Summary: Background: The petitioner, a former prime minister of Pakistan and chairman of a leading political party, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) to allow the broadcast/rebroadcast of his speeches and press talks on electronic media. PEMRA had issued a Prohibition Order on 05.03.2023, banning the coverage of the petitioner on electronic media. The petitioner appealed against the Prohibition Order, and the court suspended the operation of the order, referring the matter to a full bench to ascertain the appropriate court's jurisdiction. ----Issues: 1- Whether PEMRA's Prohibition Order was valid and enforceable. 2- Whether the petitioner was unlawfully censored on electronic media, violating the Code of Conduct for media channels. 3- Whether the petitioner’s right to media coverage, especially during the pre-election period, was being unjustly restricted. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --PEMRA's Position: PEMRA's counsel stated that no further instructions were issued to TV channels regarding the petitioner’s coverage. PEMRA made a statement that it would not hinder the broadcast of live or recorded programs concerning the petitioner or his political party. The court acknowledged the petitioner's claims that his media coverage was being censored. The Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisements) Code of Conduct, 2015, mandates that media channels present information accurately and fairly, ensuring political programs are objective and inclusive. The court emphasized the significance of providing the public with accurate information about candidates and political parties, especially during election periods. --Significance of Free and Fair Elections: The court highlighted the importance of free and fair elections, noting that citizens must have access to multiple sources of information to make informed choices. It stressed that the government and its agencies must not prevent media coverage of political parties or candidates to ensure a fair pre-election environment. The court allowed the petitioner’s application to include additional documents and a USB in the record. It was concluded that PEMRA must not prevent media coverage of the petitioner, ensuring adherence to the Code of Conduct and democratic norms. ----Citations/Precedents: Dr. Shahid Masood and others v. Federation of Pakistan etc. 2010 SCMR 1849 Reference was made to this case to support the petitioner’s urgency and the need for media coverage in the context of upcoming elections. Academic Articles: "Elections Without Democracy" by Andreas Schedler, Journal of Democracy, John Hopkins University Press, Volume 13, Number 2, April 2002. "The Rise of Election Monitoring: What Makes Elections Free and Fair?" by J. Elklit and Palle Svensson, Journal of Democracy, John Hopkins University Press, Volume 8, Number 3, July 1997.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Background: The petitioners, leaders of a political party, filed a constitutional petition challenging an order issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on 22.12.2023. The order declared the party ineligible to obtain the election symbol "BAT" due to non-compliance with intra-party election requirements. ----Issues: 1- Whether the ECP had jurisdiction to declare internal appointments of the political party as void. 2- Whether the ECP's order violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 17 and 25 of the Constitution. 3- Whether the High Court could intervene in a matter pending before the Supreme Court and another High Court. 4- Whether the fundamental right of freedom of association was infringed by the ECP's order. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Jurisdiction of ECP: The court found that the ECP had the authority under the Elections Act, 2017, to ensure compliance with intra-party election requirements and could declare a party ineligible for election symbols if non-compliant. --Violation of Fundamental Rights: The court noted that the right to contest elections under a common symbol could not be arbitrarily taken away. However, it held that the ECP's order was within its legal mandate. --Intervention by High Court: The court emphasized that the Supreme Court had already taken cognizance of the timely conduct of general elections and had issued directives. Additionally, the matter was also pending before the Peshawar High Court. Therefore, the Lahore High Court declined to intervene to avoid conflicting judgments and maintain judicial propriety. --Freedom of Association: The court observed that the petitioners had not challenged the vires of the relevant sections of the Elections Act, 2017. Without such a challenge, the relief claimed could not be granted. The petition was dismissed in limine as it was not maintainable at this stage, given the pendency of similar proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Peshawar High Court. The court relied on the doctrine of "Limine Control" to dismiss the petition. ----Citations/Precedents: Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan vs. Federation of Pakistan (2023 SCP 337) Election Commission of Pakistan vs. Barrister Umair Khan Niazi (Civil Petition No.4365 of 2023) Gul Khan vs. Saeed Ur Rehman (2023 SCP 394) Mubashir Javed vs. Province of Punjab (PLD 2022 Lahore 817) Water and Sanitation Agency, Lahore vs. Lottee Akhtar Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore (2019 SCMR 1146) Dr. Mubashir Hassan vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 80) Federation of Pakistan vs. Aitzaz Ahsan (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 61) Azee Securities (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Federation of Pakistan (2019 PTD 903) Chempak (Pvt.) Limited vs. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (2003 P L C 380)

Summary: Regarding enforced disappearances --- The Federal Government was directed to submit undertakingin writing, signed by senior most officers of the concernedministries, that henceforth no one shall be picked up other than inaccordance with the law. --- During the hearing it was brought to the attention of the court thatduring the Court?s winter vacations the families of protestingmissing persons at Islamabad were manhandled by police/lawenforcement personnel --- ''This Court takes great exception to suchhigh handedness because the right to peaceful protest is amongstthe guaranteed Fundamental Rights which must be honourd inletter and spirit.'' Supreme Court has already held that:?Every citizen and political party has the right toassemble and protest provided such assembly andprotest is peaceful and complies with the lawimposing reasonable restrictions in the interest ofpublic order. The right to assemble and protest iscircumscribed only to the extent that it infringes onthe fundamental rights of others, including theirright to free movement and to hold and enjoyproperty.? --- ''Therefore, the Commission is directed tocollate and submit: (a) the names with parentage and addresses ofthose who went missing, (b) name and relationship of the personwho reported the missing person, (c) the date they went missing,(d) those who were in government in the Federation and theconcerned province at that time, (e) whether the missing personwas recovered or not, and (f) if not recovered the efforts, if any,taken to find out the whereabouts of the missing person. Inaddition, (g) all those in respect of whom production orders wereissued but were not produced, and (h) what was the follow-up bythe Commission when its production orders were not compliedwith.''

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner, currently confined at Central Prison Rawalpindi, filed a Shariat Petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 21-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, claiming it contradicts Islamic injunctions. Additionally, the petitioner sought personal relief, which was deemed outside the jurisdiction of the court. ----Issues: 1- Whether Section 21-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. 2- Whether the denial of remission to prisoners convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act constitutes discrimination under Islamic law. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition, holding that: --Failure to Provide Specific Islamic References: The petitioner did not provide specific verses or Hadith that directly supported the claim that Section 21-F violates Islamic injunctions. The cited verses emphasized equity and justice but were not directly relevant to the legal issue at hand. --Differential Treatment for Terrorism Convicts: The court found that treating terrorism convicts differently from other criminals is consistent with Islamic law. The severity of terrorism, considered as "mischief on earth" (fasad fil arz), justifies harsher punishments. This differentiation aligns with the Quranic verse (Surah Al-Ma’idah, Verse 33) which prescribes severe penalties for acts of terrorism. --Legislative Authority: The parliament has the authority to enact laws that impose stricter punishments for terrorism to maintain public order and safety. The Anti-Terrorism Act’s provisions, including Section 21-F, were found to be within the bounds of Islamic jurisprudence. ----Citations/Precedents: Verses from the Holy Quran: Surah An-Nisa (Verses 58 & 65) Surah Al-Maida (Verses 38, 42, 44, 45, 47 & 49) Surah Sad (Verses 22 & 26) Surah Az-Zumar (Verse 46) Surah Al-Alaq (Verse 8) Surah Al-Qasas (Verse 77) Surah Al-Ma’idah (Verse 33) Judgments: PLD 2010 SC 1021 (Nazar Hussain Case) Order dated 30.09.2020 in CP No.4-P of 2020 The court concluded that the differentiation in remission policies under Section 21-F for terrorism-related offences is justified and not repugnant to the Islamic injunctions.

Summary: Background: Two Shariat petitions were filed challenging Sections 496-B and 496-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, as being un-Islamic. The petitions were filed by Dr. Mohammad Aslam Khaki, Advocate, and Irum Malik. The petitioners argued that these sections, which pertain to rape and fornication, are repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. ----Issues: 1- Whether Sections 496-B and 496-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, are repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether the provisions introduced by the Protection of Women (Criminal Law Amendment) Act, 2006, are in line with Islamic teachings. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petitions for the following reasons: --Previous Judgments: The court referred to previous judgments, particularly PLD 2011 FSC 1 and PLD 2017 FSC 63, which had already dealt with similar issues. These judgments had declared that the provisions of the Protection of Women (Criminal Law Amendment) Act, 2006, were not repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. --Definition of Hudood: The court reiterated that the term "Hudood" covers various categories of offenses, including zina (adultery, fornication, and rape), and that the provisions introduced by the Protection of Women Act fall within this scope. --Distinct Nature of Offenses: The court emphasized that the offenses of zina and rape are distinct, with different standards of proof and punishments. Zina requires a higher standard of proof as prescribed by Hudood laws, while rape can be proven with ordinary standards of proof, such as beyond a reasonable doubt. --Jurisdiction and Authority: The court highlighted that the Islamic State of Pakistan has the authority to legislate laws to protect life, property, and dignity. The state can introduce penal provisions to address offenses where the stringent requirements of Hudood cannot be met but where guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. --Council of Islamic Ideology: The court acknowledged the recommendations of the Council of Islamic Ideology, which had declared the Protection of Women (Criminal Law Amendment) Act, 2006, contrary to the injunctions of Islam, but maintained that the court's earlier decisions still stand. Both Shariat Petitions No. 12/I of 2020 and 17/I of 2022 were dismissed as not maintainable. The court concluded that the issues raised had already been thoroughly discussed and adjudicated in earlier judgments, and the appeal against these decisions is pending before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2011 FSC 1 (Mian Abdur Razzaq Aamir and others vs. Federal Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others) PLD 2017 FSC 63 (Shahid Orakzai vs. Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Islamabad)