative and the investigation is complete with no risk of tampering, a woman petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether the non-deposit of a state gift reported to the Cabinet Division entails penal consequences under the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2018?
- Does an Office Memorandum issued by the Cabinet Division in 2023 have retrospective application to acts committed in 2021?
- Whether suspension of a conviction by an appellate court wipes out the conviction for the purpose of considering post-arrest bail in a subsequent case?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete, trial has not commenced, and the case falls under the ambit of further inquiry?
- Bushra Imran Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior and Secretary Ministry of Defence & others2024 IHC 64 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
- Bushra Bibi, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State etc.2024 IHC 5 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a writ petition and a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the orders of the lower courts whereby the petitioners were summoned in a private criminal complaint for contracting marriage during the Iddat period, allegedly constituting offences under Section 496 and Section 496B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality of summoning accused persons, the determination of mens rea, the computation of the Iddat period, and compliance with mandatory procedural requirements. The Islamabad High Court held that at the stage of issuing process, a trial court is only required to see if a prima facie case exists and is not to conduct a minutely detailed appraisal of evidence or merits. The Court ruled that no procedural illegality tainted the summons under Section 496 Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the summons under Section 496B Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was set aside due to non-compliance with the procedure under Section 203C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the threshold for issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a lighter burden requiring a prima facie view, and detailed factual defenses or merits ought to be raised before the trial court during trial or via an appropriate acquittal application.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court is required to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence and merits at the stage of issuing summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the issuance of process or summons by a trial court in a private complaint case infringe the fundamental rights of an accused person?
- What is the minimum period of Iddat recognized under Islamic law and judicial precedents for the purpose of determining the validity of a marriage contracted after divorce?
- Can a criminal complaint be interfered with by the High Court under constitutional or revisional jurisdiction when the trial court has already framed a charge and the matter is at the stage of recording evidence?
- Brigadier (Retired) Qaisar Shahzad vs The State, etc2024 LHC 4459, 2025 MLD 122, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 93 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition whereby the petitioner, Brigadier (Retired) Qaisar Shahzad, seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 255 dated 09.08.2024 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 408, and 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Morgah, District Rawalpindi, relating to allegations of unauthorized financial transactions, cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust. The core legal questions involved the tentative assessment of evidence regarding the ingredients of forgery, entrustment, misappropriation, and whether the case fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, documentary evidence was already in possession of the prosecution obviating any risk of tampering, the investigation was complete, and no exceptional grounds existed to withhold bail. Consequently, the petition was accepted and post-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner, reiterating the established principle that in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the general rule and jail is the exception.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the offences involved do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the absence of handwriting expert reports and documentary verification weaken the allegation of forgery at the bail stage?
- What exceptional circumstances justify the refusal of bail in cases where the offences do not attract the prohibitory clause?
- Blue Zone International (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive and 27 others2024 CLD 909, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 247 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
- Bismillah and 2 others vs Naik Muhammad through Legal Heirs2024 CLC 262 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-17Read full judgment →
- Bismillah and 2 others vs Naik Muhammad (Late) through Legal Heirs and others2024 PLJ Quetta 130 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Bilqees Bibi vs The State etc2024 LHC 3790, 2024 YLR 2461, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1107 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner, a 50-year-old woman, in a triple murder case registered under sections 302, 148, 149, 109, and 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was attributed only a joint lalkara (incitement) and was empty-handed during the occurrence, was entitled to bail despite the heinous nature of the offence. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that her case fell within the scope of "further inquiry" under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that the mere heinousness of an offence is not a valid ground for refusing bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it. Furthermore, it emphasized that bail is not a mechanism for punishment and that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused even at the bail stage. The Court concluded that the prosecution's case against the petitioner required further evidentiary verification at trial, and thus, continued incarceration was not warranted.
Questions settled- Does the heinous nature of an offence automatically disqualify an accused from being granted bail?
- Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the post-arrest bail stage?
- Is a person attributed only with a joint lalkara and found empty-handed entitled to bail in a murder case?
- Does the grant of bail constitute a punishment for an under-trial prisoner?
- Biland Khan vs Shahram Khan and others2024 PHC 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
- Bilal vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1792 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Bilal, for the murder of two individuals, Shabir Ahmed and Shahal, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and imposed compensation. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a hostile witness's testimony and the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The Court held that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in its entirety but must be evaluated based on the circumstances to ascertain the truth. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a retracted confession can form the basis of a conviction if it is found to be voluntary, true, and corroborated by other evidence. The Court emphasized that the benefit of doubt must be reasonable, not fanciful, and that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through credible evidence, including the judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of a hostile witness be relied upon to support a conviction?
- Under what circumstances can a retracted judicial confession form the basis of a conviction?
- Is the benefit of doubt applicable to fanciful doubts in a criminal trial?
- Bilal Sikandar vs The State and another2024 LHC 3700, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1083, 2025 YLR 152 · Lahore High Court · 2024-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail for the murder of his sister, allegedly committed in the name of 'ghairat' (honour). The core legal questions were whether an accused charged with honour killing is entitled to bail based on a compromise with legal heirs, and whether alleged conflicts between ocular and medical evidence constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that honour killing is a non-bailable offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, and that a compromise with legal heirs does not entitle the accused to bail due to statutory amendments, specifically Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, which mandates life imprisonment regardless of pardon. Furthermore, the Court ruled that conflicts between ocular and medical evidence require deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. The key principle laid down is that honour killings are treated as premeditated murder, and the legislative intent behind recent amendments is to prevent the release of perpetrators through compromise, ensuring they face the prescribed punishment.
Questions settled- Can an accused charged with honour killing be released on bail solely on the basis of a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased?
- Does a conflict between ocular account and medical evidence constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry to justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the offence of honour killing fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Bilal Haque vs Kamran Ali Afzal, Secretary, Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others2024 SCP 262, 2024 SCP 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns contempt petitions and miscellaneous applications regarding the preservation of the Margalla Hills National Park and the administrative status of the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board (IWMB). The Court addressed allegations of mala fide administrative actions, including the unauthorized transfer of the IWMB to the Ministry of Interior and the removal of its Chairperson, which were subsequently withdrawn by the Federal Government. The Court emphasized the binding nature of its orders under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution, condemning a subordinate court's attempt to frustrate its demolition orders via injunctions and referring the matter to the Islamabad High Court. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Galiyat Development Authority lacks the legal authority to permit construction in protected guzara forests or National Parks, as its statutory mandate requires prioritizing forest conservation and wildlife preservation. The Court directed the Capital Development Authority to investigate illegal housing societies within the National Park, reaffirming that the protection of the environment and the National Park remains a paramount obligation for all state authorities.
Questions settled- Can a subordinate court issue an injunction to restrain the execution of a Supreme Court order?
- Does the Galiyat Development Authority have the legal authority to permit construction within protected guzara forests?
- Is the transfer of a statutory board between ministries subject to the Rules of Business, 1973?
- What is the scope of the duty of subordinate courts under Article 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Bilal Haque and others vs Kamran Ali Afzal, Secretary, Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others2024 SCP 274, 2024 SCMR 1749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns contempt proceedings and administrative oversight regarding the protection of the Margalla Hills National Park. The core legal questions involve whether the Cabinet Secretary acted in conflict of interest regarding the arbitrary removal of the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board Chairperson, and whether the transfer of the Board to the Interior Division violated the Rules of Business, 1973. The Court held that the government’s reversal of the removal notification and the transfer memorandum addressed the immediate administrative impropriety. However, the Court initiated contempt proceedings against Luqman Ali Afzal for willfully breaching a court undertaking to vacate an illegal restaurant and for scandalizing the Court. The judgment establishes that administrative decisions regarding the allocation of business between government divisions must possess a rational nexus to the division's functions, serve the public interest, and strictly adhere to mandatory consultation requirements under the Rules of Business, 1973. Additionally, the Court emphasized that environmental protection mandates and judicial orders cannot be subverted by the exercise of familial influence or administrative manipulation.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of government business between divisions require prior consultation with the Cabinet Division under the Rules of Business, 1973?
- Can a party be held in contempt for initiating a media campaign to scandalize the Court after giving a voluntary undertaking to vacate illegal premises?
- Is the allocation of business between government divisions subject to the requirement of a rational nexus with the division's functions and public interest?
- Bilal Ghori vs The State2024 SHC 462 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Bilal Ghori, who was accused in an FIR of administering poisonous Gulab Jaman to the deceased, leading to her death. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail, particularly given that the investigating officer recommended challaning the case under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl bis-sabab, whereas the Magistrate inserted Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and considering the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that a tentative assessment of the record revealed a delay in lodging the FIR, conflicting opinions on the applicable penal provisions, and a need for broader interpretation of bail laws to protect fundamental liberties. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that at the pre-arrest bail stage, a deeper appreciation of merits cannot be undertaken, and where offenses fall within the non-prohibitory clause and a case of further inquiry is made out, pre-arrest bail ought to be granted.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the investigating officer recommends an offense falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a deeper appreciation of the merits of the case be undertaken at the bail stage?
- Whether the insertion of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by a Magistrate in disagreement with the police report warrants further inquiry regarding the applicability of bail?
- Bijar alias Bijli and others vs The State2024 YLR 2619 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the consolidated judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for offences relating to assaulting police officers, firing, and possession of weapons. The core legal questions involved the credibility of police ocular testimony, glaring contradictions in prosecution evidence, delays and defects in malkhana entries, and the benefit of doubt arising from police enmity and botched investigations. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to patent falsity, lack of independent public witnesses, unverified ballistic reports, flawed malkhana records, and deliberate improvements in witness statements. The court established that police witnesses are not on a higher pedestal and must be scrutinized with the same rigor as ordinary witnesses, reiterating that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, who is regarded as the favorite child of the law.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of police officials is to be treated on a higher pedestal than that of ordinary witnesses in criminal trials?
- Does an unexplained delay in sending weapon casings and firearms for ballistic examination undermine the prosecution case?
- Whether material improvements in a police witness's subsequent statements under Section 162 Cr.P.C. render their testimony unreliable?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to associate independent public witnesses from a populated locale where the incident allegedly occurred?
- Bibi Zainab and others vs Haji Muhammad Hassan and others2024 YLR 157 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Criminal Quashment Petition challenged a trial court order that refused to reopen a criminal case following a decade-old acquittal based on a compromise. The petitioners, who were minor legal heirs of the deceased at the time of the original compromise, sought to reopen the proceedings, claiming they were excluded from the settlement. The core legal question was whether a criminal case, finalized by a compromise and subsequent acquittal, could be reopened via a quashment petition after a significant lapse of time. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it could not reopen a case on its merits under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a final acquittal. The court established the principle that inherent powers under Section 561-A cannot be utilized as a substitute for the statutory remedy of an appeal against an acquittal. Consequently, the petitioners were directed to pursue their grievances through the appropriate legal channel of an appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a criminal case be reopened under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a final acquittal based on a compromise?
- Is a quashment petition the appropriate legal remedy for challenging an acquittal after the lapse of ten years?
- Does the High Court have the authority to reopen a case on merits under its inherent powers after a compromise has been accepted by the trial court?
- Bibi Imdad Khatoon and others vs Syed Bahar Ali Shah and others2024 CLC 1957 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-19Read full judgment →
- Bibi Hajira and others vs The Secretary Health, Government of Balochistan2024 PLC (C.S.) 1109 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated constitutional petitions challenging the recruitment process for various government posts in District Ziarat. In one petition, candidates alleged irregularities in the recruitment committee's composition and selection process, while in the other, candidates sought the issuance of appointment orders following their recommendation by the committee. The core legal questions were whether the recruitment committee was validly constituted and whether the petitioners acquired a vested right to appointment merely by appearing for tests and interviews. The Court held that the recruitment committee was lawfully constituted by the relevant government department, and the petitioners failed to substantiate allegations of bias or malice. Furthermore, the Court held that appearing for a test and interview does not create a vested right to employment, as such processes are not final. The Court affirmed the principle that executive policy matters regarding recruitment committees are generally beyond judicial interference absent proof of illegality or fundamental rights violations, and that mere selection or recommendation does not entitle a candidate to a writ of mandamus for appointment.
Questions settled- Does appearing for a test and interview create a vested right to government employment?
- Can a High Court interfere in the executive policy regarding the constitution of a recruitment committee?
- Is a candidate entitled to a writ of mandamus for appointment merely based on a recommendation by a recruitment committee?
- Behram Jakhro and 7 others vs The State2024 MLD 1359 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses the confirmation of pre-arrest bail granted to eight applicants booked in FIR No. 203 of 2022 under sections 365-B, 364, 344, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Thatta. The core legal question revolved around whether the applicants were entitled to confirmation of their pre-arrest bail in light of unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions between the habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the FIR, improvements in the abductee's statement, and the absence of misuse of bail concessions. The court held that the contradictions, delayed FIR, and lack of incriminating material created sufficient reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the applicants. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, reaffirming the principle that at the bail stage only a tentative assessment of evidence is permissible, and bail once granted should not be recalled without proof of misuse of liberty or existence of statutory grounds for cancellation.
Questions settled- Whether contradictions between a habeas corpus application and the subsequent FIR create grounds for further inquiry warranting pre-arrest bail?
- What are the established principles for the cancellation or recalling of bail granted to an accused?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the applicants have not misused the concession of bail and no incriminating material is recovered?
- To what extent is a deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the bail stage?
- Begum Tasneem Akhtar (deceased) through L.Rs vs The learned Addl.2024 LHC 956 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
- Begum Shahida Ahmad and 3 others vs Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Lahore and others2024 YLR 2766 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-08Read full judgment →
- Beaconhouse School System, Okara vs Commissioner Sahiwal Division, etc.2024 LHC 280, 2024 PLJ Lahore 207, 2024 PLD Lahore 451 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
- Beaconhouse School System, Okara vs Commissioner Sahiwal Division, etc2024 LHC 430 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
- Bazed Khan and others vs Land Acquisition Collector and others2024 PLD Peshawar 176 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
- Benazira Bibi vs The State etc2024 PHC 306, 2025 PLD Peshawar 62 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-10Read full judgment →
- Bayazid Khan Kharoti vs Chief Secretary Government of Balochistan Civil2024 PLC (C.S.) 246 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the Government of Balochistan granting various perks and privileges, including security, transportation, and fuel allowances, to retired Chief Secretaries and their widows for life. The petitioner contended that these benefits lacked statutory backing and imposed an unjustifiable burden on the public exchequer. The core legal question was whether the executive government could grant such extensive post-retirement benefits to a specific class of civil servants without legislative authority or cabinet approval. The Court held that the impugned notifications were illegal, discriminatory, and arbitrary, as they lacked a basis in law or regulation and were issued without the mandatory approval of the Provincial Cabinet. Emphasizing that public funds cannot be utilized for personal bounties without clear statutory authorization, the Court ruled that the notifications were invalid. The judgment reaffirms the principle that executive actions granting financial benefits must be rooted in law and, following the dictum in Mustafa Impex, must receive proper cabinet approval to be constitutionally valid.
Questions settled- Can the provincial government grant post-retirement perks and privileges to civil servants without specific statutory backing?
- Is a notification issued by a provincial department valid if it lacks the approval of the Provincial Cabinet?
- Does the granting of exclusive perks to a specific class of civil servants violate the principles of non-discrimination and equality?
- Basit Ali vs Higher Education Commission (HEC) and others2024 MLD 1892 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-30Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed vs Mst. Haj Iran Bibi and 4 others2024 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 9 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-02-16Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed and others vs The State2024 YLR 1766 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Model Criminal Trial Court/1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, convicting several appellants for murder and related offences. The core legal questions involve evaluating ocular versus medical evidence discrepancies, the impact of delayed post-mortem and medical certificates, the effect of non-recovery of the identification light source, and the consistency of specific weapon attributions. The Sindh High Court held that minor discrepancies or delays do not vitiate direct ocular evidence when eye-witnesses are injured, consistent, and corroborated by medical testimony. The court affirmed the convictions of appellants assigned direct fatal roles with corroborative medical findings while acquitting those whose attributed firing was ineffective or contradicted by medical evidence regarding weapon type. The key principles laid down include that medical evidence is opinion testimony that cannot override consistent, reliable eyewitness accounts, and that minor investigative lapses do not create reasonable doubt if the prosecution case is otherwise solidly established.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence are sufficient to discard trustworthy eyewitness testimony?
- Does a delay in issuing medical certificates or post-mortem examination inherently vitiate the prosecution case?
- Whether an accused can be convicted for specific weapon injuries when medical reports show injuries inconsistent with the weapon attributed?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence of an injured eyewitness?
- Bashir Ahmed and 5 others vs The State2024 YLR 1436 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction of six appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for their alleged involvement in a police encounter, possession of illicit weapons, and explosive substances. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's claims of fabrication and enmity. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court emphasized that in cases of police encounters, the reliance on police testimony alone requires extreme caution, especially when independent witnesses were available but not associated. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce official records of the alleged communication between the police and the SSP, and failed to establish the safe custody of recovered explosives or examine the bomb disposal expert. The court reiterated that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted all appellants, ruling that the prosecution's evidence was riddled with lacunas and failed to meet the required standard of proof.
Questions settled- Does the failure to examine a bomb disposal expert regarding recovered explosives vitiate the prosecution's case?
- Is the testimony of police officials alone sufficient to sustain a conviction in an encounter case without corroboration from independent witnesses?
- What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of recovered explosive materials?
- Can an accused be acquitted if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt regarding their guilt?
- Bashir Ahmed (deceased) through his L.Rs., etc vs Nazir Ahmad, etc2024 SCP 275, 2024 SCMR 1984, 2024 PLJ SC 845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns a dispute among brothers regarding the validity of property transfers and the enforceability of a family settlement. The core legal question was whether a family settlement, recorded in a memorandum, required registration and attestation to be binding, and whether the power of attorney used to transfer the disputed land was validly revoked. The Supreme Court held that the family settlement was a bona fide arrangement aimed at resolving disputes and fostering family harmony, and thus, it was binding on the parties. The Court ruled that such settlements, when acting as memoranda of oral agreements, do not require compulsory registration under the Registration Act, 1908. Furthermore, the Court found the alleged revocation of the power of attorney to be a fabrication. The key principle laid down is that family settlements are governed by special equity, prioritizing the preservation of family peace over technical legal requirements applicable to strangers, and that courts should uphold them when made in good faith, provided they are not tainted by fraud or undue influence.
Questions settled- Does a memorandum recording an oral family settlement require compulsory registration under the Registration Act 1908?
- Are the strict precautionary principles governing an agent's transfer of a principal's property applicable to transfers made pursuant to a bona fide family settlement?
- Can a family settlement be upheld by a court even if it lacks formal attestation by two witnesses?
- Is a family settlement binding on parties even if it is not registered?