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.
- Mst. Maryam D/o (Late) Dr. Fazlullah Yousufani vs Muhammad Ayub Jatoi2023 SHC 646 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Maryam and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary2023 PLJ Karachi 37 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Liaqat Sultana and others vs Mst. Mumtaz Tahawar and others2023 MLD 1405 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Liaba Rauf vs Pakistan Medical & Dental Council and others2023 IHC 322, 2024 MLD 2019 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Lalarukh Saqlain and 3 others vs Punjab Health Department through Secretary and 4 others2023 YLR 222 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kishwar Sultana vs Nizam-Ud-Din (Deceased), through Legal Heirs2023 CLC 1349 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khursheed Begum (deceased) through Legal Heir vs Abdul Wahid2023 LHC 4367, 2024 PLJ Lahore 10, 2024 YLR 493 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khan Bibi (widow) and 4 others vs Bibi Rahima and 5 others2023 PLD Balochistan 40 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khadijaa Akhtar vs Dawood Family Takaful2023 CLD 456 · Insurance Appellate Tribunal Punjab · 2023-03-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khadija and another vs The Controlling Authority Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education_Chief Minister Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 4 others2023 YLR 2261 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khadija & another vs The Controlling Authority, BISE, etc2023 PHC 161 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaneeza Bibi and 4 others vs Sabir Hussain and 3 others2023 PLD Lahore 380 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaneez Fatima, etc. vs Ghulam Hussain (deceased) through Legal2023 LHC 6276, 2025 YLR 302 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaneez Batool vs Allah Bukhsh and another2023 LHC 2290, 2024 CLC 630 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jehan Pasa vs The State2023 MLD 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jamti Khatoon Mastoi vs The State2023 YLR 684 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, which imposed a penalty of one-fourth of the surety bond amount on the applicant for failing to produce an accused. The core legal question was whether a surety remains liable for forfeiture of a bond under Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when the accused was initially detained in another jurisdiction and was subsequently produced by the surety before the trial court. The High Court held that the impugned order was unjustified. The Court reasoned that the surety had fulfilled her obligation by informing the trial court of the accused's detention and later producing the accused, who surrendered to the court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the subsequent acquittal of the accused in the main case rendered the imposition of the penalty unwarranted. The Court established that once an accused is produced and submits to the court's jurisdiction, the surety is absolved of the legal liability to produce the accused, rendering the forfeiture of the bond unnecessary and legally unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does a surety remain liable for bond forfeiture under Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the accused is eventually produced before the trial court?
- Is a surety absolved of the liability to produce an accused if the accused surrenders to the jurisdiction of the court?
- Can a trial court impose a penalty on a surety for non-production when the accused was in custody in another jurisdiction?
- Mst. Jameela Bibi (Deceased) through LRs vs Mst. Fatima Bibi (Deceased)2023 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the limitation period applicable to an application for the restoration of a civil revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's restoration application, incorrectly applying the thirty-day limitation period prescribed for appeals under Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the thirty-day limitation period for appeals or suits applies to civil revisions, or if a different period governs. The Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1908 does not contain a specific article governing the restoration of civil revisions dismissed in default. Consequently, the Court ruled that the residuary provision, Article 181 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, applies, which provides a limitation period of three years from the date the right to apply accrues. The Court set aside the impugned order, noting that the petitioner's application was filed well within this three-year period. The Court also highlighted the legislative anomaly regarding the disparate limitation periods for restoring suits and appeals versus civil revisions.
Questions settled- What is the limitation period for filing an application for the restoration of a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does Article 168 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to the restoration of civil revisions?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs applications for which no specific period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule?
- Mst. Jameela Bibi (decd) through LRs vs Mst. Fatima Bibi (decd) through LRs2023 SCP 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed an application for the restoration of a civil revision on the ground of limitation. The civil revision had been dismissed for non-prosecution, and the subsequent restoration application was filed after a delay. The High Court had erroneously applied Article 168 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, which governs appeals, to the civil revision. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework and held that since the Limitation Act, 1908 does not provide a specific article for the restoration of a civil revision dismissed in default, the residuary provision, Article 181 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies. Consequently, the period of limitation for such an application is three years, not thirty days. The Court set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and noted the legislative anomaly regarding the disparate limitation periods for restoring suits, appeals, and civil revisions, suggesting this distinction warrants future consideration.
Questions settled- What is the limitation period for filing an application for the restoration of a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does Article 168 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to the restoration of a civil revision?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs applications for which no specific period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule?
- Mst. Irshad Bibi vs Samiullah Niazi and others2023 YLR 1385 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Irshad Bibi vs Ghulam Mustafa, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 550 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Iqbal Bibi and others vs Additional District Judge and others2023 PLD Lahore 157 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ilyas Akhtar vs Province of Punjab and others2023 YLR 2441 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hussan Ara (Widow) vs Mst. Surayya Begum Deceased (through Legal2023 CLC 663 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hayat Begum vs Rehman Malik and others2023 PLD Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Haseena Mai vs The State and 04 others2023 LHC 7438, 2024 PCRLJ 1443 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon a witness after the prosecution had closed its evidence and the accused’s statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were recorded. The core legal questions were whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon the witness and whether recording an accused's statement via video link caused prejudice. The Court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the application, noting that the proposed testimony was redundant as other witnesses had already testified to the relevant facts. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to explain why the witness was not cited earlier despite his availability. Regarding the video link, the Court held that the complainant failed to demonstrate any prejudice, and the accused raised no objection. The principle laid down is that the power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is discretionary and reserved for evidence essential to a just decision, not for filling gaps in the prosecution's case after evidence has concluded.
Questions settled- Can a court allow the summoning of a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the prosecution has closed its evidence and the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has been recorded?
- Is the testimony of a witness essential for the just decision of a case if the facts they are intended to prove have already been established by other prosecution witnesses?
- Can a complainant challenge the recording of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 via video link if the accused themselves raises no objection?
- Mst. Haleema Bibi vs The Additional Chief Secretary Fata, Fata Secretariat, Warsak Road, Peshawar and others2023 PHC 110 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Hajra Bibi (deceased) through her legal heirs vs Bashir Ahmad2023 LHC 322 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hajira Bibi alias Seema and others vs Abdul Qaseem and another2023 SCMR 870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for abetment in the murder of the deceased under sections 302(b)/34 read with section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to death, which was subsequently altered to imprisonment for life by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had successfully established the essential ingredients of abetment and conspiracy against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in the absence of evidence regarding the time, date, and place of the conspiracy, and whether the WhatsApp voice messages relied upon constituted sufficient proof of the offence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational ingredients of abetment under section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, such as instigation, engagement in conspiracy, or intentional aid. The court reaffirmed the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt and directing their immediate release.
Questions settled- What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offence of abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does mere communication or conversation through electronic messages without proof of active complicity constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy and abetment?
- Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the exact time, date, and place of an alleged conspiracy entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- What is the extent of proof required to sustain a conviction for abetment under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the principal crime is committed by another?
- Mst. Hajira Bibi @ Seema and others vs Abdul Qaseem and anotherPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 93 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the abetment of murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to establish the essential ingredients of abetment, specifically conspiracy and intentional aid, to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary elements of abetment, as the evidence—primarily WhatsApp voice messages—did not demonstrate active complicity or criminal intent. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of the doubt. The Court reaffirmed that abetment requires active participation and specific intent; mere concurrence or negligence is insufficient for culpability. Furthermore, it established that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, and if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt, the benefit of that doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace.
Questions settled- What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offence of abetment under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does mere concurrence in the criminal acts of another without active participation constitute the offence of abetment?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt if only a single circumstance creates reasonable uncertainty regarding their guilt?
- Can a conviction for abetment be sustained based solely on speculative evidence regarding the existence of a conspiracy?
- Mst. Hajira Bibi @ Seema and Mst. Shaina Hameed, Abdul Qaseem vs Abdul Qaseem and another, The State2023 SCP 47 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for the abetment of murder under Section 302(b)/34 read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was modified on appeal by the High Court from death to imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had successfully established the essential ingredients of abetment—namely instigation, engagement in a conspiracy, or intentional aid—beyond a reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence and WhatsApp audio transcripts presented. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution failed to prove any overt act or conclusive evidence satisfying the requirements of abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that the liability of an abettor requires active complicity and fulfillment of specific statutory ingredients, and any reasonable doubt arising from insufficient or speculative evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offense of abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the liability of an abettor is co-extensive with that of the principal offender in the absence of conclusive proof of conspiracy?
- Does the mere existence of voice messages on a social media application constitute sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for abetment to murder?
- When is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt in a criminal trial?
- Mst. Gulshan W/O Aashiq Ali vs Province Of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 896 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal, The State vs The State, Mst. Gulnaz2023 LHC 6219, 2024 PCRLJ 1054 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of her husband and four children. The prosecution’s case rested on an alleged extra-judicial confession and the recovery of weapons. Upon review, the Lahore High Court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the ocular account provided by the complainant and witnesses was unreliable, as they were chance witnesses who failed to provide a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene during the early hours. Furthermore, the Court determined that the extra-judicial confession was suspect and lacked independent corroboration. The recovery of weapons was also deemed tainted due to procedural lapses and the lack of forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime. Emphasizing that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution even when an incident occurs within the accused's home, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession without strong independent corroboration?
- What is the legal status of a chance witness who fails to provide a plausible reason for their presence at the crime scene?
- Does the occurrence of a crime within the accused's home shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused?
- Is the recovery of incriminating articles valid if the recovery witnesses are the same as the ocular witnesses?
- Mst. Gul Baha vs G.M. Pakistan Railways, etc.2023 LHC 2839, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 811 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to allow family pension to the petitioner, who is the unmarried sister of a deceased civil servant. The core legal question was whether an unmarried sister is entitled to family pension under the relevant service rules when prior civil court orders and succession certificates in her favor have attained finality, and how preferential rights of family members are structured. The court held that since the deceased's sons were over twenty-four years of age and thus disentitled, the petitioner as the surviving unmarried sister fell within the preferential order under the applicable rules and was entitled to family pension. The court laid down the principle that under Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, family pension is governed by a strict hierarchical order of beneficiaries without requiring prior nomination by the deceased employee, and findings in final succession proceedings regarding entitlement are binding.
Questions settled- Whether an unmarried sister of a deceased civil servant is entitled to family pension under the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963?
- Does Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 require nomination by the deceased employee for the grant of family pension?
- Can sons above the age of twenty-four claim family pension under Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963?
- Mst. Ghazala vs The State and another2023 SCMR 887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a woman accused of murdering her husband in connivance with a co-accused, sought leave to appeal against the Peshawar High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C. The Court held that while the offence of Qatl-i-amd falls within the prohibitory clause, the first proviso places women, children under sixteen, and sick or infirm persons in a category where bail is the rule and refusal is an exception. The Court clarified that for such protected categories, bail can only be refused if there is a likelihood of the accused absconding, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence. Finding that the prosecution failed to establish any of these exceptions, and noting that the strength of incriminating evidence is not a relevant consideration for discretionary bail under the proviso, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted bail.
Questions settled- Whether a woman accused of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. is entitled to bail as a matter of rule?
- What are the specific exceptions that justify the refusal of bail to a woman accused under the first proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.?
- Is the availability of incriminating material a relevant consideration when exercising discretionary power to grant bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.?
- Does the first proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. equate the power of the court to grant bail in prohibitory cases with its power in non-prohibitory cases for specific classes of persons?
- Mst. Ghazala vs The State & another2023 SCP 66 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court order that denied her post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 325, 200, 201, 182, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a female accused is entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the first proviso places female, minor, and sick or infirm accused persons on equal footing with those accused of non-prohibitory offences, making the grant of bail the rule and its refusal the exception. The Court reiterated that bail for such accused persons can only be refused under three established exceptions: likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence. Finding no such exceptions applicable, and clarifying that the presence of incriminating material is irrelevant to this discretionary analysis, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail.
Questions settled- How does the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the court's discretion to grant bail to a female accused in offences falling under the prohibitory clause?
- What are the established legal exceptions that justify the refusal of bail to an accused covered by the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the availability of sufficient incriminating material connecting the accused to the offence a relevant consideration when exercising discretionary power to grant bail under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mst. Ghazala vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court order denying post-arrest bail to a female petitioner accused of murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a woman, was entitled to bail despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Supreme Court held that under the first proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., bail for women, minors, and infirm persons is the rule, and refusal is the exception, regardless of the offence's category. The Court clarified that the existence of incriminating material is not a relevant consideration for bail under this proviso. The Court established that bail may only be refused if there is a likelihood of the accused absconding, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence. Finding no such risks in the petitioner's case, the Court allowed the appeal, granted bail, and set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing that the trial court retains the power to cancel bail if the concession is misused.
Questions settled- Is the existence of incriminating material a relevant consideration for granting bail to a woman accused under the first proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the first proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, make the grant of bail to a woman accused a rule rather than an exception?
- What are the specific exceptions that justify the refusal of bail for a woman accused under the first proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mst. Fizza and 3 others vs Fida Hussain and another2023 YLR 494 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2022-06-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farzana W/O Ajad Ali & Ors, Allah Ditta S/O Muhammad Ramzan vs2023 SHC 598 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farida Bibi etc. vs Judge Family Court etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 154, 2024 MLD 145 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farasat Zareen vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 IHC 418 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farah Naz and another vs Province of Sindh through Board of Revenue2023 PLJ Karachi 45 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Falak Shehnaz and another vs Mst. Farah Deeba and others2023 PLJ Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Faheeman Begum (deceased) through L.Rs and others vs Islam-ud-2023 SCP 241, 2024 PLJ SC 75, 2024 PLJ SC 326, 2023 SCMR 1402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of lower courts regarding a disputed Tamleek (gift) mutation. The appellants (plaintiffs) sought to invalidate a 1981 mutation, alleging fraud and forgery, asserting the donor had not appeared before revenue authorities. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the plaintiffs had locus standi to challenge the mutation long after the donor's death. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court properly exercised its revisional power to correct the lower courts' misreading of evidence. The Court affirmed that where a donor does not challenge a mutation during their lifetime, heirs lack locus standi to challenge it on vague allegations of fraud. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that allegations of fraud require specific pleadings under Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that a suit filed fifteen years after the mutation was clearly time-barred.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to reverse concurrent findings of lower courts in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Do legal heirs have locus standi to challenge a mutation on allegations of fraud if the donor did not challenge it during their lifetime?
- Is a specific description of fraud required in the plaint under Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mst. Erum Latif vs Imtiaz Khan and others2023 CLC 252 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Dania Bibi D/O Malik Mukhtiar vs The State2023 SHC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused woman charged under sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, for the alleged dissemination of intimate video clips. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail pending trial, given the nature of the offences and her gender. The court held that while the offence under section 21 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, is non-bailable, it falls within the non-prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the prosecution's evidence regarding the actual dissemination of the material required further inquiry, as the alleged device was never recovered. The court laid down the principle that, pursuant to the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and constitutional protections, women are entitled to greater concessions in bail matters, making bail the rule and refusal the exception, unless specific risks like abscondence or tampering with evidence are clearly established.
Questions settled- Does the dissemination of intimate videos fall under the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Is the grant of bail the rule for women under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Can bail be granted where the prosecution's evidence regarding the dissemination of electronic material requires further inquiry?
- Does the court have the authority to impose conditions on bail, such as prohibiting internet activity or public statements?
- Mst. Chand Bibi (Widow) and 6 others vs Azad Jammu And Kashmir2023 PLD High Court (AJK) 51, 2023 PLJ AJ&K 106 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bisma Noureen vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2023 CLC 110 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bibi Ayesha etc vs Muhammad Farooq etc2023 PHC 275 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Bharai Bibi and others vs Muhammad Arif and another2023 [M] CLR 1 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bhalan and Four Others vs Muhammad Asif Sakaria and Five Others2023 SHC 1056, 2024 MLD 1160 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bhagan Bibi, etc vs Addl. District Judge, etc2023 LHC 5886 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Beenish vs Additional District Judge etc2023 LHC 975 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Batool & others vs Abdul Sattar and others2023 SHC 250 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bashira Bibi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others2023 CLC 1008 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bano Hasham and others vs New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd.2023 SHC 812, 2024 CLD 781 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bakhtawar alias Bakhi Shahzadi Larik vs The State2023 MLD 731 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by Mst. Bakhtawar alias Bakhi Shahzadi Larik seeking post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after her bail plea was refused by the trial court. The applicant was booked for the alleged recovery of 1150 grams of Charas. The core legal question is whether the applicant makes out a case for further inquiry to warrant the grant of post-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, observing that she is an old and infirm lady, there are no independent witnesses to the incident, the case has been challaned, and there is no apprehension of tampering with evidence. The court laid down the principle that the presence of mitigating factors such as the accused being an old and infirm woman, lack of independent corroboration, and completion of the challan without risk of evidence tampering collectively bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether an old and infirm female accused is entitled to post-arrest bail in a narcotics case when no independent witness is associated with the recovery?
- Does the completion of investigation and submission of the challan negate the apprehension of tampering with evidence for the purpose of bail?
- When does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mst. Bakht Begum vs Afarin Khan and 12 others2023 CLC 763 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Azka Asif vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation & others2023 SHC 46 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aziz Bano through Lrs, Shahzad Aziz vs Khalifa Aziz Mian through Lrs, Mst Aziz Bano through Lrs. and others2023 SHC 62 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Ayesha vs Muhammad Niaz Khan & 02 others2023 PHC 303 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Asma Abdul Waris vs State Bank of Pakistan and 4 others2023 PLJ Lahore 510 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Asma Abdul Waris vs State Bank of Pakistan & 04 others2023 LHC 1286, 2023 PLJ Lahore 510, 2024 PLC 170, 2024 CLD 956 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra Court Appeal challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition against the State Bank of Pakistan's refusal to interfere in her termination from a commercial bank. The core legal question is whether the State Bank of Pakistan, as a regulatory authority, possesses the statutory jurisdiction under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, to intervene in human resource and service matters of employees of banking companies. The Lahore High Court held that the State Bank of Pakistan is merely a regulatory body whose statutory powers—including those under Section 11 and Section 41 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962—do not extend to adjudicating service disputes, termination matters, or terms and conditions of employment of private bank employees. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that jurisdiction cannot be conferred where the law does not provide it, and that statutory functions must be exercised strictly in the manner prescribed.
Questions settled- Does the State Bank of Pakistan have the jurisdiction under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 to entertain service matters and HR disputes of employees of commercial banks?
- Whether Section 11 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 empowers the State Bank of Pakistan to regulate the terms and conditions of service of bank employees.
- Can jurisdiction be conferred on an authority by parties or through the doctrine of discrimination when the law does not expressly provide for it?
- What is the extent of the regulatory powers of the State Bank of Pakistan under Section 41 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 regarding internal bank management?
- Mst. Asiya vs The State and another2023 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition, filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, challenged a Peshawar High Court order denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner, accused of abetment in a murder case under sections 302/34/297/201/203 PPC. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence for abetment, the inconclusive nature of Call Data Records, the entitlement to bail due to a suckling infant, and the application of the rule of consistency given a co-accused's bail. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted post-arrest bail. The Court held that Call Data Record is not conclusive evidence without concrete material, the welfare of a suckling child is incompatible with jail life, and the rule of consistency dictates similar treatment for co-accused on similar footing. The petitioner's case fell within Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. for further inquiry and also under the first proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. as a woman.
- Mst. Asiya vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition arising out of an order passed by the Peshawar High Court whereby post-arrest bail was denied to the petitioner, a woman accused of abetment in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 34, 297, 201, and 203 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the ingredients of abetment were prima facie satisfied, the evidentiary value of Call Data Records without concrete supporting material, the applicability of the rule of consistency given that a co-accused had been granted bail, and the entitlement of a female accused with a suckling child to post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the High Court's order, granting bail to the petitioner. The court held that where essential ingredients of abetment are missing, Call Data Records are inconclusive, a co-accused has already been released, and the accused is a woman having an infant child in jail, her case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether Call Data Records alone serve as conclusive evidence to establish the guilt of an accused for the purpose of bail in the absence of concrete corroborative material?
- Does the detention of a suckling infant in jail with an accused mother justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether an accused woman whose case falls under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is entitled to bail when the essential ingredients of abetment are prima facie missing?
- Can a petitioner claim the benefit of the rule of consistency when a principal co-accused has already been granted post-arrest bail?
- Mst. Aniza and another, Nasir Mehmood vs Additional District Judge and 022023 LHC 2744, 2023 PLJ Lahore 923 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Anayatan Bibi and another vs Maqsood Ahmad and others2023 PLJ Lahore 259 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amna Majeed vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary Primary2023 PLC (C.S.) 620 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a civil servant invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an internal transfer order within the same district. The core legal question is whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a service matter concerning terms and conditions of service in light of the constitutional bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, notwithstanding allegations of mala fide, want of jurisdiction, or violation of internal policies. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable, holding that Article 212 contains a non obstante clause giving it precedence over Article 199, thereby completely ousting the jurisdiction of all other courts in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants, including transfers. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional ouster under Article 212 is impregnable, absolute, and cannot be read down or bypassed on grounds of mala fide, coram non judice, or absence of jurisdiction, as exclusive jurisdiction vests in the Administrative Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a service matter involving the transfer of a civil servant in the face of the bar contained in Article 212?
- Does the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution apply when an order is challenged on the grounds of mala fide, coram non judice, or lack of jurisdiction?
- Whether Article 212 of the Constitution takes precedence over Article 199 due to its non obstante nature?
- Can a civil servant bypass the Administrative Tribunal and invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court during the statutory waiting period for a departmental representation?
- Mst. Amna and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secratery, Ministry of Interior etc2023 PHC 382, 2024 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amman Gul vs Learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi and 2 others2023 LHC 590 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amman Gul vs Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi and 2 others2023 CLC 1300 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses multiple transfer applications concerning the execution of decrees passed by Family Courts in Punjab. The core legal question concerns the proper procedure for transferring execution petitions when a judgment debtor resides or holds property outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court that passed the decree. The Court examined the conflict between invoking Section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and utilizing the execution mechanisms provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that Family Courts are not distinct entities from Civil Courts regarding execution, as Section 13(4) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, places them on an equal footing. Consequently, the Court ruled that parties should move the respective executing courts directly for the transfer of execution petitions, rather than relying exclusively on the transfer powers under Section 25-A of the Act. The Court affirmed that Family Courts possess the inherent powers of an executing court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, distinguishing execution proceedings from original adjudication.
Questions settled- Does a Family Court have the authority to transfer execution proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a Family Court considered a Civil Court for the purpose of executing decrees?
- Must execution petitions be transferred under Section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, or can they be transferred under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the Family Court have the power to adopt the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to facilitate the execution of decrees?
- Mst. Alia Shameem vs National Bank of Pakistan and others2023 CLD 359 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Adeela Gul, Abid Zai, Muhammad Akmal Shaikh vs Inspector General2023 SHC 463 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Adalat Bibi vs Mst. Socha Bibi and others2023 CLC 1518 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
- Ms. Zeeshan Zia Raja vs Dr. Nadeem Kiani and 8 others2023 YLR 2104 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
- Ms. Tanvir Sharafat, through her attorney vs The Commissioner Inland2023 PTD (Trib.) 1788 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-01-21Read full judgment →
- Ms. Syeda Asia Rizvi d/o Syed Nasir Hussain Rizvi vs The Federation of2023 SHC 383, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 364 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the entitlement of a divorced daughter to a share of her deceased father's family pension alongside an unmarried sister. The petitioner, a divorced daughter of a retired Pakistan Railways employee, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to distribute 50% of the family pension to her, arguing that she is entitled to a share under current government policy. The core legal question was whether, under the prevailing rules, a divorced daughter is entitled to family pension benefits when an unmarried daughter is also alive and receiving the pension. The Court examined various Office Memoranda issued by the Finance Division, specifically noting that the rules had been liberalized over time to include divorced daughters. The Court held that the government's policy, particularly the Office Memorandum dated 19.06.2018, explicitly allows for the division of pension among surviving unmarried, widowed, and divorced daughters. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to divide the family pension equally between the petitioner and her unmarried sister, affirming that pension rights are fundamental and must be administered according to the updated, liberalized regulatory framework.
Questions settled- Is a divorced daughter of a deceased civil servant entitled to a share of family pension in the presence of an unmarried daughter?
- Does the Office Memorandum dated 19.06.2018 issued by the Finance Division entitle a divorced daughter to family pension benefits?
- Can a government department deny family pension to a divorced daughter based on outdated Office Memoranda when newer policies have been issued?
- Ms. Rifat Usto, House No. 05, Street No. T, Khayaban-e-Rahat, Phase-VI, DHAPTCL 2023 CL. 337 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2023-01-04Read full judgment →
- Ms. Nusrat Fareed vs Haji Ahmed Mujahid, Ary Films & TV Productions (Pvt)2023 SHC 411, 2024 PLD Sindh 89 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-15Read full judgment →
- Ms. Gulnar vs Muhammad Yousuf Barakzai and 5 others2023 PLD Sindh 96 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-01Read full judgment →
- Ms. Ghazala Ali vs Sikandar Ramzan Ch.2023 IHC 394, 2024 PCRLJ 909, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 618 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges an order of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in a case involving allegations of forgery and fraud related to the transfer of property. The core legal question is whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion to acquit the respondents when the prosecution's evidence, specifically the handwriting expert's report, failed to substantiate the allegations of forgery and when the litigation appeared to be a continuation of a long-standing family dispute. The Court held that the acquittal was justified as the charge was groundless and there was no probability of conviction. The Court emphasized that the prosecution's evidence, including the verified handwriting expert report, negated the claims of forgery. Furthermore, the Court established that courts must curb frivolous and vexatious litigation by imposing exemplary costs to prevent the abuse of the judicial process, protect the court's time, and ensure that genuine grievances are prioritized, consistent with the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
Questions settled- Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution evidence is groundless?
- Under what circumstances can a court take judicial notice of documents from other litigation proceedings?
- Is the imposition of exemplary costs a valid judicial tool to curb frivolous and vexatious litigation?
- Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include the power of the court to penalize vexatious litigants?
- Ms. Fozia Naseem vs Higher Education Commission, Islamabad through Secretary and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S) 876 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an advertisement for the post of Associate Professor (BPS-20) at Government College University, Faisalabad, arguing the university’s eligibility criteria conflicted with Higher Education Commission (HEC) guidelines. The core legal questions concerned the university's authority to set higher qualifications than HEC minimums and whether the petition was maintainable given the significant delay in filing. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that while HEC sets minimum criteria, educational institutions may prescribe higher qualifications. Furthermore, the Court ruled the petition was barred by the principle of laches and estoppel. The petitioner waited 22 months to challenge the advertisement, during which the recruitment process advanced and rights accrued to other candidates. The Court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction is equitable; thus, relief may be refused even against potentially void orders if the petitioner is guilty of laches or acquiescence. The principle established is that equity aids the vigilant, not the slumbering, and a petitioner cannot challenge a recruitment process at its final stage after failing to act with due diligence, as doing so would cause injustice to other participants.
Questions settled- Can a university prescribe eligibility criteria for faculty appointments that are higher than the minimum criteria set by the Higher Education Commission?
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the ground of laches even if the impugned order is alleged to be void?
- Does a petitioner's failure to challenge a recruitment advertisement within a reasonable time create an estoppel against them?
- Ms. Akash Iltaf vs Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad and 5 others2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 156 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2023-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a Senior Auditor in the Pakistan Railways Accounts Department, approached the Federal Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, challenging the deferment of her promotion to Assistant Accounts Officer and the inaction of the departmental appellate authority on her departmental appeal. The core legal question concerned the statutory duty of the departmental appellate authority to decide a civil servant's departmental appeal objectively, with reasons, and after granting a personal hearing, as mandated by the civil service laws. The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal is a substantive and vested statutory right which must be decided through a speaking order addressing all raised grounds, including allegations of discrimination. The Tribunal laid down the principle that failure of an appellate authority to consider a departmental appeal and record reasons violates the principles of natural justice, Section 24(A) of the General Clauses Act 1897, and Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, necessitating the remand of the matter for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a statutory right to a personal hearing and a reasoned decision on a departmental appeal?
- Whether an appellate authority is legally bound to record reasons while deciding a departmental appeal under the civil servants rules?
- What are the consequences under the Service Tribunals Act when a departmental appellate authority fails to decide a pending departmental representation?
- Is the duty to provide reasons for an official order coextensive with Section 24(A) of the General Clauses Act 1897?
- Mrs. Zulekha and another vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Education2023 CLC 954 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Taranum Sabih vs Sindh Building Control Authority through Director2023 CLC 456 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Tanvir Kazi vs Moin us Samad Khan & another2023 SHC 1168 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Tanveer Rafique vs Government of The Punjab through Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 580 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) which denied the petitioner, a retired Headmistress, promotional benefits based on a Supreme Court judgment. The core legal question was whether the DPC could reject a claim for benefits—initiated by the petitioner while in service—by applying subsequent legislative amendments retrospectively and mischaracterizing the claim as one for antedated promotion. The Court held that the DPC’s decision was vitiated by a misdirection in law and fact. It found that the petitioner had diligently pursued her claim since 1995, long before the 2005 amendments to the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, were enacted. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Department could not rely on retrospective application of law or its own administrative inertia to deny legitimate entitlements. The key principle laid down is that administrative decisions based on erroneous factual premises or the retrospective application of law to pending claims are subject to judicial review. The Court set aside the DPC’s order and directed the implementation of the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding the petitioner's service benefits.
Questions settled- Can a government department apply a statutory amendment retrospectively to deny a claim for benefits initiated before the amendment's enactment?
- Does the doctrine of 'error of fact' allow for judicial review of an administrative decision based on a mistaken factual premise?
- Can an administrative authority deny a civil servant's claim for benefits by relying on its own delay and inertia in processing the application?
- Is a claim for promotional benefits initiated during service barred by subsequent legislation prohibiting promotion after retirement?
- Mrs. Shamshad Butt vs Deputy Commissioner C.D.A., Islamabad and 32023 CLC 304 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-24Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Samina Yaqub through constituted attorney and 2 others vs Jalil2023 YLR 2499 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Saira Fatima Sadozai vs D.I.G. Investigation and others2023 PCRLJ 427 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Investigation, Lahore, transferring the investigation of a criminal case after the challan had been submitted to the trial court and charges framed. The core legal question was whether an investigation can be legally transferred or re-investigated post-challan, and what procedural requirements govern such an order. The Court held that while there is no absolute legal embargo on transferring investigations after the submission of a challan, the authority must exercise its power judiciously. The Court established that the opinion of the District Standing Board under Article 18A of the Police Order, 2002, is merely advisory and not binding; the decision-maker must independently examine the facts and record express, valid reasons in writing for the transfer. Because the impugned order relied blindly on the Board's recommendation without articulating specific reasons or identifying deficiencies in the previous investigation, it was set aside. The matter was remanded for a fresh, speaking order, emphasizing the necessity of judicial transparency and proper notification to the trial court when retrieving case files.
Questions settled- Can an investigation be transferred or re-investigated after the challan has been submitted to the trial court?
- Is the opinion of the District Standing Board binding on the Head of District Police when deciding on a transfer of investigation?
- What are the requirements for a valid order transferring an investigation under Article 18A of the Police Order, 2002?
- Is it necessary to notify the trial court when retrieving police case files for the purpose of re-investigation?
- Mrs. Rubina Amjad vs Javaid Shafique Saddiqui and 9 others2023 PLJ Islamabad 21 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Nuzhat Irfan vs Karachi Development Authority & others2023 SHC 5 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-05Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Noor Aisha widow of late Ghulam Qadir Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary2023 F.S.C 9, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 22, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 808 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Shariat Petition was filed by the mother of a deceased civil servant, seeking a share of his pensionary funds, asserting that such funds constitute Tarka (inheritance) under Islamic law. The core legal question was whether pensionary benefits qualify as Tarka and whether the Federal Shariat Court possesses the jurisdiction to grant relief in personam in such disputes. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that pensionary benefits do not fall within the definition of Tarka and are instead governed by specific departmental pensionary rules. The Court reaffirmed the principle that an employer retains the liberty to define "family" for the purpose of entitlement to such benefits. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a Shariat Petition is only maintainable under Article 203-D of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, if it challenges a specific law or rule as repugnant to the Holy Quran and Sunnah. As the petitioners failed to identify any such repugnant law and sought relief in personam, the petition was found non-maintainable.
Questions settled- Do pensionary benefits constitute 'Tarka' (inheritance) under Islamic law?
- Does the Federal Shariat Court have jurisdiction to grant relief in personam in pension disputes?
- What is the requirement for maintaining a Shariat Petition under Article 203-D of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Mrs. Naveeda Nisa vs Province of The Punjab and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 150 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the District Accounts Officer to process the petitioner's pension papers following her voluntary retirement. The core legal question was whether the amendment to Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which mandated that voluntary retirement requires both 25 years of service and the attainment of 55 years of age, applied to the petitioner whose retirement order was issued on August 24, 2021. The petitioner argued that the amendment, enacted via an Act on October 29, 2021, should not apply retrospectively. The court held that the Ordinance introducing these conditions was promulgated on May 3, 2021, and was continuously extended without a break until the Act's passage. Consequently, the law was in force at the time of the petitioner's retirement. The court affirmed that while legislation affecting substantive rights generally does not operate retrospectively, the continuous validity of the Ordinance meant the amended conditions were applicable to the petitioner's case. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to meet the statutory age requirement.
Questions settled- Does an amendment to the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 regarding voluntary retirement apply to a civil servant whose retirement order was issued after the promulgation of the initial Ordinance?
- Can an Ordinance that is extended without break until the enactment of an Act be considered continuously in force for the purpose of determining the applicable law?
- Does the principle against retrospective legislation apply when the law in question was already in force via an Ordinance at the time of the event?
- Mrs. Najeeba Touqeer, Muhammad Shakil and another vs Muhammad2023 IHC 402 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mrs. Kaneez Fatima vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others2023 PLD Lahore 324 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, widow of a deceased High Court Judge, challenged the withdrawal of a government assistance package previously extended to her. The core legal question was whether the widow of a High Court Judge who died in service is entitled to benefits under the Prime Minister’s revised assistance package, or if her entitlements are restricted solely to the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997. The Court held that Paragraph 29 of the said Order allows for additional privileges beyond those specified in Paragraph 28, enabling judges and their spouses to claim benefits applicable to officers of the rank of Secretary to the Government of Pakistan. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to the assistance package. The judgment affirmed that once a benefit has been granted and acted upon, it creates a vested right. Applying the principle of locus poenitentiae under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court held that the executive cannot unilaterally rescind such benefits without lawful justification, thereby setting aside the impugned office memorandums that sought to withdraw the petitioner's entitlements.
Questions settled- Whether the widow of a High Court Judge is entitled to benefits under the Prime Minister's revised assistance package in addition to those provided under the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the executive from unilaterally withdrawing a benefit once it has been granted and acted upon?
- Do Office Memorandums issued by the government have the force of law regarding terms and conditions of service?
- Does Paragraph 29 of the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997, allow for privileges beyond those explicitly listed in Paragraph 28?
- Mrs. Afreen Begum vs Malir Cantonment Board2023 SHC 1190 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-18Read full judgment →
- Mr. Moeez Ahmed Khan vs Application in respect of Property Dispute2023 SCP 347, 2024 PLD 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an application regarding a property dispute and a complaint addressed to the Human Rights Cell of the Supreme Court, involving allegations examined by a former Chief Justice in chambers. The core legal question was whether the Chief Justice or a judge in chambers could summon private parties, activate law enforcement agencies, or exercise judicial powers outside open court and without statutory or constitutional backing. The Supreme Court held that neither the Chief Justice nor any judge in chambers can pass orders beyond what is provided for in the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and that proceedings conducted outside judicial forums, including those by the Human Rights Cell, possess no legal effect and are ultra vires the Constitution. The key principles laid down are that the Human Rights Cell has no independent judicial or coercive powers and merely serves to process complaints for consideration in accordance with law, and that administrative or chamber proceedings cannot infringe upon fundamental rights to due process and a fair trial.
Questions settled- Can the Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court in chambers summon parties and direct investigations outside of open court proceedings?
- Does the Human Rights Cell of the Supreme Court possess the legal jurisdiction to perform judicial functions or issue binding orders and summons?
- How are matters received by the Human Rights Cell required to be processed under the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
- Mr. Anjum Khalid Malik, Islamabad vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Cant2023 ATIR 7 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-09-14Read full judgment →
- Mqhsin Hassan, Computer Instructor, Government Pilot High School, Rawalakot vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu Kashmir through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education and 7 others2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 41 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his transfer from Government Pilot High School, Rawalakot, to Government Boys High School, Papynar, Trarkhal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a civil servant, possessed a vested right to remain posted at a specific station for an indefinite period, and whether his transfer violated the terms and conditions of his service after he had served within the municipal limits of Rawalakot for over five years. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the transfer was lawful and did not infringe upon the petitioner's service rights. The Court affirmed the principle that under Section 9 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, a civil servant has no vested right to remain at one station indefinitely and is obligated to serve wherever posted by the government in the exigency of service. Consequently, the Court found no legal question of public importance warranting the grant of leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to remain posted at a particular station for an indefinite period?
- Is a transfer order of a civil servant challengeable if it does not violate the terms and conditions of service?
- Is a civil servant liable to be transferred to any station under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976?
- Mozammil Iqbal vs Deputy Director (HR) Punjab Emergency Service, Lahore2023 PLC (C.S.) 979 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the petitioner's removal from service as a Medical Technician with the Punjab Emergency Service. The core legal question was whether the respondent authority could impose the major penalty of removal from service based on unsatisfactory performance reports and allegations of misconduct under Rule 4(5) of the Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007, without conducting a regular inquiry as mandated by the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The Court held that the impugned removal orders were unsustainable due to procedural illegality. It established that Rule 4(5) does not dispense with the requirement for a regular inquiry under the PEEDA Act, 2006. The Court emphasized that when an employee is stigmatized by allegations of misconduct, a regular inquiry is mandatory unless explicitly dispensed with by the competent authority under Section 5(1)(a) of the PEEDA Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the removal orders, reinstated the petitioner, and allowed the department to initiate de-novo proceedings in accordance with the law, while denying back benefits due to the procedural nature of the relief.
Questions settled- Can an employee be removed from service for misconduct under Rule 4(5) of the Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007 without a regular inquiry?
- Does the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 have overriding effect over the Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007?
- Is a regular inquiry mandatory before imposing a major penalty of removal from service when allegations of misconduct are involved?
- Can back benefits be denied to an employee reinstated solely due to procedural defects in disciplinary proceedings?