Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Hamid Mukhtar vs Federal Ministry of Energy, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 221 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Hamid Mehmood Shah Khagga vs Bank Al-Falah Limited through President2023 CLD 1464 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ali vs The State and another2023 YLR 634 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-16
  post-arrest bailmurdertentative assessmentprohibitory limbspecific rolecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged with murder under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was directly named in the FIR with a specific role of firing at the deceased, was entitled to bail at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, observing that the FIR was promptly lodged, the petitioner was specifically attributed with the fatal firing, and crime empties were recovered from the scene. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the record is permissible, and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed. The Court concluded that the case fell within the prohibitory limb of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the material prima facie connected the accused to the offence. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, with the caveat that these tentative observations should not prejudice the trial court's final determination.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused specifically named in a promptly lodged FIR with a fatal role entitled to bail?
  • Does the recovery of crime empties from the scene of occurrence constitute a relevant factor for tentative assessment in a bail application?
  • Does a case falling within the prohibitory limb of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically preclude the grant of bail?
  • Are observations made by the High Court during bail proceedings binding on the trial court during the final adjudication of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ullah Marble Factory through Proprietor vs Federation of Pakistan2023 YLR 2082 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
• Hamad vs The State and another2023 IHC 178 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-31
  post-arrest bailchild sexual abusefurther inquiryprotective orderschild rightscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 252/2023 registered under sections 377-B and 506(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shamas Colony, Islamabad, for allegedly sexually abusing a minor. The core legal questions involved whether a case for further inquiry was made out under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the nature of the allegations and lack of medical evidence, and the extent to which protective measures and preventative orders can be imposed alongside bail in child sexual abuse cases. The Islamabad High Court held that a ground for further inquiry was made out under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, while laying down important principles regarding child protection, victim safety, and the issuance of restrictive and protective measures drawing inspiration from international conventions and the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case of further inquiry is made out for post-arrest bail when no medical examination of the minor victim is conducted and the allegation involves acts less than an attempt?
  • Can bail be granted in non-bailable and non-compoundable offences solely on the basis of a compromise or compounding statement by the complainant?
  • What protective and preventative measures can a court pass alongside the grant of bail in child sexual abuse cases under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali vs The State2023 SHC 870 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-11
  criminal acquittal appealspecial leave to appealpresumption of innocencefalse FIRscope of interferenceprocedural competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Criminal Acquittal Appeal filed by the appellant against the acquittal of the private respondent in proceedings initiated under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the trial court's acquittal was based on improper assessment of evidence and whether the appeal itself was procedurally competent given the appellant's failure to seek special leave to appeal. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the appellant failed to obtain special leave to appeal as required by Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the trial court's acquittal was arbitrary, perverse, or based on a misreading of evidence. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is narrow and limited, as the presumption of innocence is doubled upon acquittal. Interference is only justified if the judgment is perverse, artificial, or suffers from grave legal or factual errors, which was not established in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal against an acquittal competent if the appellant fails to obtain special leave to appeal as required by Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in a judgment of acquittal?
  • Must a notice be issued to a proposed accused before initiating proceedings under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali and another vs Secretary Education and Literacy Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 3 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1291 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-11
  primary school teachersrecruitment policyeligibility criteriaconsent orderbinding precedentstare decisislaches
  Summary & questions settled

  The subject constitutional petitions were filed by petitioners aggrieved by the inaction of respondents in issuing fresh letters for their medical fitness test following a 2007 recruitment advertisement for Primary School Teachers. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to appointment and medical testing despite failing to secure the mandatory 60 percent passing marks in the written test as per the Recruitment Policy, and whether a prior consent judgment relied upon by the petitioners constituted a binding precedent. The court held that the petitions were devoid of merit because the petitioners failed to meet the mandatory eligibility threshold of 60 percent marks, their claims were barred by laches, and a consent order does not lay down a binding question of law under Article 189 or 201 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that consent orders and decisions based on compromise do not constitute binding judicial precedents or enunciations of law under the doctrine of stare decisis.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a consent order passed by a court has a binding precedential value under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does a candidate who fails to achieve the minimum required marks under a recruitment policy acquire a vested right to appointment?
  • Whether constitutional petitions filed after a delay of four to five years are hit by laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Hajra Javaid Makhdoom vs Muhammad Tehmas Nasir, etc.2023 LHC 6869, 2024 PCRLJ 1081, 2024 PLJ Lahore 362 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-19
  writ petitionacquittalSection 249-A Cr.P.C.criminal revisionMuslim Family Laws Ordinancealternate remedyappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed to challenge orders passed by lower fora arising from a private complaint under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, where the accused was acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and a subsequent criminal revision was dismissed. The core legal question was whether an order of acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. in a complaint case is amenable to criminal revision or if the appropriate remedy is an appeal via special leave under Section 417(2) Cr.P.C., and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against such acquittal. The Lahore High Court held that an order of acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be challenged through a criminal revision due to the statutory bar where an appeal lies, and that a constitutional petition under Article 199 is not maintainable when an alternate specific remedy of appeal is provided by statute. The court laid down that acquittals under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. must be assailed through the specific appeal mechanism provided under Section 417(2), Cr.P.C. rather than by revision.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal revision competent against an order of acquittal passed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against an order of acquittal when a specific alternate remedy of appeal is provided by statute?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy to challenge an order of acquittal passed in a private complaint under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Umar Lakhany through legal heirs vs Mst. Khatoobai Noor Muhammad2023 PLD Sindh 23 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
• Haji Tooti vs Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others2023 PTD 1617, 2023 SCP 270, 2023 SCMR 1980 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-26
  Customs Act 1969Redemption fineConfiscation of conveyancesDelegated legislationFederal Board of RevenueQuasi-judicial functionsUltra viresSmuggled goods
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals under the Customs Act 1969 arose from judgments concerning the confiscation of conveyances transporting smuggled goods and the option of paying a redemption fine under section 181 of the Act. The core legal question was whether notifications issued by the Federal Board of Revenue under the provisos to section 181, fixing redemption fines or restricting options, are ultra vires the proviso to section 223 of the Act, which bars administrative orders from interfering with quasi-judicial functions of customs officers. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and held that the orders issued by the Board under section 181 constitute delegated legislation having the force of law, whereas section 181 and section 223 deal with distinct powers. The Court laid down that statutory powers conferred on the Board via provisos to section 181 operate as delegated legislation affecting third-party rights, while section 223 governs internal administrative and supervisory directions, meaning the former do not conflict with the latter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order made by the Federal Board of Revenue under the provisos to section 181 of the Customs Act 1969 is ultra vires the proviso to section 223 of the Act?
  • Does the power exercised by a customs officer under section 181 of the Customs Act 1969 constitute a quasi-judicial function?
  • Are the orders, instructions, and directions issued by the Federal Board of Revenue under section 223 of the Customs Act 1969 legislative or administrative in character?
  • Do notifications issued under the provisos to section 181 of the Customs Act 1969 conflict with the bar against interference contained in the proviso to section 223 of the Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Shinkai vs Abdul Shakoor & others2023 SCP 328, 2024 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-19
  Arbitration Act 1940Section 32 bar to suitenforcement of awardrule of courtSection 17 Arbitration Actaward acted uponmaintainability of suitmoulding of relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan regarding the maintainability of a civil suit seeking enforcement of an unfiled arbitration award. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration of title and possession over two acres of land, asserting that an arbitral award had been rendered in his favour to satisfy a debt, and that the defendants had partially acted upon it by handing over possession. The main legal question was whether a civil suit lies to enforce an arbitration award that was neither filed under Section 14 nor made a rule of the court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 explicitly bars any suit questioning or determining the existence, effect, or validity of an arbitration award or agreement, including suits for enforcement. The Court clarified that the exception where parties voluntarily accept and act upon an unfiled award was not proven factually in this case. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1940 bar a civil suit instituted to enforce an arbitration award?
  • Can a party file a civil suit based on an award made without court intervention if the award has been voluntarily accepted and acted upon by the parties?
  • Can a court mould relief and grant recovery of money in an incompetent suit that is barred by Section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1940 when such relief was not prayed for?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Saif-ur-Rahman Shaheen vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan through Attorney General of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2023 F.S.C 3, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 9, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 478 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-10-06Read full judgment →
• Haji Niaz Badshah and others vs Haji Mir Akbar and others2023 PLJ Peshawar 166, 2024 CLC 109 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Niaz Badshah and others vs Hai Mir Akbar and others2023 PHC 179 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yunis (Deceased) through legal heirs and another vs Mst.2023 PSC 68 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  limitation periodsale mutationactual denial of rightrevisional jurisdictionoverseas Pakistanisillegal dispossessionconcurrent findings of factburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil appeals and a petition for leave to appeal regarding a property dispute involving overseas Pakistanis and the validity of a 1989 sale mutation. The core legal questions were whether a suit challenging a sale mutation is time-barred when the original seller failed to contest it during their lifetime, and whether the High Court properly exercised its revisional jurisdiction in reversing concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1908, as the cause of action accrued upon the 'actual denial' of rights—specifically the transfer of possession in 1989—rather than upon subsequent revenue entries. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed in revision without demonstrating perversity or misreading of evidence. Furthermore, the Court established that the burden of proof to rebut the presumption of truth attached to long-standing revenue entries rests on the challenger. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the concurrent decisions of the trial and appellate courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repetition of an adverse entry in a subsequent Jamabandi provide a fresh cause of action for a suit for declaration?
  • When does the period of limitation commence for a suit challenging a sale mutation where the beneficiary has taken physical possession of the property?
  • Can a High Court in its revisional jurisdiction reverse concurrent findings of fact without identifying a misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Does the withdrawal of a suit challenging a sale mutation bar the plaintiff from re-agitating the same claim in subsequent proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Moosa Khan (Late) through Legal Heirs & others vs Nazia Bibi & others2023 SHC 1036, 2024 CLC 1785 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Maqbool Ahmad vs Nadar Khan and others2023 PHC 608 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan Zaman vs Zabee Ullah etc.2023 PHC 376 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Ibrahim through Special Attorney and 6 others vs Abdul Qadir Lakhani2023 PLD Sindh 11 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-13
  interlocutory mandatory injunctionstatus quo antedispossessionex parte injunctionreceiver applicationpossession disputeappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal impugned interlocutory orders passed by a learned Single Judge in a suit for rendition of accounts, damages, and injunctions, whereby mandatory directions were issued to replace locks, seal apartments, and utilize a court staff member instead of the Nazir to execute the orders ex parte. The core legal question concerned the legal standards, circumstances, and evidentiary thresholds required for granting an interlocutory mandatory injunction, particularly one that alters possession or establishes a new state of things without notice to affected occupants. The Sindh High Court held that interlocutory mandatory injunctions are extraordinary equitable reliefs that should only be granted in rare and exceptional circumstances to restore the status quo existing at the date of the suit, rather than to establish a new state of things, and require high assurance and clear undisputed material rather than a solitary statement. The Court laid down that such orders cannot dispossess persons without hearing them, and restored possession to the rightful key holders while setting aside the flawed mandatory directions.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a court grant an interlocutory mandatory injunction?
  • Whether an ex parte mandatory injunction can be issued to alter possession without hearing affected parties?
  • Is a mandatory injunction permissible to establish a new state of things different from that existing on the date the suit was instituted?
  • What evidentiary threshold is required before a court can order the replacement of locks and sealing of property on an interlocutory application?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Basharatullah vs State Life Insurance2023 CLD 1215 · Insurance Appellate Tribunal Punjab · 2023-06-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Arshad Mehmood vs Farrukh Imtiaz Khokhar, etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 397 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-11
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationabetmentcriminal conspiracymurderperversitymala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, which granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case involving Sections 302, 109, 148, 149, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the lower court's grant of pre-arrest bail was perverse, given the incriminating material collected by the police connecting the respondent to the conspiracy and abetment of the crime. The High Court held that the impugned order was perverse as it ignored the prima facie evidence, including call data records and travel history, linking the respondent to the actual perpetrators. The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of mala fide for false implication, which was absent in this case. Furthermore, the court reiterated that abetment and criminal conspiracy are serious offences, and the grant of bail should not impede investigation or recovery of evidence. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and cancelled the respondent's pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when there is prima facie incriminating material connecting the accused to the crime?
  • What constitutes a perverse order justifying the cancellation of pre-arrest bail by a superior court?
  • Is the absence of mala fide a critical factor in determining the eligibility for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the offence of abetment and criminal conspiracy warrant a different approach to bail compared to the main offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Arshad Mehmood vs Farrukh Imtiaz Khokhar, etc2023 LHC 20, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 438, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 261, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 397, 2024 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-11
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationabetmentcriminal conspiracyperversitymala fidemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, which granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 109, 148, 149, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the lower court’s grant of bail was perverse, given the prosecution's evidence linking the respondent to the conspiracy and abetment of the crime. The High Court held that the impugned order was indeed perverse as it failed to consider the incriminating material—including Call Data Records and travel history—connecting the respondent to the crime and ignored the absence of any demonstrated mala fide by the complainant. The Court reaffirmed that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of mala fide and should not be granted when evidence suggests the accused's involvement in a serious offense like murder or when the investigation requires the accused's participation for the recovery of incriminating evidence. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition, set aside the lower court's order, and cancelled the respondent's pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be cancelled if the lower court's order is found to be perverse?
  • Is proof of mala fide a prerequisite for the grant of pre-arrest bail in criminal cases?
  • Does the existence of incriminating material connecting an accused to a conspiracy justify the cancellation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Should the court consider the need for recovery of evidence when deciding on a petition for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Akbar & others vs Jehangir & others2023 PHC 418, 2024 CLC 890 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-21Read full judgment →
• Haider Builders & Developers vs Parkash Kumar & Other2023 SHC 1080, 2024 CLC 672 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
• Hafsa Habib Qureshi, Taha Shah and others vs Amir Hamza and others2023 SCP 388, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-17
  MDCATsuo motu jurisdictioneducational autonomyjudicial restraintexamination integritywrit jurisdictionmedical education
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns petitions challenging a Peshawar High Court judgment that upheld the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government's decision to annul and retake the Medical College Admission Test (MDCAT) due to widespread cheating allegations. The core legal questions addressed were whether the High Court improperly exercised suo motu jurisdiction and whether the provincial government possessed the authority to order a retake of the examination. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that while the High Court lacks suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, the matter was effectively treated as a writ petition. Crucially, the Court established that in the absence of specific statutory provisions within the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022, the provincial government is competent to cancel and retake the MDCAT under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to preserve the integrity of the medical profession. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the principle of judicial restraint, emphasizing that courts should defer to educational institutions regarding academic autonomy and internal disciplinary matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the provincial government have the authority to cancel and retake the Medical College Admission Test in the absence of specific regulations?
  • To what extent should courts interfere in the internal academic and disciplinary affairs of educational institutions?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Riaz Ahmad vs Province of Punjab etc2023 LHC 311 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-06
  Constitutional PetitionOwn Pay and ScaleService TribunalTerms and Conditions of ServiceArticle 212Civil ServantJurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order withdrawing the petitioners' posting as Executive Engineer (XEN) on an "Own Pay and Scale" (OPS) basis, following a determination that they lacked the requisite engineering qualifications. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against an OPS posting order, or if such a matter fell within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that postings and transfers, including those on an OPS basis, constitute "terms and conditions of service" for civil servants. Consequently, under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the High Court’s jurisdiction is expressly barred, as such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court further clarified that the Service Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate questions of "eligibility," distinct from "fitness." Accordingly, the petition was dismissed for lack of maintainability, affirming that administrative courts retain exclusive authority over service-related disputes regardless of allegations of mala fides or ultra vires actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a posting or transfer on 'Own Pay and Scale' (OPS) basis constitute a term and condition of service for a civil servant?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 in matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the 'eligibility' of a civil servant for a particular post?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Zaman Khan through Legal Heirs vs Member Board of Revenue and others2023 MLD 1700 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Yaqoob vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary2023 IHC 338, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 1, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 492 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-07
  succession certificateTarkaservice benefitsPrime Minister Assistance Packagefamily pensionconcurrent findingswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, father of a deceased Federal Education department teacher, challenged the concurrent decisions of the lower courts which held that service benefits such as the Prime Minister Assistance Package, Benevolent Fund, and other post-demise grants belonged exclusively to the respondent widow and did not constitute 'Tarka' (heritable estate). The Islamabad High Court examined the distinction between 'Tarka' and 'non-tarka' service benefits. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that 'Tarka' comprises only those financial benefits that an employee was entitled to claim or withdraw during their lifetime. Conversely, grants, concessions, or compensation packages that mature or are offered by the employer only after the employee's death do not form part of the heritable estate and are distributable solely to the nominees or family members specified under the relevant service rules. Finding that the father was not an eligible beneficiary for these post-demise grants under the applicable rules, and noting the limited scope of interference in concurrent findings under writ jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal distinction between 'Tarka' (heritable estate) and 'non-tarka' service benefits of a deceased government employee?
  • Are post-demise grants and compensation packages, such as the Prime Minister Assistance Package, inheritable by all legal heirs under Shariah?
  • Can a father of a deceased government employee claim a share in service benefits that mature only after the employee's death if the service rules restrict beneficiaries to the spouse or children?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts in its writ jurisdiction under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Ali Raza vs Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 573 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Ali Raza vs Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, etc2023 LHC 1304 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-30
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderfundamental rightsreasonable groundsconstitutional petitionillegal detentionjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges a preventive detention order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, under section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, against thirteen persons. The petitioner contended that the detention orders were issued without any supporting material, violating fundamental rights and statutory requirements. The core legal questions involved the legality of preventive detention based on mere source reports without tangible material, the standard of 'reasonable grounds', and the High Court's jurisdiction to review preventive detention under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Lahore High Court held that preventive detention cannot be sustained on bald assertions or conjectural presumptions without tangible supporting evidence and strict compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards. The Court ruled that 'reasonable grounds' require credible evidence and a bona fide belief going beyond mere suspicion. The detention orders were declared arbitrary and without lawful authority, setting them aside and ordering the immediate release of the detenus.

  Questions settled

  • Whether preventive detention can be ordered solely on the basis of a source report without tangible material or supporting evidence?
  • What constitutes 'reasonable grounds' for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in cases of preventive detention?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, to review orders of preventive detention before the matter is decided by a Review Board?
  • Whether failure to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu within the prescribed statutory period renders the detention order illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah and 2 others vs Dr. Munir Ahmed and another2023 CLC 1510 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
• Hafeez-ur-Rehman vs Chief Election Commissioner, Through Secretary, Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2023 PHC 237 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hafeez Ullah Shahid vs Asj/Jop, etc2023 LHC 3920, 2024 MLD 951 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-05Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ullah Lehri and another vs National Highway Authority and others2023 IHC 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-21Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ullah Khan vs The State etc.2023 PHC 398 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-13Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ali vs Ghafoor Ahmed and 2 others2023 MLD 1518 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-10
  local government electionreserved seatsworker definitionnomination papersconstitutional petitionelection eligibilitystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Returning Officer and the Appellate Authority, which had permitted respondent No.1 to contest the local government election for a seat reserved for a "Worker" in Municipal Corporation, Turbat. The core legal question was whether a candidate possessing substantial assets, including land and commercial properties, and having a history of political office, meets the statutory definition of a "Worker" under the Balochistan Local Government Act, 2010. The High Court held that the respondent did not qualify as a "Worker" despite his claims of employment, as his affluent status contradicted the legislative intent behind reserved seats. The court emphasized that special seats for workers and peasants are designed to ensure representation for subjugated classes who might otherwise be excluded by privileged groups. Allowing wealthy individuals to occupy these seats constitutes a fraud upon the statute. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the removal of the respondent's name from the list of validly nominated candidates for the reserved seat.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate possessing significant assets and land qualify as a 'Worker' for the purpose of contesting a reserved local government seat?
  • Is the inclusion of an affluent individual in a seat reserved for workers considered a fraud upon the statute?
  • What is the underlying legislative purpose of providing special representation for peasants and workers in local government institutions?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ahmed and others vs The State and others2023 YLR 2503 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-22
  murder referencebenefit of doubtchance witnessocular evidencemedical evidenceFIR delaycriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and assault, alongside a murder reference and an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the ocular account, medical evidence, and the timing of the FIR. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the FIR was registered with unexplained delay, suggesting post-event fabrication. Furthermore, the ocular testimony was severely undermined by medical evidence—specifically, the absence of corresponding external injuries for the alleged gunshot wounds and the mischaracterization of wound types. The Court reiterated that the testimony of "chance witnesses" whose presence is unproven, and witnesses whose credibility is compromised by material falsehoods, cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, emphasizing that the benefit of any doubt arising from such lacunae must accrue to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR, coupled with evidence of record tampering, entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account of the incident is fundamentally contradicted by the medical evidence?
  • Is the testimony of a 'chance witness' admissible if they fail to provide a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Can evidence generated by modern devices, such as mobile call data records, be admitted to disprove the presence of a witness at the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafas Khan and 3 others vs Mohammad Ali2023 MLD 57 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-10-28Read full judgment →
• Hadiya Majeed and another vs Azad Government of The State of Jammu &2023 PLJ AJ&K 132 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Habibullah vs The State2023 YLR 2117 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-08
  pre-arrest bailQatl-i-Amdcapital punishmentmala fideextraordinary remedynon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Habibullah, who is charged with the murder of Mst. Zohra Bibi under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient grounds, including mala fide intent or ulterior motive by the complainant, to warrant the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail in a case involving a capital offense. The court held that the applicant failed to establish a case for pre-arrest bail, noting that he was specifically named in the FIR for causing a fatal hatchet blow to the deceased. The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect against the abuse of legal process and is not a substitute for post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is charged with a non-bailable, capital offense and there are reasonable grounds connecting them to the crime, and no mala fide on the part of the prosecution is shown, the court must decline pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute for post-arrest bail in criminal cases?
  • Does the mere fact that a complainant is an absconder in a separate FIR constitute sufficient grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • What are the essential requirements for the grant of pre-arrest bail in cases involving capital punishment?
  • Should an accused charged with a non-bailable offense be released on bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe they committed the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah and 2 others vs The State2023 YLR 359 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-22
  criminal appealcompromiseqatal-e-amddiyatminor legal heirsacquittalcompoundable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b) read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside other offences under the same code, and sentencing them to life imprisonment and compensation. During the pendency of the appeal, one appellant passed away resulting in the abatement of proceedings against him, while the legal heirs of the deceased and the remaining two appellants reached a genuine compromise. Applications under section 345(2) and section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were filed seeking permission to compromise and for the acquittal of the surviving appellants. The trial court verified the compromise. The High Court examined the compromise, noted that major legal heirs waived their rights, and addressed the Diyat share of minor legal heirs through a transfer of agricultural land and an undertaking to deposit the remaining cash balance. Finding that the ingredients of section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were not attracted, the court accepted the compromise, ordered the deposit of the remaining Diyat for the minors, and acquitted the surviving appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court allow a compromise between the legal heirs of a deceased and the accused under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the provisions of section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply when a genuine compromise is reached between the parties in a murder case?
  • How is the share of minor legal heirs in Diyat safeguarded during a compromise in a criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ur-Rehman vs Ghulam Muhammad (Late) through Legal Heirs and others2023 CLC 788 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-08-20Read full judgment →
• Habib-ur-Rahman and ten others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance at Islamabad and others2023 PHC 616 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Habib Ur Rehman @ Mama vs The State2023 SHC 520 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-04Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah vs The State2023 MLD 1961 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-29
  gender-based violencecircumstantial evidenceburden of proofdomestic murderabscondencecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife, who was found dead in their shared bedroom. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone, given the absence of eyewitnesses and the prosecution's failure to produce the crime weapon in court. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the life sentence. The court held that in cases of domestic violence occurring within a private, shared space, once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case—supported by evidence of prior abuse, the accused's presence at the scene, and subsequent abscondence—the burden shifts to the accused to provide a reasonable, logical explanation. The court ruled that technical lapses by investigators, such as the non-production of case property, do not automatically necessitate acquittal when the circumstantial evidence, viewed holistically, overwhelmingly proves guilt. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the judiciary must adopt a gender-sensitive lens when adjudicating domestic violence cases, rejecting absurd defense pleas that ignore the reality of the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-production of the crime weapon in court automatically entitle an accused to an acquittal in a murder case?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the accused in a domestic murder case where the victim is found in a shared private space?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence in the absence of eyewitnesses?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce case property always invalidate a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Metropolitan Modaraba Management Company (Private) Limited2023 CLD 464 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. thr. its Attorney vs Mehboob Rabbani2023 SCP 158, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 891, 2023 SCMR 1189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-04
  wrongful dismissalbreach of contractgeneral damagesspecial damagesmaster and servantnatural justiceaudi alteram partemlimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenged the judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding a decree for damages in favor of the Respondent for wrongful dismissal from service by the Appellant-Bank. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for damages for wrongful dismissal was maintainable against non-statutory service rules, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and whether general and special damages were properly proved and awarded under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872. The Supreme Court held that the High Court, exercising original civil jurisdiction, was competent to entertain a suit for breach of contract, that the limitation period for filing the suit commenced upon the final rejection of the review petition, and that the dismissal was unlawful and discriminatory as it violated the principles of natural justice and internal service rules without assigning reasons. The Court laid down that wrongful dismissal resulting in reputational and financial stigma naturally entitles an employee to general and special damages under the principles of restitutio in integrum and Section 73, provided the loss is direct and foreseeable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit for damages arising out of a breach of employment contract is maintainable when internal service rules are non-statutory?
  • When does the limitation period begin to run for filing a suit for damages for wrongful dismissal where departmental reviews are pursued?
  • What is the distinction between general and special damages in a claim for breach of contract under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Whether dispensing with an enquiry under internal service rules without assigning reasons constitutes a violation of natural justice and amounts to wrongful dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Ayub-Ul-Hassan Khokhar and others2023 PLD Lahore 47 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Amin Soap & Oil Industries (Pvt) Ltd & Others2023 SHC 1160, 2024 CLD 563 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-14Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited through Manager vs Messrs Sajid Cloth House through Legal Heirs and another2023 CLD 1481 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• Gunvor Singapore Pte, Ltd. through authorized signatory vs Pakistan LNG2023 CLC 1422 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-13Read full judgment →
• Gunvor Singapore Pte Ltd vs Pakistan LNG Limited & another2023 SHC 16 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-13Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Hussain, etc vs Abdur Rasool etc2023 LHC 1628 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-20Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad Khan Advocate vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through its2023 PHC 291 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad (deceased) through his legal heirs vs Rab Nawaz etc2023 LHC 5745, 2024 MLD 995 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-07Read full judgment →
• Gullab alias Aro vs The State2023 PCRLJ 958 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05
  illegal weaponsafe custodysafe transmissionballistic expertpolice witnessesindependent corroborationbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad, which convicted the appellant under Section 23(1)(A) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case was that the appellant was apprehended during a police patrol and found in possession of an unlicensed .30-bore revolver. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether the prosecution had established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered weapon to the ballistic expert, and whether the testimony of police officials alone, without independent corroboration, was sufficient for conviction. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the weapon, as the Malkhana register entry was not produced, the Incharge Malkhana was not examined, and the police constable who transported the weapon was not called. Additionally, there was an unexplained nine-day delay in sending the weapon. The Court reiterated that while police testimony is admissible, where the case hinges solely on it, independent corroboration is necessary, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's failure to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of a recovered weapon to the ballistic expert is fatal to a conviction under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013?
  • Can a conviction be safely sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of police officials when independent witnesses were available but not associated?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending a recovered weapon to the ballistic expert for forensic analysis?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if there is only a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Gull Din vs The State through P.G. Punjab and another2023 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-17
  narcotic substancesbaildirectory ruleprocedural compliancetrial delaygovernment analyst
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the prosecution's failure to comply with Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which mandates that seized narcotics be dispatched for analysis within seventy-two hours of seizure. In this case, the narcotics were dispatched after seventeen days. The Supreme Court, relying on established precedents, held that Rule 4(2) is directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, non-compliance with a directory rule does not automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail. The Court further observed that the principle established in Tallat Ishaq v. National Accountability Bureau (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 112), regarding the effect of non-compliance with directory provisions, applies equally to cases under narcotic laws. As the petitioner's counsel expressed satisfaction with the prosecution's commitment to proceed expeditiously with the trial, the petition was disposed of with directions to the trial court to avoid granting unnecessary adjournments to the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Is Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to comply with a directory rule automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Does the principle enunciated in Tallat Ishaq v. National Accountability Bureau regarding directory provisions apply to cases under narcotic laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Zaman vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector Gwadar & others2023 SCP 357, 2024 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-08
  land acquisitioncompensation enhancementreference to courtjurisdictional factsGwadar Port Authorityvoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal arises from proceedings initiated by the landowner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhancement of compensation for land acquired for the Free Trade Zone in Gwadar. The core legal question is whether a landowner can directly file an application under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge without making a written application to the Collector for a reference. The Supreme Court held that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 18 directly, as the statute strictly requires an aggrieved person to apply to the Collector, who alone is empowered to make a reference to the Court. Compliance with these statutory terms is a condition precedent to creating jurisdiction, rendering any direct application to the Trial Court void ab initio. The key principle laid down is that statutory mechanisms and conditions for acquiring jurisdiction must be strictly followed, and a court cannot entertain land acquisition compensation references unless they are routed through a proper reference made by the Collector.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landowner directly file an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the District Judge without approaching the Collector?
  • What are the mandatory conditions precedent for a Court to acquire jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Does the District Judge have the power to entertain an application for land acquisition compensation pro interesse suo?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Yar vs Izzat Gul2023 PLJ Peshawar 163 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →
• Gul Yar son of Mashroof vs Izzat Gul son of Rahim Gul2023 PHC 175, 2023 PLJ Peshawar 163, 2024 YLR 163 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →
• Gul Taj vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1712 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-08
  narcotic traffickingchain of custodycriminal appealinvestigating officercomplainantheroin recoveryprocedural irregularitySection 9(c) CNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for trafficking 2500 grams of heroin. The appellant contested the conviction, alleging procedural flaws, including the complainant acting as the investigating officer, discrepancies in the chain of custody, and the use of a generic seal mark on the recovered contraband. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the recovery and the chain of custody through consistent witness testimony and chemical analysis reports. Regarding the legal questions raised, the Court ruled that a police officer is not prohibited from acting as both the complainant and the investigating officer, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. It further emphasized that where the prosecution proves its case on salient features, unnecessary technicalities should not be allowed to hamper the administration of justice. The court concluded that the evidence was unimpeachable and the conviction was well-founded, rejecting the appellant's claims of bias and illegal confinement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police officer act as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a narcotics case?
  • Does the use of a generic seal mark on recovered contraband automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution establishes an unbroken chain of custody for the recovered narcotics?
  • Does the failure of an accused to make a statement under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impact the credibility of their defense plea?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Shah Peeri vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 1370 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-09
  post-arrest bailabetmentwelfare of minorwoman accusedlactating mother bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Gul Shah Peeri, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Teri, District Karak, for allegedly abetting the murder of her stepson. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly given that she was a woman charged with abetment after a delay, and was incarcerated along with her 14-month-old infant. The Peshawar High Court allowed the bail application and held that the welfare of an innocent infant is incompatible with jail life, establishing that a female accused detained with a suckling baby is entitled to the concession of bail during the pendency of trial, drawing upon Islamic jurisprudence and established judicial precedents regarding the protection of minors.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female accused detained with a suckling infant is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the welfare of the minor?
  • Does a delay in reporting and charging an accused for abetment without a disclosed source of satisfaction make the case one of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Roz alias Meena s/o Shamroz, r/o Tehkal Bala Peshawar vs The State2023 PHC 590, 2024 YLR 2451 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-28
  triple murderocular evidencemitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationinterested witnessesindiscriminate firingcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the murder of three individuals and attempted murder. The appellant was convicted under sections 302(b), 324, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of eyewitnesses who were relatives of the deceased, the evidentiary value of witnesses remaining unhurt during indiscriminate firing, and the proportionality of the death sentence given the uncertainty of the fatal shots. The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular account consistent and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. However, the Court held that the death sentence was inappropriate because it remained uncertain which of the five accused fired the fatal shots and the motive primarily involved absconding co-accused. Consequently, the Court converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life on three counts. The judgment reaffirms that the mere survival of witnesses during an attack does not render their presence doubtful, nor does familial relationship automatically disqualify witnesses absent evidence of hostility.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that eyewitnesses remained unhurt during an incident of indiscriminate firing render their presence at the scene doubtful?
  • Can the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when it is uncertain which of multiple accused fired the fatal shots?
  • Does a familial relationship between prosecution witnesses and the deceased automatically render them interested witnesses whose testimony must be discarded?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Pathan and Others vs Election Commission & others2023 SC AJK 12, 2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Gul Nabi Syed vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Energy Power Division, Islamabad and others2023 PHC 249, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 20, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 17 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-01
  writ petitionadhocismstopgap arrangementChief Executive Officerpublic sector companycorporate governancemaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, initially appointed as a temporary Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of PESCO on a stopgap basis, challenged the Federal Government's proposal to replace him with respondent No. 5. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was removed and respondent No. 5 was appointed on a similar temporary, stopgap basis. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the company lacked statutory service rules. The High Court held that because the appointment to the office of CEO is governed by statutory instruments and guidelines framed by the Federal Government, the Court possessed the necessary jurisdiction. On the merits, the Court observed that the practice of making continuous stopgap, ad hoc, or look-after appointments to the post of CEO, without initiating a regular selection process, violates the mandatory provisions of the Companies Act, 2017 and the corporate governance rules. The Court deprecated the culture of adhocism and directed the Federal Government to complete the regular appointment process within two months, failing which the temporary appointment of respondent No. 5 would cease to be valid.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a public sector company lacking statutory service rules when the appointment to the office of its Chief Executive Officer is governed by statutory instruments and guidelines?
  • Can the Federal Government indefinitely continue stopgap or look-after arrangements for the post of Chief Executive Officer of a public sector company without initiating a regular selection process?
  • What is the legal status and maximum permissible duration of an appointment made on a current charge or stopgap basis in public sector entities?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Nabi Khan vs Muhammad Ayub Khan Awan and others2023 IHC 378 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-28Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs The State2023 SCMR 857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-09
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed FIRcounter-FIRtwo versionsmedical evidencemurderattempted murdercriminal justiceliberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a High Court order that denied post-arrest bail. The petitioner sought bail in a case registered under sections 302/324/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/337-H(2)/504/506/114/147/148/149, P.P.C., alleging he fired at the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., warranting further inquiry into his guilt. This was argued based on the presence of a counter-FIR, medical evidence supporting the petitioner's version of events, and an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the initial FIR. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted post-arrest bail. The Court held that the delayed FIR, coupled with medical evidence supporting the petitioner's counter-version and the registration of a counter-FIR, created a case of further inquiry, thereby entitling the petitioner to bail. It reiterated that a person's liberty is a precious right not to be curtailed on bald allegations.

  Read full judgment →
• Gul Mir Khan and 2 others vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 426 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-01-18
  disabled persons quotacivil service appointmentmerit-based selectionconstitutional petitioneducation department recruitmentsanctioned posts
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the entitlement of three disabled petitioners to employment in the Education Department under the reserved quota. The core legal question involves the correct methodology for calculating the disabled persons' quota and the subsequent appointment of eligible candidates. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Malik Obaidullah v. Government of Punjab, the Court held that the disability quota must be calculated based on the total sanctioned posts of an establishment and apportioned across different categories of posts based on distinct qualifications and merit lists. Applying this principle, the Court dismissed the claims of the first two petitioners, as they had secured lower marks than the successful candidate for the single available Junior Vernacular Teacher post. However, the Court accepted the petition of the third petitioner, finding he had qualified the recruitment test, possessed a verified degree, and held a valid disability certificate, thereby entitling him to the Junior English Teacher position. The judgment reinforces that while quotas exist, appointments remain subject to merit among eligible disabled applicants.

  Questions settled

  • How is the disability quota for employment to be calculated within a government establishment?
  • Can a disabled candidate claim appointment against a reserved quota if they have secured lower marks than another disabled candidate for the same post?
  • Is the disability quota required to be apportioned across different categories of posts within an establishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Mina Afridi vs Rana Abdul Kareem Ft others2023 SHC 214 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-10Read full judgment →
• Gul Khan etc vs The State2023 PHC 530 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
• Gul Khan & others vs Saeed ur Rehman & others2023 SCP 394, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 207, 2024 PLJ SC 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-18
  general electionsdelimitation of constituencieselection programmejudicial interventionprinciple of proportionalityconstitutional democracyelection commission of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter addresses whether the Supreme Court should adjudicate upon a controversy regarding the delimitation of constituencies or suspend judicial intervention to allow the ongoing general elections process to proceed unhindered. The Balochistan High Court had previously declared the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) delimitation order void. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional importance of holding timely general elections far outweighs the need for re-examining constituency delimitation once the election programme has been announced and the electoral clock has started ticking. Applying the principle of proportionality, the Court ruled that prioritizing general elections ensures the continuity of democratic governance and prevents disruption of the electoral process. Consequently, the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the High Court's impugned order, granted leave to appeal, directed the ECP to conduct elections based on the previously notified delimitation, and deferred the resolution of the delimitation controversy until after the general elections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the judicial intervention by a High Court with the delimitation order of the Election Commission of Pakistan, in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, is justified when the general election programme has already been announced?
  • Does the constitutional importance of holding timely general elections outweigh the need for re-examining the delimitation of constituencies during an active electoral process?
  • Should the court suspend proceedings and lay its hands off delimitation controversies to avoid disrupting or choking the election process?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Hussain vs Fazal Shah and others2023 PHC 285 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-12Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan vs The State2023 SHC 256 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-03
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequefraudcommon intentionbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal case where the applicants sought pre-arrest bail after an FIR was registered against them following the dishonour of a cheque given as an installment for paddy sold on deferred payment. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail in the presence of prima facie incriminating evidence collected during investigation. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants were not entitled to pre-arrest bail because the investigation papers and statements of purchasers revealed reasonable grounds connecting them to the alleged fraud and common intention to deprive the complainant of his money. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail applications and recalled the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is designed to protect innocent persons falsely implicated due to mala fides, and it cannot be extended to accused individuals against whom reasonable and sufficient incriminating evidence surfaces during the course of investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail when investigation papers disclose prima facie evidence of guilt?
  • Does the issuance of a dishonoured cheque in a commercial transaction involving a middleman attract penal liability disentitling pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be sustained where allegations of mala fides are negated by incriminating material collected by the Investigating Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Banoa vs Shahnaz Bano and others2023 CLC 861 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Gul Aslam vs Gomal University, D.I. Khan through Vice-Chancellor and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1073 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-30
  lachesseniority disputewrit jurisdictionservice matterlimitationdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired employee of Gomal University, filed a constitutional petition seeking the restoration of his seniority, promotion, and consequential monetary benefits, challenging an administrative decision from 1986 that re-designated Mess Munshis as Junior Clerks. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s grievance, raised decades after the impugned administrative action and after his retirement, was maintainable or barred by the doctrine of laches. The Court held that the petition was hit by laches due to the petitioner’s inordinate delay and lack of vigilance in challenging the seniority list. The Court emphasized that in matters of service and promotion, an aggrieved party must approach the court within a reasonable time; failing to do so, especially when the petitioner remained silent for nearly thirty years, precludes judicial intervention. The key principle laid down is that when a court determines a petition is barred by laches, it is not required to adjudicate the underlying merits of the claim, as the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 is not intended to revive stale claims.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court required to decide a constitutional petition on its merits if it determines the petition is barred by laches?
  • Does the doctrine of laches apply to service and promotion matters where there has been an inordinate delay in approaching the court?
  • Can a petitioner seek judicial review of an administrative decision regarding seniority decades after the decision was made?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Aslam vs Gomal University, D.I Khan through its Vice Chancellor and others2023 PHC 141 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
• Gujranwala Steel Industries vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 6308, 2024 CLD 343 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
• Gufran Ali vs Haseeb Khan and another2023 SCP 177, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 349, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 257, PLD 2023 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-23
  juvenile delinquencyage determinationossification testdocumentary evidencecriminal procedurebenefit of doubtmedical board report
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Islamabad High Court, which affirmed a trial court’s decision declaring the respondent-accused a juvenile in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the determination of the accused's age amidst conflicting documentary evidence, specifically between NADRA records and a Union Council birth certificate. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that when documentary proof is contradictory, an ossification test serves as the most reliable method for age determination. The Court emphasized that where evidence allows for two possible interpretations, the view favorable to the accused must be adopted. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, expert medical reports are admissible without requiring the personal attendance of the experts. Ultimately, the Court found that even under the petitioner's preferred birth date, the accused qualified as a juvenile at the time of the offense, thus affirming the lower courts' findings.

  Questions settled

  • What is the appropriate method for determining the age of an accused when documentary evidence is conflicting?
  • Is the report of a medical board regarding the age of an accused admissible in evidence without calling the expert to testify?
  • When evidence regarding the age of an accused is ambiguous, which interpretation should the court adopt?
  Read full judgment →
• Guarantee-Salex-Thales Joint Venture vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division & others2023 IHC 412, PTCL 2023 CL. 801, 2025 PTD 544 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-11Read full judgment →
• Grant of Additional 20 Marks to Hafiz-e-Quran while Admission in MBBS_BDS Degree under Regulation 9 (9) of the MBBS and BDS (Admissions, House Job and Internship) Regulations, 2018 vs Not2023 SCP 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-29
  judicial independenceconstitution of benchessuo motufreedom of speechmedia censorshipPEMRAdue processaccountability of judiciary
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a suo motu case concerning the grant of additional marks to Hafiz-e-Quran candidates for medical admissions. However, the judgment primarily addresses the procedural integrity of the Supreme Court, specifically the constitution of special benches. The Court held that the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, do not grant the Chief Justice or the Registrar unilateral power to constitute special benches or select specific judges for cases, as this undermines transparency and public trust. The Court emphasized that for the judiciary to maintain credibility, bench formation must follow an established, transparent, and fair mechanism, ideally on a first-in-first-out basis. Furthermore, the Court scrutinized a 'Prohibition Order' issued by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) that gagged media from discussing the conduct of superior court judges. The Court declared such censorship unconstitutional, affirming that freedom of speech and the right to information are fundamental rights, and that constructive criticism of public institutions, including the judiciary, is essential for accountability and good governance. The Court concluded that until transparent rules for bench formation are established, cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution should be postponed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Justice of Pakistan have the power to unilaterally constitute special benches or select judges for specific cases under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
  • Can the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) legally prohibit the media from discussing the conduct of judges of the superior courts?
  • Is the judiciary exempt from public criticism under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the lack of an established, transparent procedure for the fixation of cases and constitution of benches violate the principles of due process and public trust?
  Read full judgment →
• Govt. of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Defence Rawalpindi and another2023 SCP 386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitionwithdrawal from acquisitionvesting of landpossession of landenhanced compensationconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses consolidated appeals arising from land acquisition proceedings in Nowshera District, where possession of land was originally taken by the Ministry of Defence in 1955 and subsequently notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After decades of litigation regarding compensation, culminating in a Supreme Court determination of rates in 2018, the acquiring department failed to pay and instead issued a notification in 2019 under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to withdraw from the acquisition. The Peshawar High Court set aside this notification, leading to the present appeals by the authorities. The core legal question is whether the acquiring authorities are competent to withdraw from land acquisition under Section 48 after physical possession of the land has already been taken and vested in the Government. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the power to withdraw under Section 48(1) is only available before possession is taken. Once possession is taken under Section 16 or 17, the acquisition is complete, the land vests in the Government, and the Commissioner loses the authority to withdraw from the acquisition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Commissioner is competent to withdraw from the acquisition of land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after possession of the land has been taken?
  • What kind of possession constitutes the terminus point for exercising the power of withdrawal under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Can a notification for land acquisition be cancelled under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act after the land has absolutely vested in the Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Govt of Sindh & Ors vs Laiqdino and others2023 SHC 962 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-27Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others vs Defence Rays Golf and Country Club and others2023 PLJ SC 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  double taxationsales tax on serviceslegislative competencefinance actconstitutional challengenon obstante clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple appeals filed by the Province of Punjab against judgments of the Lahore High Court that declared Section 7 of the Punjab Finance Act, 2011 to be ultra vires the Constitution. The core legal question was whether the education cess on clubs imposed under Section 7 amounted to impermissible double taxation because the respondents were already paying sales tax on services under the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012, thereby rendering the provision unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that double taxation is not per se unconstitutional or impermissible if the legislature has the competence to enact the levy and the statutory language is clear, and that the rule against double taxation typically applies within the four corners of the same statute rather than across distinct legislative enactments. The Court further determined that while the levy in substance functioned as a sales tax on services, the express non obstante clauses in Section 7 clearly evidenced legislative intent, making the levy intra vires the Provincial Assembly's competence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgments, and ordered that any unpaid liabilities be paid in specified installments.

  Questions settled

  • Is double taxation impermissible under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the imposition of a tax across two different statutes amount to unconstitutional double taxation as a matter of law?
  • What is the principle applied when determining the constitutionality of a fiscal levy?
  • Can a statutory levy be struck down merely because it imposes an economic or financial burden similar to another existing tax?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department and others vs Muhammad Sarwar and 11 others2023 PLD Sindh 154 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior and others vs Zia Ullah2023 SCMR 1853 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-01
  constitutional jurisdictionfederalismprovincial autonomyexecutive authorityPakistan Citizen's Portalprocedural lawadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that declared the operations of the Prime Minister's Performance, Delivery Unit and the Pakistan Citizen's Portal unconstitutional, viewing them as a transgression into provincial executive authority. The core legal question was whether the mere transmission of citizen complaints by these federal forums to provincial authorities constitutes an unconstitutional interference in the provincial executive domain. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its assessment. The Court found that the Unit and Portal act merely as conduits for information and do not exercise executive power, nor do they bind provincial authorities to act in any specific manner. Consequently, the transmission of complaints does not amount to an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court noted procedural error, as the High Court failed to issue notice to the Attorney General for Pakistan as required by law. The Supreme Court clarified that facilitating citizen-centric governance through such digital forums is permissible and does not violate the constitutional separation of powers between the Federal and Provincial governments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the transmission of citizen complaints by a federal portal to provincial authorities constitute an unconstitutional interference in the provincial executive domain?
  • Is the High Court required to issue a notice to the Attorney General for Pakistan when determining the constitutionality of a federal government action under Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Do the Prime Minister's Performance, Delivery Unit and Pakistan Citizen's Portal exercise executive authority that encroaches upon provincial powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad vs Muhammad Ismail and another2023 PLC (C.S) 740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-02
  retrospective operationstatutory interpretationassistance packagedeceased government employeeprospective effectservice lawemployment quota
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which directed the government to appoint the respondent under the 'Prime Minister's Assistance Package for Families of Government Employees who die in service'. The respondent's father died in 1995, while the Assistance Package was introduced in 2006, with subsequent amendments in 2014, 2015, and 2016. The core legal question was whether the Assistance Package, which provides employment to families of deceased government servants, could be applied retrospectively to a case where the employee died years before the policy's inception. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the Assistance Package and its amendments do not contain any provision for retrospective application. Reaffirming the established principle of statutory interpretation, the Court ruled that notifications, executive orders, and statutes operate prospectively unless they expressly or impliedly provide for retrospective operation. Consequently, the respondent had no vested right to appointment under a policy that did not exist at the time of his father's death.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'Prime Minister's Assistance Package for Families of Government Employees who die in service' apply retrospectively to employees who died before the policy's enactment?
  • Do executive orders and notifications operate retrospectively in the absence of express provision?
  • Is there a vested right to employment under a government assistance policy that did not exist at the time of the employee's death?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan Ministry of Housing and Works through Joint2023 PLC (C.S.) 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-18
  official accommodationcivil court jurisdictionservice mattersstatutory barallotment cancellationadministrative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil suit filed by a government employee challenging the cancellation of his official residence allotment following his transfer. The core legal question was whether a civil court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the allotment or cancellation of official government accommodation, given the existence of specific departmental rules and statutory bars. The Supreme Court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, framed under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, provide a specific administrative remedy for such grievances. Consequently, the Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the civil suit was incompetent. The principle laid down is that matters pertaining to the allotment or cancellation of official accommodation are governed by specific service rules and statutory frameworks, which provide exclusive forums for redressal. Therefore, such administrative orders cannot be challenged in civil courts, as Section 23B of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, explicitly bars civil court intervention in proceedings taken under the relevant rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the cancellation of official government accommodation?
  • Does Section 23B of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, bar civil courts from entertaining suits related to the allotment or cancellation of official residences?
  • Is an aggrieved government employee required to exhaust the remedies provided under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, before approaching a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of KPK through Secratery Works & Communication2023 PHC 348, 2024 CLC 1876 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-01Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary,, Elementary &2023 SCP 391, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 554, 2024 PLJ SC 255, 2024 SCMR 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-11
  frivolous litigationover-qualificationappointmentpublic interestmerit-based selectioncontempt of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa against a High Court decision regarding the appointment of a computer teacher. The provincial government had advertised for the position of computer teacher (BPS-12) with a minimum qualification of Intermediate with a one-year diploma. The respondent, holding higher degrees (B.Sc. and M.Sc. in computer science), topped the merit list but was denied appointment on the grounds of being over-qualified. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, characterizing the government's litigation as frivolous. The Court held that disqualifying a candidate for possessing higher qualifications than those prescribed is irrational and detrimental to the educational interests of students. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ordered the implementation of the respondent's appointment, and imposed costs of two hundred thousand rupees on the petitioners to be paid to the respondent. The Court further cautioned that failure to comply would result in contempt proceedings against the Secretary, Elementary & Secondary Education, and directed provincial authorities to curb unnecessary litigation that wastes public resources.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department disqualify a candidate for a position solely on the ground that they are over-qualified?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to impose costs on a government department for initiating frivolous litigation?
  • Can the Secretary of a government department be held liable for contempt for failing to implement a court-ordered appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health, Civil2023 PLC (C.S) 794, 2023 PSC 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-06
  service lawdisciplinary proceedingsquantum of punishmentservice tribunaljudicial reviewmisconductcompulsory retirementremoval from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter concerns the scope of a Service Tribunal's power to interfere with disciplinary penalties imposed by a competent authority. The respondent, a government employee, was removed from service following unauthorized absence after his deputation period in Saudi Arabia expired. Although the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal acknowledged that all codal formalities were observed during the disciplinary proceedings, it modified the penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement, citing the respondent’s 24 years of service as a mitigating factor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the Tribunal was justified in this modification. The Court held that the determination of the quantum of punishment falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority. It ruled that a Service Tribunal cannot arbitrarily or whimsically interfere with a penalty merely based on the length of service without providing strong, justifiable legal reasons. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, restoring the original penalty of removal from service, and affirmed that judicial interference in disciplinary quantum is impermissible absent compelling legal justification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal modify a disciplinary penalty imposed by a competent authority solely on the ground that the punishment is harsh?
  • Is a Service Tribunal empowered to interfere with the quantum of punishment without assigning strong, justifiable reasons?
  • Does the length of an employee's service, by itself, constitute a sufficient legal basis for a Service Tribunal to mitigate a penalty of removal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest Department2023 PLD Peshawar 60 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary &2023 PHC 572 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Deputy Commissioner, Swabi2023 YLR 2522 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-27Read full judgment →
• Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar2023 SCMR 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-07
  conveyance allowancecivil servantsterms and conditions of servicediscriminatory treatmentservice tribunalfundamental rightsarbitrary exercise of powerpay and allowances
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns 76 civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa against judgments of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, which had allowed service appeals of teachers regarding the discontinuation of their conveyance allowance during summer and winter vacations. The core legal question was whether the government could unilaterally cease this allowance without a valid notification or legal basis, and whether such action violated the civil servants' terms and conditions of service. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the discontinuation was arbitrary, discriminatory, and lacked statutory support. The Court affirmed that conveyance allowance constitutes a component of "pay" as defined under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and that terms and conditions of service cannot be varied to a civil servant's disadvantage. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that discretionary powers must be exercised reasonably and fairly under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. It established that judgments regarding service terms have effect in rem, and discriminatory treatment of specific employees without justification is impermissible.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government unilaterally discontinue the conveyance allowance of civil servants during summer and winter vacations without a valid notification?
  • Does the discontinuation of conveyance allowance for a specific class of civil servants constitute discriminatory treatment in violation of the Constitution?
  • Is a judgment of a Service Tribunal or the Supreme Court regarding the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant considered a judgment in rem?
  • Does the definition of 'pay' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 include conveyance allowance as a protected term of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Khyber2023 PLC (C.S.) 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-06
  service lawcompulsory retirementservice tribunal jurisdictionmisconductunauthorized foreign travelquantum of punishmentdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, which had modified a penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on a civil servant for unauthorized foreign travel and absenteeism to a lesser penalty of reduction in rank. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and sound judicial discretion in modifying the penalty imposed by the competent authority, despite acknowledging the respondent's misconduct and lack of justification for her actions. The Supreme Court held that while the Service Tribunal possesses the power under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to modify penalties, such power is not unbridled or arbitrary. It must be exercised with circumspection, recording cogent and legally sustainable reasons. The Court found the Tribunal's modification of the penalty to be unjustified, as the competent authority had followed due process and the penalty was not demonstrably perverse or disproportionate. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restored the penalty of compulsory retirement, emphasizing that the primary authority to award punishment lies with the department.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have the authority to modify a penalty imposed by a competent authority on a civil servant?
  • Is the power of the Service Tribunal to modify penalties under the Service Tribunals Act 1973 absolute or discretionary?
  • Under what circumstances can a Service Tribunal interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by a departmental authority?
  • Is a competent authority bound to follow the recommendations of an inquiry committee regarding the imposition of a penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others2023 YLR 574 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-18Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and 5 others2023 YLR 2556 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-05Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa though Chief Secretary at Civil2023 SCP 216, 2023 PLJ SC 569, 2023 SCMR 1642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-04
  Writ jurisdictionArticle 199Disputed questions of factDocumentary evidenceScholarship programAge verificationConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment directing the petitioners to adjust the respondent in a scholarship program following a dispute over his date of birth. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, exceeded its authority by resolving a factual controversy regarding the respondent's age. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s action was proper. The Court reasoned that the verification of the respondent's date of birth through official school records, produced by the Headmaster upon the Court's direction, did not constitute an impermissible inquiry into complex disputed facts requiring plenary jurisdiction or the recording of oral evidence. The key principle laid down is that while the High Court should avoid deciding convoluted factual issues requiring elaborate evidence, it is not powerless to resolve factual questions in writ jurisdiction when they can be determined expeditiously through documentary evidence and affidavits without extensive investigation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court resolve factual disputes in writ jurisdiction if they can be determined through documentary evidence?
  • Does the verification of a date of birth through official school records constitute an impermissible inquiry into disputed facts under Article 199?
  • Is the High Court prohibited from examining any factual controversy when exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhttunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar2023 PLJ SC 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  conveyance allowancecivil servantsterms and conditions of servicediscriminatory treatmentservice tribunalarbitrary administrative actionpay and allowances
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions for leave to appeal challenged judgments of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, which had allowed service appeals filed by teachers against the discontinuation of their conveyance allowance during summer and winter vacations. The core legal question was whether the provincial government could unilaterally cease payment of this allowance without statutory authorization or a valid notification. The Supreme Court held that the conveyance allowance constitutes a component of "pay" and is protected under the terms and conditions of service. Finding no statutory provision or valid notification justifying the deduction, the Court ruled that the discontinuation was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated the civil servants' rights. Affirming the Tribunal's decision, the Court emphasized that public functionaries must exercise discretionary powers reasonably and in good faith. The judgment established that salary components, including allowances, cannot be reduced to the disadvantage of civil servants without due process of law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the discriminatory treatment of teachers regarding their emoluments was legally impermissible and contrary to the principles of good governance and socio-economic justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government unilaterally discontinue the conveyance allowance of civil servants during summer and winter vacations?
  • Does the discontinuation of a component of a civil servant's pay without statutory authority violate the terms and conditions of service?
  • Is the discriminatory denial of conveyance allowance to a specific class of teachers permissible under the Constitution?
  • Does a judgment by a Service Tribunal on a point of law relating to terms of service operate as a judgment in rem?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs2023 PLD Supreme Court 609 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-16
  delegated legislationstatutory interpretationBalochistan Levies Forcecriminal investigationultra viresadministrative lawpolice powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions filed against a Balochistan High Court judgment that declared a government notification void. The notification had authorized Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars to register and investigate criminal cases in "B" areas of Balochistan. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government possessed the authority to delegate these statutory duties to officials other than those prescribed by the Balochistan Levies Force Act, 2010. The Supreme Court held that the notifications were ultra vires the Act. The Court emphasized that delegated legislation must enforce, not override, the parent statute. Since the Act and its associated Rules explicitly vest the power of investigation and registration of cases in "Officers of the Levies Force," the government cannot utilize general administrative powers under Section 6 of the Act to bypass this specific statutory mandate. The Court affirmed that only designated Officers of the Levies Force are competent to perform these functions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions and set aside the impugned notifications, reinforcing that administrative directions cannot contravene the clear legislative intent expressed in the primary legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Can delegated legislation override the express provisions of a parent statute?
  • Who is the competent authority under the Balochistan Levies Force Act, 2010 to register FIRs and investigate criminal matters in B areas?
  • Does the general power of superintendence and control under Section 6 of the Balochistan Levies Force Act, 2010 allow the government to delegate investigation powers to non-Levies officers?
  Read full judgment →