Summary: Background: The petitioner, a student from Shaheen Children Academy & College of Sciences, District Karak, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The petition was filed because the Board had designated Government Higher Secondary School Jandari Karak as the examination center for his forthcoming exams, instead of his own college, despite an application from the petitioner's father citing safety concerns due to a personal dispute in the Jandari area. ----Issues: 1- Change of Examination Center: Whether the petitioner's request to change the examination center due to personal safety concerns should be granted. 2- Regulatory Compliance: Whether the Board's decision to designate Government Higher Secondary School Jandari Karak as the examination center was in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome ---Change of Examination Center: The court noted that the petitioner's request was not merely for changing the examination center but effectively for constituting his college as a new examination center, which is governed by different rules. The relevant rules provide discretion to the Controller of Examinations, with the approval of the Chairman, to allow changes of examination centers in exceptional cases. However, the petitioner's application did not follow the prescribed procedure, and the petition was filed on plain paper instead of the required form. The court emphasized that the internal governance and decisions of educational institutions should not be interfered with unless they infringe on fundamental rights. The decision of the Board to designate Government Higher Secondary School Jandari Karak as the examination center was made to ensure transparency in conducting exams. ---Regulatory Compliance: The court reviewed the relevant rules, which included provisions for changing examination centers under certain conditions, such as transfer, change of business location, or health issues. The petitioner's case did not meet these criteria. The court highlighted that the suitability of a place for constituting an examination center is a matter for the Board to decide, and the court would not substitute its judgment for that of the Board. The petitioner's application also did not comply with the fee requirement and other procedural necessities outlined in the rules. The court dismissed the petition in limine, stating that the petition lacked merit and did not demonstrate any mala fides on the part of the respondents. The petitioner's request to change the examination center to his own college was not supported by the rules and procedures governing such changes. The court upheld the Board's decision to designate Government Higher Secondary School Jandari Karak as the examination center. -----Citations/Precedents: Khyber Medical University and others vs. Aimal Khan and others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 92) This precedent emphasizes the importance of non-interference by courts in the internal governance of educational institutions, highlighting that academic freedom and institutional autonomy should be protected unless there is a violation of fundamental rights or law.

Summary: Facts:On May 19, 2023, the Federal Government of Pakistan issued Notification No. SRO.596(I)/2023, appointing an Inquiry Commission under Section 3 of the Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 2017. This Commission comprises Justice Qazi Faez Isa (Senior Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court), Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan (Chief Justice of the High Court of Balochistan), and Justice Aamer Farooq (Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court).The Commission's task is to investigate whether leaked audio recordings, which surfaced on February 16, 2023, and involved alleged conversations among individuals, including judges of superior courts, undermine public trust and confidence in the judiciary's credibility, impartiality, and independence.---Issue:Whether the appointment of the Inquiry Commission by the Executive breaches the principle of separation of powers as established in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.Whether the Terms of Reference (TORs) for the Commission intrude into the domain exclusively reserved for the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), as per Article 209 of the Constitution.Whether the inquiry violates fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy and dignity, as enshrined in the Constitution.Arguments:---Petitioner:The impugned notification violates the separation of powers by allowing the Executive to encroach upon the judiciary's domain.The TORs of the Commission extend its jurisdiction into areas reserved for the SJC, thus being unconstitutional.The inquiry into leaked audios infringes on the right to privacy and dignity, as there is no law that authorizes surveillance or hacking of judges' communications, except under very limited circumstances related to terrorism under the Investigation for Fair Trial Act, 2013.Respondent (Federal Government):Preliminary objection raised regarding the composition of the bench hearing the case, suggesting that the Chief Justice should recuse himself due to potential conflict of interest given the subject matter of the inquiry.Holding:The case raises significant constitutional questions regarding the balance of powers between the Executive and Judiciary, the scope of judicial independence, and the protection of fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy.Reasoning:The petitioner's counsel argues that the Executive's action in forming the Commission to investigate matters potentially concerning judicial conduct oversteps constitutional boundaries, infringes on the judiciary's independence, and violates the principle of separation of powers.The inquiry into private communications, especially those involving members of the judiciary, without clear legal authorization, is contested as a violation of fundamental rights.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, is an employee of the Health Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and currently serves as the District Health Officer (DHO) in Dera Ismail Khan (DIK). The department proposed his transfer from this position, and during the general elections, no postings or transfers could be made without a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Provincial Election Commissioner. The petitioner challenged the proposed transfer, alleging it was politically motivated and premature. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petition is maintainable given the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution. 2- Whether the proposed transfer is lawful and justified. 3- Whether the petitioner's allegations of political victimization and mala fide are valid. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The petition was dismissed. ---Maintainability: The court addressed a preliminary objection raised by the Additional Advocate General (Addl. AG), citing Article 212 of the Constitution, which restricts civil servants from approaching the High Court regarding matters related to their terms and conditions of service. Instead, these matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The court referred to Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which states that a civil servant can be transferred anywhere within or outside the province. The law provides the Service Tribunal as the appropriate forum for civil servants to address grievances related to transfers, including allegations of mala fide. ---Transfer Proposal: The petitioner argued that the proposed transfer was politically motivated and premature. The court noted that civil servants have no vested right to hold a particular post or serve in a specific location. The competent authority has the discretion to transfer civil servants as needed for administrative reasons. The issuance of the NOC further rendered the petition infructuous. ---Allegations of Mala Fide: The court recognized that allegations of political victimization and mala fide could be grounds for challenging a transfer order. However, such matters must be addressed before the Service Tribunal, not the High Court, due to the constitutional and legal framework governing civil servants' terms and conditions of service. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable under Article 212 of the Constitution, and the petitioner was directed to seek remedy through the Service Tribunal. ----Citations/Precedents: Peer Muhammad vs. Government of Balochistan (2007 SCMR 54) Established that the posting and transfer of government servants fall within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and should be addressed by the Service Tribunal, not the High Court. Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) Reiterated that Article 212 of the Constitution ousts the jurisdiction of High Courts and civil courts in matters related to the terms and conditions of civil servants, conferring exclusive jurisdiction to Service Tribunals.

Summary: (--Regarding constitution of Benches and fixation of cases at the Supreme Court---Upon examining the relevant provisions in the Supreme Court Rules, it was found that the power to nominate judges for benches rests with the Chief Justice, and there is no authority for the Registrar or the Chief Justice to change the composition of a bench or reduce the number of judges. The court referenced previous cases that emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Arbitrary reconstitution of benches undermines the judicial system and erodes public confidence. The court further highlighted the constitutional rights of equal protection of law and fair trial, which exclude arbitrariness and unstructured discretion. The court also raised concerns about the methodology for fixing cases and the apparent lack of logic or reasonableness in the process. It was revealed that a large number of cases, including civil petitions for leave to appeal filed in 2020 and 2021, were pending adjudication. The court questioned why these cases took precedence over others filed many years earlier. The Registrar referred to a circular from 2017 regarding urgent cases, but none of the cases listed for hearing fell into those categories. No other circulars, orders, notifications, or memoranda were mentioned to explain the methodology for case fixation. The court concluded that the exercise of power should adhere to the principles of justice and should not be arbitrary or fanciful. It stressed the need to structure discretionary power and avoid its arbitrary exercise. The court held itself to the same standards it applies to others and questioned the justification for not doing so. In light of these findings, the court expressed concerns about the arbitrary use of power and emphasized the importance of fair trial, due process, and the rule of law. It called for the rationalization and regulation of discretionary powers to ensure the highest quality of justice.

Summary: Issue(s):Whether the caretaker government has the authority to remove and appoint Additional and Assistant Advocate-Generals.The legality and constitutionality of the impugned Notifications regarding the removal and appointment of law officers.--- Holding: The court found the removal of law officers to be within the scope of the caretaker government's authority. However, the appointment of law officers who previously served in the same government was deemed unjustifiable, lacking public interest justification, and thus ultra vires of law including Section 230 of the Elections Act, and not sustainable??.---- Reasoning: The caretaker government is limited to conducting day-to-day affairs and ensuring fair and transparent elections. Major policy decisions, including appointments, should be deferred to the incoming elected government. The court noted that the impugned Notifications lacked justification in public interest and were retroactively defended, which is not acceptable in constitutional jurisdiction??.--- Rule of Law: The caretaker government is restrained from making substantial policy decisions or appointments that could influence administrative or political landscapes. Actions must be confined to day-to-day administration and maintaining neutrality, without taking undue advantage or making irreversible decisions??.--- Analysis: The judgment emphasizes the limited mandate of caretaker governments, highlighting the importance of neutrality and impartiality in the pre-election phase. It clarifies the scope of authority regarding appointments and removals, ensuring caretaker actions are reversible and do not pre-empt the authority of the future elected government??.

Summary: (a) Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman under the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2019 The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) under the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2019, concluding that the Ombudsman lacks the authority to seal property pending adjudication. While the Ombudsman may order attachment to prevent alienation of property, the concept of sealing a property depriving owners of its use is beyond statutory powers. Consequently, the order for sealing the disputed property was set aside, while the attachment order remained in force. (b) Trichotomy of Powers – Judicial, Executive & Legislative Authority The Constitution of Pakistan (Article 175) upholds the principle of trichotomy of powers, ensuring that adjudicatory functions are confined to the judiciary. The Court held that delegating parallel judicial functions to an executive body such as the Ombudsman violates constitutional principles. The Ombudsman, being part of the executive limb, cannot be granted adjudicatory powers akin to civil courts. Reference was made to Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 1445) and Liaqat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 504), which affirm that courts established under Article 175 alone hold judicial authority. (c) Partition of Joint Property – Ombudsman’s Limitations The Court identified a lacuna in the 2019 Act, which does not specify a mechanism for partitioning jointly owned property among co-owners. Unlike civil courts that follow Order 20 Rule 18 CPC for partition and appoint commissioners where necessary, the Act lacks any procedural framework for such adjudication. The High Court clarified that the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction applies only when a woman is illegally deprived of her property, not in cases of joint ownership disputes requiring formal partition proceedings. (d) Parallel Proceedings – Civil Court vs. Ombudsman Where a civil suit for partition is pending, the Ombudsman must abstain from exercising jurisdiction to avoid conflicting decisions. The Court held that the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2019, to the extent that it allows intervention in matters already sub judice before civil courts, contradicts constitutional principles. In light of Shahid Nabi Malik v. Chief Election Commissioner (PLD 1997 SC 32), civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction over property disputes, and Ombudsman cannot interfere once judicial proceedings are initiated. (e) Ombudsman – Non-Adversarial Role in Executive Oversight Relying on international jurisprudence, including British Columbia Development Corporation v. Friedmann (1984 SCC 121, Canada) and Durga Hotel Complex v. Reserve Bank of India (AIR 2007 SC 1467), the Court emphasized that Ombudsman institutions are non-adversarial, investigative bodies intended to oversee executive mal-administration, not to function as courts. (f) Interim Relief in Partition Disputes The High Court reaffirmed that in partition suits, courts can issue interim injunctions to prevent alienation or change in property status, but should not pass orders that unnecessarily disrupt possession and business operations. The Ombudsman’s order sealing the property was deemed harsh and beyond legal authority, particularly as tenants occupied part of the disputed property. (g) Legislative Recommendation – Need for a Structured Partition Law The Court observed that women’s inheritance rights are often violated through legal loopholes and prolonged litigation. It urged the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government to enact a comprehensive law similar to the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012, to streamline inheritance disputes and prevent abuse of legal processes. Reference was made to Ghulam Qasim v. Mst. Razia Begum (PLD 2021 SC 812), where the Supreme Court lamented the systematic deprivation of women’s inheritance rights through fraudulent tactics. (h) Disposition Ombudsman’s sealing order set aside as illegal. Attachment order upheld to prevent alienation pending adjudication. Ombudsman barred from exercising jurisdiction in partition matters already pending before civil courts. Provincial legislature urged to pass inheritance protection laws ensuring fair partition of women’s property rights.

Summary: The petitioner, M/s Sadiq Poultry (Pvt.) Ltd., challenged the order of the High Court, which directed the formation of a committee to review prices of livestock and poultry products and imposed a ban on the export of dairy and poultry products. The petitioner argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising suo motu powers and issuing orders on policy matters that fall within the domain of the executive. They contended that the High Court's interference in fixing prices and forming committees to regulate prices of livestock and poultry products was unwarranted and against the constitutional separation of powers. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, concluded that the High Court did not have the authority to exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court stated that the High Court's orders went beyond the prayers made in the writ petition and constituted an encroachment on the executive's jurisdiction. They emphasized that the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction solely rests with the Supreme Court under Article 184 of the Constitution. The Court also noted that import and export are federal subjects, and the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing directions to the provincial government regarding the prohibition and restriction of exports. They cited relevant laws that grant the federal government the power to regulate imports and exports. Based on these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Peshawar High Court, declaring it unsustainable and legally unsound.

Summary: Government functionaries are bound to act in accordance with law by not allowing anyone to do as per his desire and wish to maintain the law and order situation and to implement the policies of the Government is the duty of the respondents, as such the respondents are directed to close all the illegal Stands/Terminals/addas in the entire District of Swat, within a period of one month and compliance report in this respect be submitted to the learned Additional Registrar of this Court by respondent No.4 i.e. Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Malakand Division, TMA and Deputy Commissioner, failure of which would be dealt with in consonance with Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003. Office shall immediately send the copy of this order to all concerned for compliance.

Summary: Background/Issues: The primary issue revolves around the legality and implications of the notification dated 31.03.2011, which transferred the Department of Tourist Services (DTS) from federal to provincial control as part of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The petitioners contested the devolution of DTS, arguing that its regulatory functions were linked to the Federal Legislative List and hence should remain under federal jurisdiction. The court, after considering arguments from both parties, concluded that the devolution was consistent with the provisions of the 18th Amendment. It acknowledged the petitioners' concerns about potential licensing and regulatory overlaps but suggested that these issues could be addressed through inter-provincial dialogue or federal coordination mechanisms. The court disposed of the writ petitions, expecting provincial and federal authorities to collaborate in resolving any regulatory inconsistencies related to the tourism industry. ----Citations/Precedents: Article 70(4) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Article 142(c) of the Constitution regarding provincial legislative powers Article 153 concerning the Council of Common Interest Article 270AA safeguarding previous laws ----Quote: The power of Federation to legislate is now limited to items referred in Federal Legislative List, including Part-II under Article 70(4) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Similarly, Article 142(c) extends exclusive power to make laws regarding matters not mentioned in Federal Legislative List to the Provincial Assemblies, therefore, the plain reading of Article 270AA will show protection and preservation of previous laws.

Summary: The concept of Government as enunciated by the Apex Court in Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi & others Vs The Government of Pakistan( PLD 2016 SC 808) in normal connotation us equivalent to the term executive and the executive authority of the Province being exercisable in the name of the Governor by the Provincial Government, consisting of the Chief Minister and Provincial Minister which shall act through the cabinet Minister(s), therefore, through the aforesaid provisions i.e (Section 57(3), 59, 60, 61(4) and 64 of the Amending Act conferring these powers of the Provincial Government to the Chief Minister are thus a delegation which is contrary to Article 129 of the Constitution. Section 27(2) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013 substituted vide Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government (Amendment) Act No. XXV of 2019 only to the extent of envisaging for holding Election for Village Council and Neighbourhood Council, as the case may be, on non-party basis are struck down being ultra vires Article 17 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ( Constitution ). Similarly, part-II of 11th Schedule to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013 inserted through Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Act No. XXV of 2019 to the extent of envisaging for election on non-party basis is also held ultra vires Article 17 of the Constitution and as a consequence thereof, the ongoing Election scheduled by the Election Commission of Pakistan through Notification dated 25.10.2021 for Election of Village Council and Neighbourhood Council shall be held on Party Basis.