Summary: Fugitive Status: Moonis Elahi was accused of being a fugitive from the law due to pending criminal cases, particularly FIR No. 149/2023 and FIR No. 364/2023. These cases were registered at Police Stations Mangowal and Jalalpur Jattan in District Gujrat.Questionable Signatures: Doubts were cast upon the authenticity of the signatures on his nomination papers.Timing of Consent: There were concerns about the timing and consistency of Moonis Elahi's consent to his nomination. His consent was recorded on December 20, 2023, in Spain, while the proposer and seconder of his candidacy did so on December 21, 2023.Alleged Fraud: Allegations of fraudulent practices in relation to the nomination papers were raised.Asset Concealment: Moonis Elahi was accused of failing to disclose certain assets and the possession of an additional passport.To support its decision, the judgment meticulously cited various legal principles and precedents:Proclaimed Offender Status: The judgment referenced the principle that a proclaimed offender, as Moonis Elahi was declared, had no right of audience in court unless they surrendered themselves. This was grounded in a Division Bench judgment of the Balochistan High Court.Importance of Power of Attorney: The judgment highlighted the significance of correctly executed powers of attorney, asserting that Moonis Elahi's power of attorney had not been authenticated as required by law.Code of Civil Procedure: Reference was made to the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Order III Rules 1 & 2, which permit recognized agents to act on behalf of principals in legal matters.Limitations of Agent Testimony: The judgment clarified that acts performed by an agent on behalf of a principal could not be admitted as evidence in matters about which only the principal had personal knowledge.Scope of Judicial Review: The judgment cited the Let.- Gen. (R) Salahuddin Tirmizi v. Election Commission of Pakistan PLD 2008 Supreme Court 735 case, emphasizing that judicial review in election matters was confined to cases where an order lacked lawful authority, was coram non judice, or was mala fide.

Summary: Detailed judgement of order 2024 SCP 13 ---- Issue:Whether PTI's failure to conduct intra-party elections as per the Elections Act, 2017, and ECP's directives renders it ineligible to obtain an election symbol.Holding:The Supreme Court held that PTI?s failure to conduct intra-party elections makes it ineligible for an election symbol under the Elections Act, 2017.Reasoning:Intra-Party Elections:The Court emphasized the significance of intra-party elections for democratic functioning within political parties, as mandated by the Elections Act, 2017.Role of ECP:The ECP is constitutionally entrusted with ensuring democratic practices in political parties, including enforcing intra-party elections.PTI?s Non-Compliance:PTI?s disregard for ECP's repeated directives for intra-party elections was seen as a violation of democratic principles and the Elections Act.Jurisdiction and Authority of ECP:The Supreme Court recognized the ECP?s authority to enforce election laws and its jurisdiction over political parties? internal democratic processes.Legal Precedents and Principles:The Court referred to previous decisions and legal principles emphasizing the importance of internal democracy in political parties, including cases from other jurisdictions that highlight the significance of primary elections.Validity of the Elections Act:The Court upheld the provisions of the Elections Act, 2017, as a valid legal framework governing political parties? internal elections.Disposition:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the PHC?s judgment, and upheld the ECP?s decision that declared PTI ineligible to obtain an election symbol due to its failure to conduct intra-party elections.Key Citations and Precedents Referenced:The Elections Act, 2017Workers? Party Pakistan v Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2012 Supreme Court 681Benazir Bhutto v Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1989 Supreme Court 66Salahuddin Tirmizi v Election Commission of Pakistan, PLD 2008 Supreme Court 735Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v Imran Khan Niazi, PLD 2018 Supreme Court 189Relevant U.S. Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the importance of primaries in the democratic process.

Summary: Background:This case, heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, centers around the intra-party elections of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), a major political party. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had issued directives for PTI to conduct intra-party elections, which are essential for maintaining democratic processes within the party. Despite multiple notices and an extension granted due to COVID-19, PTI allegedly failed to conduct these elections as required by law, leading to legal action by the ECP.----Issues:The main issues addressed in this case were:Whether the PTI conducted intra-party elections in compliance with the Elections Act, 2017 and its own constitution.Whether the ECP acted within its legal rights and responsibilities in addressing the failure of PTI to hold intra-party elections.The legal implications of not holding intra-party elections on the eligibility of PTI to receive an election symbol for upcoming general elections.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the PTI did not conduct the required intra-party elections despite being repeatedly directed by the ECP. The Court found that the ECP acted within its jurisdiction and legal mandates under the Elections Act, 2017. As a result, the PTI was declared ineligible to receive its election symbol for the upcoming general elections, a decision based on its failure to comply with legal requirements for intra-party democracy.---Citations: The Elections Act, 2017: Specifically, Sections 208 and 215, which deal with intra-party elections and the consequences of not holding them.Workers? Party Pakistan v Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2012 Supreme Court 681: This case underlines the constitutional responsibilities of the Election Commission of Pakistan to ensure fair electoral processes.Benazir Bhutto v Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1989 Supreme Court 66: This ruling emphasizes the constitutional rights of political parties to participate in elections with a unified symbol and highlights the need for political parties to operate democratically.Salahuddin Tirmizi v Election Commission of Pakistan, PLD 2008 Supreme Court 735: Relates to the jurisdictional scope and authority of the Election Commission and the limits of judicial review in electoral matters.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----S. 2(h), S. 4(4)(ii)(a), S. 4(4)(ii)(e) Workplace Harassment—Cross-Organizational Claims and Broad Definition of Workplace Maintainability—Complainant alleged harassment by the Accused, including coercion, threats, and abuse via WhatsApp messages and statuses—Held, the Act applies to harassment occurring across organizations when both parties share the same workplace premises—Definition of workplace includes non-traditional settings, such as Sukkur Airport, where the parties were stationed—Accused’s actions, including abusive communications and threats, constituted harassment under S. 2(h).Cited Cases: Asif Saleem v. Chairman BOG University of Lahore (PLD 2019 Lah 407) Uzma Naveed Chaudhary v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2022 SC 783) (b) Admissibility of Evidence and Burden of Proof Quasi-Judicial Standard of Evidence—Preponderance of Evidence Sufficient Statutory Interpretation—Forum recognized the unique nature of workplace harassment proceedings under the Act—Standard of proof diverges from criminal cases, relying on preponderance of evidence—Evidence, including abusive WhatsApp statuses and testimony, established a hostile work environment created by the Accused—Delay in filing complaint not deemed detrimental, as the Act imposes no time limitation. Cited Cases: Imran Amir v. Mst. Ismat Bibi (2023 CLC 1059) (c) Remedies and Preventive Measures Penalties and Preventive Directives—Major Penalty and Workplace Reforms Held—Accused found guilty of harassment and fined Rs. 500,000 under S. 4(4)(ii)(e) as compensation to the Complainant—Accused demoted under S. 4(4)(ii)(a) and barred from working in the same premises as the Complainant to ensure her safety—CAA directed to implement preventive measures, including harassment awareness campaigns, training, and clear display of codes of conduct, with compliance report due within 30 days. (d) Appeal Outcome Complaint Allowed—Guilty of Harassment Held—Accused penalized for creating a hostile and unsafe work environment—CAA directed to ensure workplace reforms and provide periodic compliance reports—Appeal allowed.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018: ---S. 6(1)---Grant of bail to a juvenile---Petitioner was accused of possessing a substantial quantity of narcotics, including 2,524 grams of charas and 115 grams of Ice, recovered from his direct possession during a police operation. The petitioner, according to his secondary school certificate, was 16 years old at the time of the alleged offense, classifying him as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. Court held that the petitioner, being a juvenile, deserved the concession of bail as per the statutory provisions. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---S. 497---Delay in sending sample parcels for analysis---Non-compliance with procedural safeguards---The narcotics samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) after a delay of five days, creating doubts about procedural compliance. Additionally, no videography of the recovery process was conducted, violating guidelines established by the Court in a previous judgment. These factors were considered material at the bail stage. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019: ---S. 9(D)/11(B)---Conscious possession of narcotics---Petitioner was directly charged in the FIR for possession of narcotics recovered during a search operation. Despite the considerable quantity recovered, procedural irregularities and the petitioner's juvenile status were significant in granting bail. -----Disposition: Petition allowed. Petitioner was granted post-arrest bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000/- with two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court or concerned judicial magistrate.

Summary: The appeal was filed under section 202(6) of the Elections Act, 2017, which allows for direct appeals to the Supreme Court. The primary issue contested was the ECP's order declaring the APML as virtually non-existent due to its failure to elect office bearers in accordance with its constitution and the Elections Act of 2017. Additionally, the APML had not provided consolidated statements of accounts for the last four years, a requirement under the Constitution and Section 210 of the Elections Act, leading to its delisting as a political party.The Supreme Court noted that the APML was not singled out in this action, as similar measures were taken against other political parties that failed to meet the requirements of the Elections Act, 2017. The counsel for Jahan Zarin could not provide any documents or arguments to counter the ECP's decision or to show any illegality or unconstitutionality in the ECP's order dated September 19, 2023.As a result, the Supreme Court found no justification to set aside the ECP's order. Therefore, the ECP's decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Summary: The background of the case reveals that Afridi was apprehended by police officials outside the Peshawar High Court on 11th January 2024. Despite efforts to secure his release, the police denied having him in custody. The petitioner contends that Afridi is a political worker for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and a candidate in the upcoming General Elections. The arrest was deemed illegal, carried out without jurisdiction, and possibly with malafide intent.On 11th January 2024, a preliminary hearing resulted in the Advocate General being put on notice, with instructions to produce Afridi before the court. Afridi was subsequently presented in court. The Assistant Advocate General (AAG) explained that Afridi's arrest was due to a misunderstanding regarding his involvement in a criminal case. The AAG referenced an order from the District & Sessions Judge, Kohat, which inferred that an earlier court order had expired since Afridi failed to appear before the court as required.The petitioner's counsel argued that a previous High Court order (No.6009-P of 2023) had restrained the police from taking any action against Afridi, which is why he didn't appear for the transit bail. The High Court noted that Afridi, a lawyer and political candidate, was arrested despite an order preventing adverse action against him. The court acknowledged the Advocate General's efforts in ensuring Afridi's production and found that his detention was illegal.The court emphasized the constitutional protection of liberty and due process under Articles 4, 9, and 10 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The judgment stressed that depriving a person of liberty without legal justification is a serious matter and violative of law, justice, and fair play.As Afridi was not required for any criminal case, the court ordered his immediate release and prohibited any future actions against him that are not in accordance with law. The petition was converted into a contempt of court petition, and respondents No.1 & 2 were directed to submit a reply within ten days. The case was scheduled for re-listing on 18th January 2024.

Summary: Bail granted ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------- S. 497--- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXIof 2019). Ss. 9(d) --- Recovery from Stepney of Suzaki van--- Petitioner was passenger and not driver--- Bail grant of--- At the relevant time of occurrence the petitioner was travelling along with co-accused Aslam Zaman, however, during search nothing was recovered from his personal possession while recovery was affected from stepeny of the vehicle. The petitioner was travelling in a carry van with co-accused, who was the driver of the vehicle and, at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner had the conscious knowledge of the presence of narcotics in the stepeny of the vehicle and this fact alone is sufficient to make the case one of further inquiry into his guilt. (Bail Petition allowed)