Summary: Background: The petitioners challenged the custom of Swara/Vani in Kurram Agency (erstwhile FATA), which involves giving a female in marriage as a form of compensation to settle disputes. The petition argued that this custom is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, unconstitutional, and violates principles of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioners challenged a decision by the Additional District Magistrate of Upper Kurram, Parachinar, which upheld a jirga's decision mandating the marriage of a female under this custom. ----Issues: 1- Whether the custom of Swara/Vani is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam and therefore should be declared null and void. 2- Whether the decision of the Additional District Magistrate, which validated the jirga's recommendation under Rewaj-e-Kurram, is against Islamic principles and should be set aside. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Repugnancy to Islam: The court held that the custom of Swara/Vani, where females are given in marriage as a form of compensation to settle disputes, is un-Islamic. The court referenced Quranic verses and Ahadith to emphasize that no person should bear the burden of another's wrongdoing, and the practice of Swara/Vani violates this principle. The court highlighted that this custom, prevalent in various parts of Pakistan under different names, is not only un-Islamic but also unconstitutional and illegal. --Legal Status Post-25th Amendment: With the 25th Constitutional Amendment, FATA was merged into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, extending national and provincial laws to the area. This change in legal status led to the abrogation of the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) and the application of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), including Section 310-A PPC, which explicitly criminalizes the practice of giving females in marriage as compensation. The court declared the practice of Swara/Vani as un-Islamic, unconstitutional, and illegal. The decision of the Additional District Magistrate, which validated the jirga's recommendation under Rewaj-e-Kurram, was set aside. The petition was disposed of accordingly, affirming the illegality of such customs under the new legal framework established by the 25th Constitutional Amendment. ----Citations/Precedents: Surah Al-Fatir, Ayah-18: "No bearer will bear the burden of any other person." Surah Al-Anaam, Ayah-164: "And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another." Hadith (Sunnan Abu Daud): The Prophet (PBUH) emphasized that no person is accountable for the crime of another. Section 310-A, Pakistan Penal Code: Criminalizes the practice of giving females in marriage as a form of compensation (Swara/Vani). Constitution Petition No. 24 of 2012 and Civil Petition No. 773-P of 2018: Supreme Court ruling that no individual or group, under any name, can assume the jurisdiction of a civil or criminal court without lawful authority.

Summary: The practice of Swara/Vani and similar customs to be un-Islamic, unconstitutional, and illegal --- the Federal Shariat Court dealt with a legal challenge regarding the practice of Swara/Vani in Kurram Agency, Pakistan. The petitioners sought to declare the custom of Swara/Vani as null and void, alleging that it was un-Islamic, unconstitutional, and repugnant to the principles of natural justice.The case revolved around the following key points:Mst. Sakeena Bibi, an adult Muslim girl, had contracted a Nikah with Syed Mushahid Hussain with her consent. Her family had initially refused the marriage proposal from the groom's side, but Mst. Sakeena proceeded with the Nikah independently.After the Nikah, Mst. Sakeena's family members, along with others, took her away with a promise to resolve the matter within a month. Various local jirgas were convened, but their decisions were not accepted by the parties.Eventually, a council of elders decided the matter in accordance with Rewaj-e-Kurram, a local custom. This decision was also endorsed by the Additional District Magistrate.The petitioners challenged the practice of Swara/Vani and the decision of the Additional District Magistrate in the Federal Shariat Court, claiming that they were against the principles of Islam, the Constitution, and natural justice.The Court noted several significant developments that affected the legal landscape of the case:The 25th Constitutional Amendment merged the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, resulting in the abrogation of the Frontier Crime Regulations (FCR) and the extension of national and provincial laws to the merged areas.The Court cited a 2019 Supreme Court judgment, declaring that no individual or group could assume the jurisdiction of a civil or criminal court without lawful authority.The Court highlighted the introduction of Section 310-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, which prescribed penalties for giving a female in marriage or otherwise as part of practices like Swara/Vani. This section aimed to eradicate such practices.Ultimately, the Court found the practice of Swara/Vani and similar customs to be un-Islamic, unconstitutional, and illegal, aligning with the principles of the Holy Quran and Sunnah. Given the changes in legal status due to the constitutional amendment, the Court disposed of the petition.

Summary: The petitioner challenged an order that remanded his case to the District Judge, Malakand, under subsection (8) of section 10 of the Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009 ('the Regulation'). This subsection stated that the appellate or revisional court should not remand a case and must decide it within thirty days without any remand. The interpretation of this provision was contested, and the matter was brought before the Supreme Court.During the hearing, the court noticed that the case involved the interpretation of a provincial law and its decision could impact other cases as well. The court also learned about the Twenty-fifth Constitutional Amendment, enacted on 4 June 2018, which deleted Article 247 of the Constitution, bringing an end to the executive's power to make laws for the erstwhile tribal areas, including the Regulation. However, certain laws were enacted after the amendment, which were later challenged and struck down by the Peshawar High Court as being incompatible with the Constitution.The court noted that there were appeals pending against the Peshawar High Court's judgment, and these cases had not been decided for several years. The court expressed concern about delayed decisions in cases that determine the rights of parties and affect the future rights of the people. It emphasized the importance of promptly listing and deciding such cases to uphold the rule of law and ensure people's knowledge of the legal landscape.The court directed the Registrar to seek orders from the Chief Justice to fix all the appeals and petitions related to erstwhile FATA and PATA (Provincially Administered Tribal Areas) together to avoid conflicting findings. The court stressed the importance of advancing the cause of justice and maintaining the court's independence, authority, and public respect.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution.(a)Salaries of Federal or Provincial civil servants working in erstwhile FATA or PATA have never been exempt from payment of income tax.

Summary: Sections of law; Section FCR(a) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 had become applicable in the area erstwhile FATA the moment 25th Amendment was effected in the Constitution and Article 247 was omitted thereof.(b) The confessional statement recorded before NaibTehsildar after repeal of Article 247 of the Constitution has got no legal sanctity. (c) Conviction must be founded on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution, The Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and Sales Tax Act, 1990(a) Individuals and association of persons residing in erstwhile FATA or PATA were declared exempt from levy and imposition of advance income tax payable under section 148 of the Income Tax Ordinance at import stage, till the period mentioned in Clause 146 of Part-1st of Second Schedule of the Ordinance, but for seeking such exemption they shall have to apply therefor, under section 159 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

Summary: During the proceedings, Article 247 of the Constitution was omitted through a constitutional amendment, causing changes in the legal regime governing the area formerly known as FATA/PATA. This amendment was challenged in various cases. However, the court decided that the omission of Article 247 did not affect the legality of the proceedings under the Regulation No. 1 of 2009 applicable in FATA/PATA areas. The court clarified that the repeal or omission of an Act under the Constitution would not affect any ongoing proceedings, legal remedies, or rights accrued under the repealed law.As a result, the court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded the matters back to the High Court for further consideration in accordance with the prevailing legal regime under the Constitution and the Regulation of 2009. The court further disposed of all listed applications in the case.

Summary: When the application of law has been extended to FATA then there is no question of jurisdiction by the authority and respondent No.3 as well. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 has submitted his application/complaint to respondent No.2, however, the same was entrusted to respondent No.3 under the provision of section 38 of the Nepra Act. No doubt, in case of any dispute pertainingto meter, demand or apparatus, the matter shall be decided by Electric Inspector as provided insection 26 (6) of Electricity Act 1937, During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also criticized the impugned order by contending that under section 12A of the Act, a decision of the single member of the authority is heard and decided by the Tribunal but in the case in hand there was no decision of single member of the authority, thus, without referring the matter to the single member, no decision could be made, as such, the impugned order is perverse and illegal. This argument too is without force because in this case under section 38 (3) of the Act, appeal was preferred to the authority, however, section 12A of the Act provides the right of appeal to the personaggrieved from the decision or the order of single member of the authority or the tribunal. Forconvenience, section 12A is reproduced as under: -12A. Appeal. ? Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Single Member of the Authority or, as the case may be, Tribunal established under section 11 may, within thirty days of the decision or order, prefer an appeal to the Authority in the prescribed manner and the Authority shall decide such appeal within sixty days. This section was inserted by Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power (amendment) Act 2011, by which a remedy is provided to the person aggrieved from the decision of a Single Member or from the decision of tribunal, no such appeal was preferred before the authority under section 12A of the Act, rather there was an appeal under section 38(3) of the Act.

Summary: Sections of law; Articles 1, 8, 9,15, 246, 247 and 199 of the Constitution and section 8 of the FCR as well as 25 th Constitutional Amendment.(a) Fundamental rights were available to citizens of the State living in FATA even in the erstwhile dispensation provided in Article 247 of the Constitution before its repeal, but the remedy for its enforcement was not available in erstwhile FATA before promulgation of the 25 th Constitutional Amendment.(b) Customs prevalent in FATA whereby somebody used to be declared as Kushinda and expelling him from his native territory, even if existed in the past cannot be allowed to operate in future, as it operates to abridge fundamental rights of a citizen.(c) Decision of a Jirga depriving a citizen of Pakistan from exercise of his fundamental right may not be allowed to operate.

Summary: Section 36 FATA Interim Governance Regulations, 2018.a) With the repeal of Article 247 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, all the regulations promulgated by President of Pakistan or Governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, ceased to exist, on coming into force of the 25th Constitutional amendment.