Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad vs Khalid Mahmood and another2023 PLC (C.S) 727 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra-Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 was filed by the Federation of Pakistan challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge-in-Chamber, which directed the allotment of an additional residential plot to Respondent No.1, a retired Grade-22 officer, under a Prime Minister's Package. The core legal question was whether Respondent No.1 was unlawfully denied the benefit based on administrative criteria excluding officers re-employed or posted in provincial authorities, while other similarly situated Grade-22 officers who were re-employed or posted outside standard divisions received the benefit. The High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision, holding that the posting of BS-22 officers rests entirely with the competent federal authority and does not diminish their rank as Secretary. The Court ruled that denying Respondent No.1 the plot while granting it to identically placed officers constituted arbitrary discrimination without an intelligible differentia, violating Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the posting of a Grade-22 Secretary to a provincial authority deprive them of their status as a Secretary to the Government of Pakistan for official welfare schemes?
- Can executive criteria for beneficial schemes create artificial classifications among officers of the same rank without violating Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether the denial of a welfare benefit to one retired officer while granting it to similarly situated re-employed officers amounts to unconstitutional discrimination?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad vs Federal Board of Revenue through its Chairman Revenue Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2023 SCP 92 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court heard civil appeals against a Sindh High Court judgment that directed the competent authority to grant proforma promotion to a retired BS-20 officer to BS-21. The officer's promotion was initially recommended by the Central Selection Board (CSB) in 2014, but the Prime Minister returned the case for re-examination due to concerns about integrity/general reputation. After retirement, his case was reconsidered by a High Level Committee and subsequently by the CSB, which ultimately found him unfit for promotion. The core legal questions revolved around the competent authority's power to reject or remand CSB recommendations, the maintainability of a constitutional petition in service matters, and the scope of judicial review regarding fitness for promotion. The Supreme Court held that the competent authority possesses unfettered powers to accept, reject, or remand CSB recommendations, which are not binding. It reiterated that fitness for promotion is a subjective evaluation not amenable to judicial review, and while a civil servant has a right to be considered for promotion, there is no vested right to promotion itself. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the civil servant's petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to promotion?
- Is the competent authority bound by the recommendations of the Central Selection Board (CSB) regarding a civil servant's promotion?
- Can a High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, substitute its opinion for that of the competent authority on the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
- What is the distinction between eligibility for promotion and fitness for promotion in civil service matters?
- Can the competent authority reject or remand back the recommendations of the Central Selection Board for reconsideration?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and another vs Misri Ladhani and others2023 SCMR 915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had directed the competent authority to notify the proforma promotion of the respondent, a retired BS-20 civil servant, to BS-21 based on initial recommendations of the Central Selection Board (CSB). The core legal questions involved whether recommendations of the CSB for promotion are binding on the competent authority, whether the competent authority has the power to remand such recommendations for reconsideration, and whether a civil servant has a vested right to promotion or judicial review of fitness. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the competent authority possesses unfettered powers to accept, reject, or remand recommendations of the CSB, and that the recommendations of the CSB are not automatically binding. The key principles laid down are that while a civil servant has a right to be fairly considered for promotion, promotion itself is not a vested right, and fitness for promotion is a subjective evaluation based on objective criteria that cannot be substituted by judicial review.
Questions settled- Are the recommendations of the Central Selection Board binding on the competent authority for the promotion of civil servants?
- Does a civil servant have a vested right to promotion or only a right to be considered for promotion?
- Can a High Court substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority regarding the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
- Does the competent authority have the power to remand promotion recommendations back to the Central Selection Board for reconsideration?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division2023 LHC 2344 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Defense vs Mrs. Ajmal Samia2023 PLD Supreme Court 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan through the Ministry of Defense, wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the prolonged vacancy in the constitutional office of the Attorney-General for Pakistan. The core legal question concerned the constitutional obligation to maintain the officeholder and the implications of leaving this vital constitutional post vacant for an extended period following the resignation of the previous incumbent. The Court held that the post of the Attorney-General for Pakistan is a constitutional office under Article 100 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which cannot be left vacant, and that neither a Deputy Attorney-General nor an Additional Attorney-General serves as a substitute for the Attorney-General. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional office of the Attorney-General must not remain vacant and the Federal Government must ensure timely appointments to facilitate proper legal representation and assistance to the courts.
Questions settled- Can the constitutional office of the Attorney-General for Pakistan be left vacant for an extended period?
- Are a Deputy Attorney-General or an Additional Attorney-General considered substitutes for the Attorney-General under the law?
- What are the constitutional requirements regarding the appointment and duties of the Attorney-General for Pakistan under Article 100 of the Constitution?
- Federation of Pakistan through Military Estates Officer, Multan Circle Multan2023 LHC 3596 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR2023 PLC (C.S) 928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that converted a major penalty of dismissal from service into a minor penalty for an Inland Revenue Officer. The core legal question concerned whether the departmental inquiry proceedings were sustainable given the alleged procedural defects, specifically the failure to record evidence and the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the inquiry was conducted in a slipshod manner, violating both the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and the principles of natural justice. The Court affirmed that the right to cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It held that an inquiry report based merely on written allegations and rebuttals, without recording evidence or allowing cross-examination, lacks evidentiary value. Furthermore, the Court clarified that remand to correct procedural incompetence is not a vested right, emphasizing that authorities must strictly adhere to statutory inquiry procedures to ensure due process and avoid the miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Is the right to cross-examine witnesses a vested right in departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- Does an inquiry report based solely on written allegations and rebuttals, without recording evidence, satisfy the requirements of due process?
- Can a court or tribunal refuse to remand a case for a de novo inquiry where the initial inquiry suffered from fundamental procedural defects?
- Does the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses in a departmental inquiry violate Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Federation of Pakistan thr. M/o Defense vs Mrs. Ajmal Samia (decd) thr. her2023 SCP 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the absence of an appointed Attorney-General for Pakistan during proceedings before the Supreme Court. The core legal question addressed is whether the office of the Attorney-General, being a constitutional post, can remain vacant and whether other law officers, such as the Deputy Attorney-General or Additional Attorney-General, can substitute for the Attorney-General in performing statutory duties. The Court held that the office of the Attorney-General is a constitutional necessity that cannot be left vacant, noting that the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not provide for an acting Attorney-General. Furthermore, the Court clarified that statutory requirements, such as those under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, specifically mandate notice to the Attorney-General, and neither a Deputy Attorney-General nor an Additional Attorney-General serves as a legal substitute for the Attorney-General. The principle laid down is that the office of the Attorney-General is a critical constitutional functionary whose presence is required for the proper administration of justice and compliance with statutory notice provisions, and the Federal Government must ensure the post is filled.
Questions settled- Can the office of the Attorney-General for Pakistan remain vacant?
- Does the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan provide for an acting Attorney-General?
- Can a Deputy Attorney-General or Additional Attorney-General substitute for the Attorney-General regarding statutory notice requirements?
- Federation of Pakistan and others vs M/s Bismillah Associate CNG Filling2023 IHC 24 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-15Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan and others vs Muhammad Farhan2023 PLC (C.S.) 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which set aside the departmental penalty of reduction in time scale and recovery of loss imposed on the respondent, a Pension Clerk at Karachi GPO, following allegations of inefficiency, misconduct, and corruption regarding pension disbursement irregularities. The core legal question was whether the departmental charges and guilt of the respondent were proven through confidence-inspiring evidence during the inquiry proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no witness deposed against the respondent, no trustworthy evidence or documentary proof substantiated his involvement in the embezzlement committed by another employee, and the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence. The key principle laid down is that judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals must base decisions on truth founded on trustworthy evidence, and in disciplinary matters involving penalties, the burden remains on the department to prove the charges through a proper inquiry failing which the punitive action cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Whether a departmental penalty can be sustained when the inquiry officer's record fails to implicate the employee in the alleged misconduct or embezzlement?
- What is the extent of the burden of proof required in departmental inquiries resulting in major or minor penalties?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is justified in setting aside departmental orders when no trustworthy evidence or witness testimony supports the charges?
- Federation of Pakistan & others vs M/s Al-Hassan Tech & Eng. Svc. (Pvt.)2023 SHC 816, 2024 YLR 1484 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
- Federal Revenue Alliance Employees Union vs Federal Board of Revenue2023 IHC 184 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal challenged a judgment that set aside the registration of the Federal Revenue Alliance Employees' Union as a trade union. The core legal question was whether employees of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), who are civil servants engaged in the administration of the State, are entitled to form a trade union under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA-2012). The Court held that while the registration application was correctly rejected under the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 (IRA-2008)—which restricted such unions to Railway and Pakistan Post employees—the legal landscape shifted with the enactment of the IRA-2012. The Court determined that Section 1(3)(b) of the IRA-2012 explicitly includes "workmen" employed in the administration of the State, thereby removing the previous restriction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal against the initial cancellation but clarified that the union is not precluded from applying for fresh registration under the current IRA-2012. The judgment establishes that statutory changes in the IRA-2012 broaden the eligibility for trade union formation among state employees classified as workmen.
Questions settled- Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 allow workmen employed in the administration of the State to form a trade union?
- Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 confer a right of appeal to an employer against an order of the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission?
- Does the definition of 'employer' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 exclude certain staff from trade union membership?
- Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad and another vs Dr. Shahid2023 SCMR 848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenged a judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which had set aside the Federal Public Service Commission's (FPSC) rejection of a candidate for the post of Executive Director (BS-21). The core legal question was whether the respondent, who lacked the requisite post-qualification experience, was eligible for the appointment under the applicable recruitment rules. The respondent argued that his experience prior to obtaining his postgraduate degree in Public Health should be counted, while the FPSC maintained that the rules mandated post-qualification experience. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by interpreting the schedule of the recruitment rules in isolation. The Court affirmed that Rule 12 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, and Rule 4 of the relevant SRO No. 1138(I)/2014, explicitly define 'experience' as that gained in a regular full-time paid job after obtaining the required qualification. The principle laid down is that recruitment rules must be read in their entirety, and specific definitions of 'experience' within those rules cannot be disregarded in favor of a candidate's prior work history.
Questions settled- Does 'experience' for a civil service post, in the absence of specific contrary provision, imply post-qualification experience?
- Can recruitment rules for a specific post be interpreted in isolation from the general rules governing civil service appointments?
- Is the Federal Public Service Commission bound by the definition of experience provided in the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973?
- Does the definition of experience in Rule 4 of SRO No. 1138(I)/2014 supersede the general requirements for initial appointment?
- Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad & another vs Dr. Shahid2023 SCP 78 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal addressed whether the experience required for initial appointment to the post of Executive Director (BS-21) in the Federal Government Polyclinic under the recruitment rules must be post-qualification experience. The respondent applied for the post, and the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) rejected his candidature on the ground that he lacked the requisite post-qualification experience by over ten years. The Islamabad High Court allowed the respondent's appeal, setting aside the FPSC's orders. Upon appeal by the FPSC, the Supreme Court held that the recruitment rules, when read in conjunction with Rule 4 of SRO No.1138(I)/2014, Rule 12 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973, and the FPSC General Instructions, unequivocally mandate that the required experience must be post-qualification experience gained after obtaining the requisite degree. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that the post be re-advertised with all terms and conditions explicitly detailed.
Questions settled- Whether experience required for initial appointment to a public post under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973 must be construed as post-qualification experience?
- Can recruitment rules and schedules be read in isolation, or must they be interpreted in conjunction with governing statutory rules defining experience?
- Does the Federal Public Service Commission have the authority to reject a candidate's application for lacking the requisite post-qualification experience?
- Federal Public Service Commission through Chairman, Islamabad and another vs Shiraz Manzoor and others2023 SCMR 2087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the Federal Public Service Commission's challenge to a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that directed the modification of recruitment rules for the post of 'Reader'. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal could compel the competent authority to amend recruitment rules to make a post exclusively promotional, thereby restricting initial appointments. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in its decision. The Court clarified that the competent authority possesses the exclusive domain to formulate recruitment policies and criteria to enhance service efficiency. Because no rules governed the post of 'Reader' prior to the 2009 SRO, the respondents held no vested right to promotion that could be infringed by the new policy. Consequently, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own policy preferences for those of the competent authority. The key principle laid down is that recruitment policy formulation is the exclusive prerogative of the competent authority, and courts or tribunals should not interfere with such policies unless they violate the law or infringe upon established vested rights.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to promotion that prevents the competent authority from changing recruitment rules?
- Can a service tribunal substitute its own recruitment policy for that formulated by the competent authority?
- Is the formulation of recruitment and selection criteria within the exclusive domain of the competent authority?
- Under what circumstances can a court or tribunal interfere with the recruitment policy formulated by the competent authority?
- Federal Govt. of Pakistan thr. M/o.Defence Rawalpindi and another vs2023 SCP 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of review petitions filed by the Federal Government against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the valuation of acquired land. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in awarding compensation based on a uniform valuation for the entire project area, rather than relying on traditional agricultural or revenue classifications used by the Collector and the Referee Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that revenue classifications are often irrelevant for determining fair compensation in large-scale acquisitions. The Court affirmed that relying on such classifications for small parcels of land disadvantages landowners by ignoring the potential value of the land as a whole. The Court emphasized that compensation must reflect the 'willing buyer, willing seller' formula and the land's potential for development, including amenities and industrialization. A key principle laid down is that the determination of potential land value should not be left to the arbitrary discretion of courts or collectors; rather, there is a critical need for legislative or regulatory bodies to devise a standardized, transparent methodology for calculating market and potential value to prevent arbitrary undervaluation and protracted litigation.
Questions settled- Is the revenue classification of land the sole determinant for calculating compensation in land acquisition cases?
- Can a court award uniform compensation for land acquired for a single project despite varying revenue classifications?
- Does the lack of legislative guidelines for determining potential land value justify arbitrary valuation by the Collector?
- Federal Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi2023 PLD Supreme Court 277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeals were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that enhanced land acquisition compensation to a uniform rate of Rs.30,000 per kanal, along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and compound interest, for land acquired in District Attock for the extension of the Pakistan Ordnance Factory. The Federal Government and Military Estate Officer contested the uniform enhancement, arguing for varying rates based on agricultural revenue classifications, whereas certain landowners sought further enhancement to Rs.50,000 per kanal. The core legal questions pertained to the proper determination of market value and potential value under Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and whether compulsory acquisition compensation can rely solely on agricultural land revenue classifications. The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals and affirmed the High Court's ruling. The Court held that agricultural classifications in revenue records are not conclusive for fixing land acquisition compensation. Compensation must account for potential value and future prospects. Where a large contiguous tract is acquired for a single project, potential value must be assessed across the whole area rather than piecemeal.
Questions settled- Are agricultural land classifications in revenue records conclusive for determining market value and compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- How is potential value defined and calculated when determining land acquisition compensation?
- When a large area of land is acquired for a single project, should potential value be assessed across the entire acquired area or for small separate parcels?
- How do constitutional property rights under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 affect the assessment of land acquisition compensation?
- Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation through Director2023 PLD Islamabad17 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Federal Board of Revenue through Chairman, Islamabad and others vs M_s. Hub Power Company Ltd and others2023 PLJ SC 284, PTCL 2023 CL. 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a petition before the Supreme Court without first exhausting the statutory remedy of filing an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 before the High Court. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a direct petition is maintainable when the remedy of an ICA is available and has been bypassed. The Supreme Court held that where the right to file an ICA before the High Court exists, a direct petition before the Supreme Court without exhausting that remedy is ordinarily not maintainable, as bypassing the lower forum violates a rule of practice regulating court procedure. The Court clarified that such petitions are entertained directly only under exceptional circumstances, such as matters involving substantial questions of law of great public importance, constitutional interpretation, validity of provincial statutes, or fundamental rights, coupled with a belated objection. Finding no exceptional circumstances in a routine sales tax adjustment dispute and noting that the maintainability objection was raised at the earliest instance, the Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Is a petition directly filed before the Supreme Court maintainable without exhausting the available remedy of an Intra Court Appeal?
- Under what exceptional circumstances may the Supreme Court entertain a petition filed without exhausting the remedy of an Intra Court Appeal?
- Does the rule requiring exhaustion of an Intra Court Appeal before seeking relief in the Supreme Court oust or abridge the Court's constitutional jurisdiction?
- Federal Board of Revenue through Chairman, Islamabad and others vs Messrs Hub Power Company Ltd. and others2023 PLD Supreme Court 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the maintainability of a petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan without first exhausting the remedy of an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) before the High Court. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should entertain a petition where an ICA remedy under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, remains available to the petitioner. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. The ratio decidendi establishes that where a right to file an ICA exists, a petition before the Supreme Court is ordinarily not maintainable as it circumvents the forum below. While the Court retains constitutional jurisdiction, it will only entertain such petitions in exceptional circumstances, such as cases involving questions of law of great public importance, constitutional interpretation, or substantial questions regarding fundamental rights, particularly when the objection to maintainability is raised at a late stage. Finding no such exceptional circumstances in this case and noting that the objection was timely raised, the Court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust the available statutory remedy.
Questions settled- Is a petition before the Supreme Court maintainable if the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of an Intra Court Appeal before the High Court?
- Under what exceptional circumstances will the Supreme Court entertain a petition despite the availability of an Intra Court Appeal?
- Does the requirement to file an Intra Court Appeal oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
- Federal Board of Revenue thr. Its Chairman, Islamabad & others vs /s. HubPTCL 2023 CL. 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a tax dispute regarding the adjustment of input tax on services against sales tax on services. At the outset, the respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioners bypassed the available statutory remedy of an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 before the High Court. The core legal question was whether a direct petition before the Supreme Court is maintainable without exhausting the available ICA remedy in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the petition as non-maintainable. The Court laid down that bypassing an available ICA is ordinarily impermissible, as the requirement functions as a rule of practice regulating court procedure. Direct petitions are entertained only under exceptional circumstances—such as matters involving critical constitutional interpretation, validity of provincial statutes, or fundamental rights of great public importance with far-reaching consequences—coupled with belated maintainability objections, none of which existed in the present case.
Questions settled- Is a petition before the Supreme Court maintainable when the remedy of an Intra Court Appeal before the High Court has not been exhausted?
- Under what exceptional circumstances can the Supreme Court entertain a direct petition bypassing an available Intra Court Appeal?
- Does the requirement of exhausting an Intra Court Appeal oust or abridge the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
- Federal Board of Revenue thr. its Chairman, Islamabad & others vs M/s2023 SCP 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition filed by the Federal Board of Revenue against a judgment of the High Court without first exhausting the statutory remedy of filing an Intra Court Appeal (ICA). The respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the available remedy of an ICA under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 had been circumvented. The Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the petition. The Court held that where the right to file an ICA before the High Court exists, bypassing that forum to approach the Supreme Court directly renders the petition ordinarily non-maintainable. While this procedural rule does not oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, direct petitions are entertained only under exceptional circumstances—such as matters involving questions of law of great public importance, interpretation of the Constitution, or fundamental rights—coupled with the objection being raised at a belated stage. Since no exceptional circumstances existed and the objection was taken promptly, the petition was not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether a petition before the Supreme Court is maintainable without exhausting the available remedy of an Intra Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Under what exceptional circumstances may the Supreme Court entertain a petition bypassing the remedy of an Intra Court Appeal before the High Court?
- Does the requirement of filing an Intra Court Appeal before approaching the Supreme Court oust or abridge the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
- Federal Board of Revenue (in both cases) vs Dewan Salman Fiber Ltd and others (in C.A.1089-1090_15)2023 SCP 265, PTCL 2024 CL. 131, 2023 SCMR 1871, 2023 PTD 1635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of several government notifications (SROs) that withdrew fiscal incentives previously granted to the respondent company for establishing industrial units in an under-developed region. The core legal question was whether these notifications, which effectively reduced the company's tax benefits, violated the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, or were otherwise unlawful. The Supreme Court held that while Section 6 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, protects time-bound fiscal incentives from being altered to an investor's disadvantage, this protection does not extend to notifications that do not themselves meet the Act's criteria. The Court rejected the 'penumbra' theory, affirming that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly and independently. Consequently, the Court invalidated SRO 561/94, finding it conflicted with the protected incentives under SRO 580/91. However, the Court upheld the government's authority to issue the other challenged SROs (482/92, 477/95, and 515/95), ruling they did not fall within the scope of the 1992 Act. The principle established is that fiscal incentives are protected only to the extent explicitly provided by statute, and courts cannot apply equitable considerations to override clear statutory tax regimes.
Questions settled- Does Section 6 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992 protect fiscal incentives from being altered to the disadvantage of investors?
- Can a court apply equitable considerations to override the literal interpretation of fiscal statutes?
- Does the protection afforded by the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992 extend to notifications not explicitly covered by the Act through a 'penumbra' effect?
- Is an executive authority empowered to withdraw fiscal incentives granted for a specified period before that period expires?
- Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education vs Shahab-ud-2023 IHC 224 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Fazle Rabi vs HBL & others2023 PHC 474 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the judgment of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which had set aside the reinstatement of the petitioner, an ex-cashier dismissed for alleged cash shortage and misconduct. The core legal question was whether the appellate forum's findings, based on assumptions and presumptions regarding a bank cash shortage and a missing cheque, were sustainable when contrary to the record and evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the dismissal was based on conjectures and misreading of evidence rather than established misconduct, and that the grievance petition was filed within time after awaiting the outcome of a departmental appeal. The court restored the Single Member NIRC's order reinstating the petitioner, laying down that High Courts can interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with findings of appellate tribunals that are illogical, unsupported by material on record, or based on far-fetched presumptions.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with factual findings of an appellate tribunal that are based on presumptions and misreading of evidence?
- Does a delay caused by awaiting the outcome of a pending departmental appeal justify condonation or render a subsequent grievance petition under labor laws within time?
- Can an employee be held liable for misconduct based on assumptions without direct evidence or support from the record?
- Fazal Subhan vs The Registrar Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and others2023 PHC 444 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-10Read full judgment →
- Fazal Subhan vs (Respondents are not represented being a motion case)2023 PLD Peshawar 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner-complainant's application to declare PW-12, an ASI, as a hostile witness during his cross-examination. The core legal question was whether a witness can be declared hostile and permitted to be cross-examined by the party who called him after the opposing party has commenced cross-examination. The Peshawar High Court held that once the examination-in-chief is completed and the opposing party begins cross-examination, the witness no longer remains the witness of the calling party, and consequently, a request to declare the witness hostile cannot be entertained at that stage. The Court emphasized that an unfavourable answer during cross-examination inures to the benefit of the accused rather than serving as grounds for treating the witness as hostile. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Can a prosecution witness be declared as a hostile witness during the course of cross-examination by the defence?
- At what stage of trial proceedings can a party request the court to declare its witness as hostile?
- Does an unfavourable statement made by a witness during cross-examination provide sufficient ground to declare such witness hostile?
- Fazal Nawaz alias Muhammad Shafi vs The State etc2023 PHC 512, 2024 PCRLJ 993 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Bannu, wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for qatl-i-amd, along with an order for compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while being acquitted of a charge under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Peshawar High Court examined the prosecution's case, which relied on an ocular account, medical evidence, circumstantial evidence, abscondence, and a purported motive. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the solitary eyewitness, material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, and the legal effect of unproven motive and abscondence. The Court held that the presence of the eyewitness was highly doubtful, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, laying down that even a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence vitiate the conviction?
- Can abscondence alone sustain a criminal conviction in the absence of substantive primary evidence?
- What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to prove an alleged motive when it serves as the sole link between the parties?
- Whether the benefit of a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused?
- Fazal Muhammad vs Managing Director Sui Gas, Quetta2023 PLD Balochistan 36 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
- Fazal Khan and others vs Additional Deputy Commissioner and others2023 PLD Peshawar 29 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-13Read full judgment →
- Fazal Khaliq and others vs Muhammad Ayub and others2023 PHC 464 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karim and 2 others vs Mehboob Khan (deceased). through his legal2023 PLJ Lahore 528, 2024 CLC 699 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-31Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karim & 2 others vs Mehboob Khan (deceased) through his legal heirs2023 LHC 1297 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-31Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karam vs Deputy Forest Manager, Forest Development Corporation2023 PHC 267 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-23Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hadi and others vs Shah Nazar Khan and others2023 CLC 1882 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
- Fazal Dall and Food Mills, Islamabad vs Commissioner Inland Revenue Rto, Islamabad2023 ATIR 9 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-10-06Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Hussain vs The State and another2023 PLD Lahore 300 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the trial court's order striking off the petitioner's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in a criminal trial under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question addresses whether a trial court can legally close an accused's right of cross-examination due to the non-appearance of defense counsel, and how to balance the speedy conclusion of a trial with the right to a fair trial. The Lahore High Court held that the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is an invaluable statutory right under Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and an indispensable component of the right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. A trial court cannot arbitrarily strike off this right; if defense counsel is absent or fails to appear, the proper course of action is to appoint a competent defense counsel at state expense pursuant to the applicable High Court Rules and Orders, rather than compelling the accused to cross-examine witnesses personally or closing the right.
Questions settled- Whether the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is an integral component of the right to fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a trial court lawfully strike off or close an accused person's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses due to the absence or default of their counsel?
- What procedure should a trial court adopt when an accused's privately engaged counsel repeatedly fails to appear for cross-examination?
- Is cross-examination conducted by an accused person personally a valid substitute for cross-examination by a trained legal counsel?
- Fayyaz Hussain vs Executive District Officer (Education), City District2023 PLC (C.S.) 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a judgment by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the petitioner's removal from service as an EST Teacher due to prolonged unauthorized absence. The core legal questions concerned whether the competent authority complied with the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, whether a regular inquiry is mandatory when absence is admitted, and whether an inquiry officer's findings are binding upon the competent authority. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner’s absence was admitted, rendering a regular inquiry unnecessary, although one was conducted. The Court affirmed that the competent authority is not bound by the findings of an inquiry officer and that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition failed to raise a substantial question of law of public importance as required under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The principle laid down is that where absence from duty is admitted, the necessity for a regular inquiry is obviated, and the competent authority retains the discretion to finalize disciplinary proceedings regardless of an inquiry officer's observations.
Questions settled- Is a regular inquiry mandatory under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, when the charge of absence from duty is admitted?
- Are the findings of an inquiry officer binding upon the competent authority in disciplinary proceedings?
- What constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance for the purposes of granting leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Fayyaz Ahmed Abbasi vs District Judge Muzaffarabad and 5 others2023 CLC 188 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-05-10Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Ahmad, etc vs The State, etc2023 LHC 1106 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for rioting, murder, and other offences committed during a massive mob attack on a police station following an incident involving the burning of the Holy Quran. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the identity of the appellants and proved their active participation as members of the unlawful assembly beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that in cases of large-scale mob violence, the prosecution must provide reliable, specific evidence regarding the identity and individual roles of the accused, which was lacking in this case, particularly given that the witnesses were unfamiliar with the appellants prior to the incident and electronic evidence (CDs and photographs) was neither formally produced nor forensically verified. Furthermore, the court noted that co-accused on the identical set of evidence had already been acquitted. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt and acquitting them of the charges.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an individual in a riotous mob establish that they shared the common object of an unlawful assembly?
- Is a conviction for rioting sustainable when the prosecution witnesses are unable to reliably identify the individual accused from a large crowd and are unfamiliar with them prior to the incident?
- Can digital evidence such as photographs and video recordings be relied upon without being formally produced through witnesses and subjected to forensic verification?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on identical evidence entitle other appellants to the benefit of the principle of parity and acquittal?
- Fayyaz Ahmad vs Subay Deen2023 LHC 5286, 2024 PLD Lahore 70 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-11Read full judgment →
- Faysal Bank Ltd vs Full Bench NIRC etc2023 IHC 320 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed by Faysal Bank Limited impugns an order passed by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.), which had allowed respondent No.2's appeal and remanded her grievance petition for a decision on merits after finding her to be a "workman". The core legal question was whether respondent No.2, a Locker Custodian in Officer Group-II, qualified as a "workman" under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, thereby giving the N.I.R.C. jurisdiction to entertain her grievance petition against the termination of her services. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the nature of respondent No.2's duties—which lacked managerial, administrative, or supervisory powers—clearly brought her within the definition of a workman. The key principles laid down are that the omission to explicitly plead the status of a workman under the 1968 Ordinance in a grievance petition is not fatal when the petition is filed under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and that beneficial labour legislation ought not to be construed strictly against the worker due to drafting deficiencies.
Questions settled- Whether the omission in a grievance petition to explicitly plead that an employee is a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is fatal to the maintainability of the petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission?
- Does a bank employee serving as a Locker Custodian fall within the definition of a "workman" under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- What is the burden of proof for a person approaching the National Industrial Relations Commission claiming the status of a workman when such status is denied by the employer?
- Faysal Bank Limited vs National Electric Company Pakistan and others2023 CLD 879 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
- Faysal Bank Limited vs Haris Steel Industry (Pvt.) Limited2023 PLJ Lahore 416, 2023 PCTLR 19 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
- Faysal Bank Limited and others vs Ch. Shehzad Munir and others2023 CLD 1390, 2023 MLD 2088 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-22Read full judgment →
- Fawad Ahmed vs Election Commission of Pakistan through its Chief2023 IHC 146, 2025 MLD 642 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-25Read full judgment →
- Fauji Fertilizer Bin Qasim Limited vs National Industrial Relations2023 IHC 246 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) which allowed a grievance petition filed by a contract employee regarding the non-extension of his service agreement. The core legal question was whether the N.I.R.C. could adjudicate a time-barred grievance petition on merits without first deciding an application for condonation of delay and whether mandatory timelines for serving a grievance notice under industrial relations law were met. The Islamabad High Court held that a court or tribunal is legally bound to address and decide the question of limitation and any condonation application with a conscious application of mind before proceeding to merits, and that concept of implied condonation is alien to the law. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the N.I.R.C. to first determine the limitation and condonation issues.
Questions settled- Whether a tribunal can decide a time-barred grievance petition on merits without first formally deciding an application for condonation of delay?
- Is the concept of implied condonation of delay permissible under the law of limitation in industrial disputes?
- What are the mandatory time limits for serving a grievance notice and filing a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Can a court or tribunal examine the question of limitation suo motu even if it is not specifically agitated by the respondent?
- Fateh Muhammad and Moledino vs The State2023 SHC 373 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions involve the credibility of eyewitness testimony in the face of material contradictions with medical evidence, the evidentiary value of delayed forensic dispatch of crime weapons and empties without proof of safe custody, and the legal effect of failing to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that irreconcilable discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical report regarding the number of firearm injuries, coupled with broken chains of custody for recovered weapons and empties and the omission to confront the accused with material evidence during their Section 342 statements, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The court laid down the principles that ocular evidence fundamentally inconsistent with medical findings undermines witness presence, that unexplained delays and lack of safe custody vitiate ballistic reports, and that incriminating evidence not put to an accused under Section 342 CrPC cannot be used for conviction. The appeals were allowed and the appellants acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether material discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of firearm injuries are sufficient to discredit eyewitness accounts?
- Does a failure by the prosecution to establish safe custody and safe conveyance of crime weapons and empties render ballistic reports inconclusive?
- Can incriminating pieces of evidence not confronted to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered for recording a conviction?
- Whether the unverified delay in dispatching recovered empties and pistols to the forensic laboratory affects the reliability of recovery evidence?
- Farzand Ali and another vs The State and another2023 YLR 2374 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants for murder and attempted murder. The appellants were convicted by the trial court for offenses including murder and attempted murder following a shooting incident. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the prosecution's version of events was contradicted by medical evidence, site plans, and inconsistencies in witness testimony regarding the timing and manner of the incident. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the number of assailants was likely exaggerated, the motive was not established, and there were significant contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was found to be unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that when the prosecution fails to establish a common object or specify individual roles in a case with multiple accused and injuries, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a motive react against a conviction on a capital charge?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account is in direct conflict with the medical evidence and site plan?
- Is it necessary for the prosecution to specify the role of each accused when the common object is not proven?
- What is the evidentiary consequence of the prosecution withholding key witnesses from the court?
- Farrukh Jamal Afridi vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary Ministry2023 IHC 424 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
- Farrukh Habib vs Election Commission of Pakistan Islamabad2023 IHC 162 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-29Read full judgment →
- Farman Ullah vs Mst. Shaheen Akhtar and 2 others2023 CLC 1959 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
- Farman Ullah vs Mst. Shaheen Akhtar & others2023 PHC 129 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
- Farman Shah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2023 PHC 14 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
- Farman Shah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through C.S. and others2023 PLD Peshawar 178 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
- Farman Hussain vs The State2023 PCRLJ 398 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail petition arising from case FIR No. 163 registered under sections 489-F/420 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station MRS, Kohat. The petitioner, former Director Finance of Garrison Cadet College Kohat, was accused of misappropriation, cheating, and fraud involving a substantial sum of money after an internal departmental inquiry, and subsequently issued a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that even if an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause, bail is not a universal rule and can be refused based on the facts and circumstances of the case, such as the magnitude of financial embezzlement and the execution of an agreement with dishonoured cheques. The key principle laid down is that the mere fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, as judicial discretion remains to refuse bail in appropriate cases.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be refused for an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the issuance of a dishonoured cheque in pursuance of an agreement for misappropriated funds serve as an exception to the grant of bail?
- Can the High Court direct the inclusion of an additional section of law during the dismissal of a post-arrest bail petition?
- Farhan Ali and others vs The State and others2023 YLR 1819 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the petitioner, Muhammad Farhan Ali, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shakargarh. The petitioner was convicted in a private complaint case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including Section 302(b). The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence pending the final adjudication of his appeal. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the injury attributed to the petitioner was not declared the cause of death, no recovery was made from him, and the motive remained unproven during the trial. Applying the principle that the criteria for suspending a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are analogous to the principles of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court held that the petitioner had established a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and suspended the sentence subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds.
Questions settled- Are the principles for the suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 analogous to the principles of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a sentence of life imprisonment be suspended pending the final decision of an appeal where the prosecution fails to prove motive and recovery?
- Fareeha Kanwal vs Punjab Healthcare Commission and others2023 LHC 5425 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
- Fareed-ud-Deen Ahmed vs Chancellor University of Education, etc2023 LHC 3889 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Junior Key Punch Operator at the University of Education, was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. He filed an appeal before the University Syndicate, citing the wrong statutory provision (Section 33 of the University of Education, Lahore Ordinance, 2002) instead of the correct provision (Section 16 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006). The Syndicate dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to this technical error. The petitioner challenged this dismissal via a constitutional petition. The Lahore High Court held that the dismissal of an appeal on purely technical grounds, such as citing the wrong provision of law when the remedy was otherwise available before the same forum, constitutes a failure of justice. The Court emphasized that procedural rules exist to facilitate, not thwart, the administration of justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the Syndicate's order, directing that the appeal be treated as filed under the correct Act and decided on its merits.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be dismissed solely for citing the wrong provision of law if the remedy is otherwise available before the same forum?
- Is the right of appeal a substantive right that should not be defeated by procedural technicalities?
- Does the mis-description of a legal provision in an appeal constitute a curable defect?
- Is an appellate forum required to treat an appeal as filed under the correct law if the original proceedings arose under that specific statute?
- Fareed Khan etc vs Gul Daraz etc2023 PHC 28 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-16Read full judgment →
- Fareed Khan and 12 others vs Gul Daraz and 10 others2023 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-16Read full judgment →
- Fareed Ahmed and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 583 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application was filed by two applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 6, 7, 8, and 14 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, punishable under Sections 9(c) and 15 of the same Act. The prosecution alleged that 2.500 kilograms of methamphetamine was recovered from a specially designed cavity in a bus where the applicants worked as a cleaner and a munshi. The applicants argued that they were falsely implicated, that there was a lack of independent private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the death of a co-accused driver altered the circumstances. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the bail application, holding that the statutory bar under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 applies to offences carrying capital punishment under Section 9(c). The Court further ruled that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 explicitly excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that tentative assessment of the record prima facie connected the applicants to the recovered contraband.
Questions settled- Does Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to search and recovery operations conducted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Does the statutory bar on bail under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply to offences where the quantity of recovered narcotics exceeds one kilogram?
- Can the death of a co-accused during custody serve as a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail to other co-accused persons?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application in narcotic cases?
- Faraz Hussain vs Province of Sindh and 03 others2023 SHC 166 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitution petition seeking appointment to a suitable post under the deceased civil servant quota in the Government College of Home Economics Karachi, invoking Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The respondent Education Department objected on the ground that the petitioner's father passed away in 2012 and the application was made in 2017, exceeding the stipulated two-year limitation period. The core legal question revolved around whether the delay barred the claim where the applicant was a minor at the time of the father's death and applied promptly upon attaining majority. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant applied immediately upon reaching the age of majority and was found eligible, his case was covered by the applicable policy and rules. The petition was allowed with directions to appoint the petitioner within fifteen days, while also directing the government to strictly adhere to Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding competitive appointments through the Public Service Commission for higher scales.
Questions settled- Does the two-year limitation period for applying under the deceased civil servant quota bar a minor child who applies promptly upon attaining majority?
- Can the appointing authority make direct appointments in basic pay scales 17 and above without going through the Public Service Commission?
- What is the legal effect of the deletion of Rule 10-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974?
- Faraz Ali and 5 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary to Governor2023 CLC 695 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-15Read full judgment →
- Faqir Syed Anwar Ud Din (deceased) through L.Rs. vs Syed Raza Haider and others2023 LHC 4964 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs Muhammad Younas and another2023 YLR 473 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-12Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs Jamila Begum (decd.) thr. L.Rs. and others2023 SCP 342, 2024 SCMR 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgments that dismissed the petitioner's appeals as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the time spent prosecuting an appeal in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, where the court itself failed to identify the jurisdictional defect for a significant period, constitutes "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeals on hyper-technical grounds. The Court emphasized that while the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no man) does not automatically excuse negligence, it requires courts to balance the equities when a litigant suffers due to the court's own procedural omissions. The Court laid down that judicial staff must diligently scrutinize jurisdiction upon filing to prevent prejudice to litigants. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's dismissal and remanded the appeals for adjudication on their merits, prioritizing substantive justice over technical procedural lapses.
Questions settled- Does the principle of 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' apply when a litigant approaches a wrong forum and the court fails to identify the jurisdictional defect at the time of filing?
- Is a court's failure to scrutinize pecuniary jurisdiction at the time of appeal presentation a valid factor for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal on grounds of limitation without considering the bona fide efforts of the appellant in a court lacking jurisdiction?
- Faqir Muhammad and another vs Amanullah , Province of Sindh and others2023 SHC 804 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-05Read full judgment →
- Faqir & one another vs Khan Zada through LRs & 02 others2023 PHC 468, 2024 YLR 1442 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-30Read full judgment →
- Faqeer Muhammad vs M/s Natover Lease & Refinance Ltd through2023 PHC 364, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 45, 2024 CLD 758 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-10Read full judgment →
- Faqeer Hussain & Company vs M.S Sir Haji Abdullah Haroon Trust Waqf 22023 SHC 1008, 2024 YLR 1011 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-10Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher vs The Federal Land Commissioner, Islamabad and others2023 CLC 1477 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher and another vs The State2023 YLR 1926 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for the possession of 18 kilograms of charas, for which they were sentenced under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery beyond a reasonable doubt, whether minor discrepancies in witness testimony regarding the raiding party's route undermined the case, and whether the appellants could be held liable for the entire quantity of narcotics recovered when only representative samples were sent for chemical analysis. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution's evidence was consistent, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by official records, including Malkhana deposit entries and chemical analysis reports. The Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that minor discrepancies in testimony do not invalidate the prosecution's case unless they affect material aspects. Furthermore, the Court established that when representative samples are taken from each packet of a bulk seizure, the accused is liable for the entire quantity recovered, rejecting the defense's argument that liability should be limited to the weight of the samples analyzed.
Questions settled- Does a minor discrepancy in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the route taken by a raiding party invalidate the entire prosecution case?
- Is an accused person liable for the entire quantity of narcotics recovered if only representative samples from the bulk seizure are sent for chemical analysis?
- Does the failure of an accused to substantiate a plea of false implication or enmity during a trial under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken their defense?
- Falak Sher and 2 others vs Abdul Aziz (deceased) through L.Rs etc2023 LHC 3213, 2024 MLD 55 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
- Fakhar-E-Azam Wazir vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 CLC 1435 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
- Fakhar Zaman vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 496 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arose from a case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, involving allegations of sexual harassment and extortion. The petitioner was accused of transmitting nude images and videos of the complainant to harass her and extort financial benefits while her husband was abroad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the incriminating digital forensic evidence. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was prima facie connected to the offense through forensic reports identifying the illicit content on his devices. The court established that while bail is generally granted for offenses punishable by less than ten years of imprisonment, it is not a mandatory rule. Courts may depart from this norm and deny bail in appropriate cases where the accused has victimized a helpless complainant through sexual harassment, blackmail, and extortion, particularly when such acts are supported by substantial digital evidence.
Questions settled- Is the grant of bail mandatory for offenses punishable by less than ten years of imprisonment?
- Can a court deny bail in a cybercrime case where digital forensic evidence prima facie connects the accused to the offense?
- Does the act of transmitting nude images for extortion constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Fakhar Nawaz vs Administrative Secretary_Senior Member Board of Revenue, Peshawar, etc2023 SCP 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil miscellaneous application sought the restoration of a civil petition that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether a restoration application filed by newly appointed advocates-on-record and advocates Supreme Court, in violation of the procedural mandates governing change of counsel and representation, was maintainable, and whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of a 46-day delay. The Supreme Court held that the restoration application was not maintainable as it flagrantly disregarded the procedural rules regulating the substitution and instruction of advocates. The key principle laid down is that applications filed in blatant violation of the rules governing advocacy and representation before the apex court, and lacking sufficient cause for delay, are frivolous, non-maintainable, and liable to be dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether a restoration application filed by newly appointed counsel without complying with the rules governing the change of advocate-on-record is maintainable?
- Can an advocate-on-record withdraw from a case without the leave of the court?
- Whether an application for condonation of delay that fails to disclose sufficient cause can be entertained?
- Fakhar Nawaz vs Administrative Secretary_Senior Member Board of Revenue, Peshawar and others2023 SCMR 1128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the restoration of a Civil Petition that had previously been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the restoration application, filed by a newly appointed Advocate-on-Record (AOR) and Advocate Supreme Court (ASC) without following the procedural requirements of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, was maintainable. The Supreme Court held that the application was not maintainable due to flagrant disregard for the procedural rules governing the change of counsel and the filing of documents. Specifically, the Court found that the application failed to comply with the requirements regarding the substitution of an AOR, the necessity of consent from the previous counsel, and the requirement for leave of the Court to withdraw or change counsel. The Court dismissed the application with costs, emphasizing that parties and counsel must strictly adhere to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The principle laid down is that any application filed in violation of the mandatory procedural rules regarding the appointment and substitution of counsel in the Supreme Court is legally untenable and liable to be dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party file a restoration application through a new Advocate-on-Record without the consent of the previous Advocate-on-Record or leave of the Court?
- Is an Advocate-on-Record permitted to withdraw from a case without the leave of the Court?
- Does an application for restoration of a petition filed in violation of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 constitute a frivolous filing warranting costs?
- Faiz Muhammad vs Inspector General of Police, Islamabad and another2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 86 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2021-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant from police service for alleged misconduct based on an anonymous WhatsApp video clip. The core legal question concerns whether an anonymous video, without forensic verification or a regular inquiry, constitutes sufficient evidence to impose a major penalty, and whether the initiating authority can simultaneously act as the complainant and judge. The Tribunal held that the dismissal order was unsustainable, citing violations of natural justice and the lack of procedural due process. It emphasized that anonymous electronic evidence requires forensic authentication and that a major penalty cannot be imposed via summary procedure without a regular inquiry. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the officer who initiates proceedings and acts as the complainant cannot also adjudicate the matter. Consequently, the dismissal was set aside, and the respondents were directed to conduct a de novo inquiry, appointing an independent officer to verify the evidence's authenticity, identify the source, and ensure compliance with established legal guidelines regarding electronic evidence admissibility.
Questions settled- Can a major penalty be imposed in disciplinary proceedings based solely on an anonymous video clip without a regular inquiry?
- Is it permissible for an officer who initiates disciplinary proceedings and acts as the complainant to also adjudicate the matter?
- What are the legal requirements for the admissibility of audio or video evidence in disciplinary proceedings?
- Does the absence of a forensic report regarding the authenticity of electronic evidence render disciplinary action based on such evidence illegal?
- Faiz Muhammad Pitafi and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 764 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenged an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court declining to transfer a murder case to a regular Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether the murder of an advocate arising from a pre-existing inter-community blood feud constitutes an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or a personal vendetta. The Sindh High Court held that the murder was motivated by a pre-existing personal enmity between limited factions of two communities and did not generate a general sense of panic among the legal fraternity or fall within the statutory design and purpose of terrorism. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the transfer of the case to the Sessions Court for regular trial. The key principle laid down is that crimes committed in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta do not constitute terrorism regardless of their brutality, and the question of trial court jurisdiction must be decided at the initial stage based on available material rather than waiting for evidence to be recorded.
Questions settled- Does a murder committed due to a pre-existing blood feud constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Must the question of a trial court's jurisdiction to try a case under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 be decided at the initial stage before recording evidence?
- Does the murder of an advocate necessarily create a general sense of panic among the legal fraternity amounting to terrorism?
- Faiz Mohammed alias Faiz vs The State2023 PCRLJ 121 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 365-B, 376(i), and 343 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case alleged that the appellant, along with others, abducted the complainant's minor daughter from a street and subjected her to repeated rape over four days, following which an FIR was registered pursuant to habeas corpus proceedings before the High Court. The core legal question before the appellate court was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt in light of significant investigative flaws, material contradictions in witness testimonies, unexplained delays in reporting, and an alternative defense theory involving a free-will marriage with a third party. The court held that multiple serious loopholes, including the failure to investigate the alleged husband mentioned in habeas corpus proceedings, missing forensic evidence, and pervasive contradictions, created deep and insurmountable clouds of doubt regarding the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant on the principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the investigating agency to examine a material individual linked to the victim through habeas corpus proceedings creates sufficient doubt to vitiate a conviction?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the first information report, combined with material contradictions among prosecution witnesses, warrant the setting aside of a conviction for abduction and rape?
- Is a criminal conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to collect corroborative forensic evidence such as chemical analysis of clothes in sexual assault cases?
- Whether an accused is entitled to an acquittal when multiple reasonable doubts pervade the entire prosecution case?
- Faiz Aleem S/O Fazal Aleem vs The State2023 SHC 568 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-17Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad etc vs Chairman Federal Land Commission, Islamabad etc2023 LHC 6607, 2024 MLD 756, 2024 PLJ Lahore 495 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
- Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Ltd., Faisalabad vs The Commissioner2023 PTD (Trib.) 1358 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hassan and 40 others, Zulfiqar Khushk and 04 others, Ahmed2023 SHC 401 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of the Sindh Civil Servants (Provincial Management Service) Rules, 2018, which purported to merge the Ex-Provincial Civil Service (Ex-PCS) and Provincial Secretariat Service (PSS) cadres into a new Provincial Management Service (PMS). The core legal question was whether the executive government could, via delegated legislation, merge distinct service cadres and create a new service structure in a manner that contradicts the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the constitutional framework governing civil service. The Court held that the PMS Rules, 2018, are ultra vires the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The ratio is that the executive cannot, through delegated rule-making power, override substantive statutory provisions (Sections 8 and 9 of the Act) that compartmentalize civil servants into specific services, cadres, and posts. The key principles laid down are that service structures are protected by the Constitution and parent statutes; delegated legislation cannot vary underlying statutory principles or merge cadres without legislative amendment; and civil servants have fundamental rights to status and reputation that cannot be undermined by arbitrary administrative reclassification.
Questions settled- Can the provincial government merge distinct civil service cadres into a new service through delegated rule-making powers under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Does the Sindh High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to examine the constitutionality of service rules, or is it barred by Article 212?
- Are the Sindh Civil Servants (Provincial Management Service) Rules, 2018, ultra vires the provisions of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Can the executive, by declaring existing cadres as 'dying cadres', effectively abolish them and merge their posts into a new service without legislative amendment?
- Fazal Hussain vs Razia Begum, Etc.2023 LHC 6270 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-23Read full judgment →
- Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Ltd. (FESCO) through Chief Executive2023 MLD 362 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-17Read full judgment →
- Faisal, The State vs The State, Faisal2023 LHC 4882, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 350 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account, the impact of a delayed FIR, and the evidentiary value of alleged dishonest improvements in witness statements. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the initial information provided to the police at the scene was suppressed, rendering the subsequent FIR a product of deliberation. Furthermore, the ocular testimony was deemed unreliable due to significant, dishonest improvements and omissions made by the witnesses. The Court also noted the absence of corroborative evidence, such as matching crime empties for the recovered weapon, and deemed the motive weak. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The key principle laid down is that the suppression of the true first information and the introduction of dishonest improvements by witnesses fatally undermine the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of the initial statement made to the police at the scene of the crime invalidate the subsequent FIR?
- Can a conviction be sustained when eyewitnesses introduce significant dishonest improvements and omissions in their testimony?
- Is the recovery of a weapon sufficient for conviction if no matching crime-empty is recovered from the crime scene?
- Does the failure to follow mandatory legal requirements in issuing warrants and proclamations invalidate the evidence of abscondance?
- Faisal Zafar and another vs Siraj-ud-Din and 4 others, Genome2023 LHC 6015 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Faisal Sardar vs The State2023 SHC 634 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-02Read full judgment →
- Faisal Maqbool Shaikh vs The State2023 SHC 144 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from pre-arrest bail applications filed by Faisal Maqbool Shaikh and Tariq Shafi against whom an F.I.R. was registered under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding funds received from abroad and transferred to a political party's account through formal banking channels. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail should be granted where transactions occurred a decade prior through legitimate banking channels, declared to authorities, and lacked prima facie evidence of mens rea or proceeds of crime. The Sindh High Court held that the transactions were conducted through normal channels with no conclusive evidence of proceeds of crime, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry, and malafide was prima facie established due to the decade-long delay in initiating proceedings. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bails. The key principles laid down include that law enforcement agencies must possess solid prima facie evidence before effecting arrests, that legitimate inward remittances through banking channels without proven criminal intent do not warrant criminal incarceration, and that pre-arrest bail is justified where exceptional delay and potential political maneuvering suggest mala fide.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when transactions are executed through formal banking channels and declared to regulatory authorities?
- Does a decade-long delay by law enforcement agencies in initiating proceedings raise a prima facie presumption of malafide for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Whether inward foreign remittances received without conclusive evidence of being proceeds of crime satisfy the ingredients of an offence under Section 5(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947?
- When does a case qualify as one of further inquiry warranting confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Faisal Maqbool Shaikh vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 02 others2023 IHC 116, 2023 IHC 340, 2025 PCRLJ 425 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenged a notification placing the petitioner's name on the Passport Control List (PCL) following the registration of a criminal case. The core legal question was whether a citizen's name can be placed on the PCL and their freedom of movement restricted merely due to the pendency of a criminal case and without fulfilling statutory requirements and approval of the Federal Government. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petition, holding that the placement of the petitioner's name on the PCL was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court laid down the principle that the right to travel abroad is an intrinsic part of the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and freedom of movement under Articles 4, 9, 10A, and 15 of the Constitution. Furthermore, mere registration of a criminal case or pendency of an investigation does not justify restricting travel, and statutory procedures under the Passport Rules, 2021 and Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be strictly adhered to.
Questions settled- Whether the mere pendency of a criminal case or investigation is sufficient justification to place an accused person's name on the Passport Control List?
- Does the inclusion of a person's name on the Passport Control List require the explicit approval of the Federal Government under the Passport Rules, 2021?
- Is the right to travel abroad an integral part of the fundamental rights to life and liberty under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- What constitutes the taking of cognizance by a court under criminal law to restrict movement under special banking laws?
- Faisal Manzoor Ansari and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 19 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Sindh High Court addressed a batch of consolidated constitutional petitions filed by employees of the Civil Aviation Authority challenging show-cause notices, suspension orders, and a dismissal order arising from allegations of issuing fake pilot flying licenses through software protocol breaches. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of constitutional petitions against show-cause notices and departmental proceedings instituted regarding a matter of larger national public interest, in light of prior directions by the Supreme Court. Dismissing the petitions, the Court held that constitutional petitions are ordinarily not maintainable against show-cause notices, that High Courts cannot enter into disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction, and that departmental proceedings must be allowed to conclude without judicial interference as mandated by the Supreme Court. The key principles laid down are that discretionary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked prematurely against show-cause notices or in the presence of adequate alternate statutory remedies, and that Supreme Court rulings on matters of public interest are binding on all state organs under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a show-cause notice issued in disciplinary proceedings?
- Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does a public employee have to exhaust alternate statutory remedies before approaching the High Court against departmental action?
- Are observations and directions issued by the Supreme Court in suo motu proceedings binding on lower courts regarding ongoing departmental inquiries?
- Faisal Hayat vs Learned Additional Sessions Judge_Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, and others2023 IHC 370, 2024 YLR 1037 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
- Faisal Aziz Malik vs Returning Officer (PP 82-Khushab-1)2023 LHC 2096 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-11Read full judgment →
- Faisal Amin and 3 others vs The State through A.G. Office Peshawar and another2023 YLR 199 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by accused-petitioners charged under Sections 365, 377, 506, 392, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of abducting and committing an unnatural offence against a transgender person. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail, particularly in light of a purported compromise reached with the complainant party. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the accused were prima facie connected to the commission of a serious offence that affronts collective morality and norms. The Court emphasized that the offences charged are not compoundable, rendering the compromise irrelevant at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court noted that the victim, belonging to a vulnerable segment of society, had directly nominated the accused, and the medical evidence supported the prosecution's version. The Court laid down the principle that in cases involving heinous offences against vulnerable individuals, a compromise between parties cannot be considered for the grant of bail, especially when the offence is non-compoundable and falls within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a compromise between the complainant and the accused be considered for the grant of bail in non-compoundable offences?
- Does an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a victim's direct nomination of the accused in a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to deny bail at the tentative assessment stage?
- Fairdeal Exchange Company (Private) Limited through Director of Company vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and 3 others2023 PTD 919 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-27Read full judgment →
- Faiq Ali Jamali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law2023 IHC 386 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Fahimul Huda vs Anwarul Huda & Ors2023 SHC 1184 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-20Read full judgment →
- Faheemuddin and 5 others vs Province of Sindh and others2023 SHC 70, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 833 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the recommendations of the Provincial Selection Board-II (PSB-II) for the promotion of certain Ex-PCS officers (BS-17) to BS-18 while their inter se seniority was sub-judice before the Sindh Service Tribunal. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of a constitutional petition in the face of Article 212 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, specifically concerning the determination of 'fitness' versus 'eligibility' for promotion, and whether junior civil servants can be recommended for promotion while a seniority dispute is pending. The Sindh High Court held that since the matter pertained to the determination of fitness and suitability—which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Section 4(1)(b)—the constitutional petition was maintainable. Allowing the petition, the court ruled that holding a selection board meeting and recommending promotions in the face of an unresolved, sub-judice seniority dispute is illegal, arbitrary, and violates established service jurisprudence and prior judicial dicta.
Questions settled- Does the Sindh Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine the 'fitness' of a civil servant for promotion under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 be maintained in service matters relating to the fitness of an employee for promotion?
- Is it lawful for a departmental selection board to recommend junior civil servants for promotion while their inter se seniority dispute is pending adjudication before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the non-issuance of an injunctive order by the Service Tribunal empower the competent authority to supersede senior officers by proceeding with promotions during a pending seniority appeal?