Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 199—Scope of constitutional jurisdiction—High Court’s revisional powers limited to correcting jurisdictional or procedural irregularities—High Court cannot act as a second appellate forum or reappraise factual findings of lower courts—*M. Hammad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari* (2023 SCMR 1434) followed—Once appeal decided on facts, High Court should refrain from substituting its findings to preserve finality and prevent multiplicity of litigation. (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 ----S. 5 & Schedule—Jurisdiction—Matters of dower and dowry articles fall within exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts—Jurisdiction determined by *subject matter*, not by person entitled to sue—Right to sue survives upon death of spouse; legal heirs may pursue claim—*Khan Assadullah Khan v. Sheikh Islam-ud-Din* (PLD 1978 Lah. 711) and *Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal* (PLD 1984 SC 95) referred. (c) Family Law—Right to sue after death of spouse ----Where wife dies during pendency of suit for recovery of dower and dowry articles, her legal heirs (e.g., mother) may continue proceedings as plaintiffs in representative capacity—Family Court rightly proceeded to adjudicate and decree matter—Claim survives as part of deceased’s estate. (d) Dower and dowry articles—Evaluation of evidence ----Trial Court decreed both dower (Rs.10,000) and dowry items (including 87.2 gms gold); Appellate Court, upon reappraisal, set aside decree only to extent of gold ornaments—No illegality or perversity found—Appellate findings upheld as based on proper appraisal. (e) Constitutional petition—Maintainability ----Where both trial and appellate courts have concurrently adjudicated on facts, invoking constitutional jurisdiction amounts to misuse of Art.199—Petition dismissed as devoid of merit and barred by settled judicial principle of finality of findings. (f) Disposition --- Petition dismissed. Findings of Appellate Court dated 24-08-2022 upheld; no interference warranted. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Encroachment on public land---Allotment of commercial property---Abuse of public purpose---Maintainability---Petitioners, representing the Mashakhor community, challenged alleged illegal occupation of land by Commission Agents in the Hazar Ganji Fruit and Vegetable Market, Quetta, and claimed deprivation of their rightful space originally allotted to them---Official record confirmed that twenty-three (23) acres had been allotted to Mashakhors by Quetta Development Authority in 1998 for business operations---However, petitioners were found to have sold or rented their allotted land and instead encroached on auction platforms and public utility areas such as roads and spaces allocated for Mazda stands and drainage---Civil suit earlier filed by petitioners regarding the same land dispute had already been dismissed---Court held that encroachments under the guise of business activity could not be tolerated, particularly when causing obstruction to others’ legitimate business and undermining public security---No person has a vested right to encroach upon land beyond their lawful allotment---Court declined to interfere under Art.199 in the absence of bona fide entitlement. **(b) Administrative Law---Encroachment---Public markets and commercial complexes---Scope of judicial review---Court emphasized that allottees of public land must restrict use strictly to the purpose for which allotment was made---Where land is misused, alienated, or encroached upon by the allottee, no equitable relief is warranted---Security and functional administration of public commercial markets must take precedence over individual claims of possession not supported by law. **(c) Civil Procedure---Bar of jurisdiction---Earlier civil suit by petitioners seeking similar relief against official respondents was dismissed by competent Civil Court---Constitutional petitions on same subject held not maintainable. Disposition: Petitions dismissed.

Summary: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that FIRs cannot be quashed once a challan has been filed, affirming the limited scope for judicial intervention during the investigative process. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi emphasized that "quashment of FIR during investigation tantamounts to throttling the investigation, which is not permissible in law," underlining that such judicial powers are reserved for truly exceptional cases. ------ - Key Points of the Judgment include: ------ 1) Judicial and Investigative Roles Are Distinct: Justice Rizvi highlighted the complementary, non-overlapping roles of the judiciary and law enforcement, stating that law enforcement is obligated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate cognizable offences. Courts should not interfere with this duty unless the case is extraordinary. ------ 2) Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings: The judgment clarified that a concurrent civil dispute does not preclude criminal proceedings. Justice Rizvi referenced precedent, stating that "a criminal case must be allowed to proceed on its own merits, regardless of any parallel civil matters." Criminal and civil cases can coexist and be adjudicated independently. ------ 3) Grounds for Quashment Must Be Exceptional: FIR quashment is only permissible if there is clear evidence of misuse of legal authority or if the allegations lack legal basis. Justice Rizvi noted that concerns over conviction probability should be handled within trial proceedings and not preempt the investigation. ----- 4) No Premature Judicial Intervention: The Court emphasized that quashing an FIR should not impede the police's statutory role in evidence gathering. Interference should be limited to cases where allegations unequivocally indicate no offence or a clear abuse of process. ------ This case involves Civil Petitions No. 671-L and 672-L of 2017, where the State challenged the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench’s decision to quash FIR No. 58/2012. This FIR, registered on August 2, 2012, alleged that the respondents fraudulently transferred significant state land in Tehsil Jalalpur to private persons using forged orders from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. An inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) revealed irregularities, leading to FIR registration. However, the respondents contended that the FIR was baseless and filed with malafide intent, ultimately convincing the High Court to quash it. ------Issues ------1) Whether the High Court erred in quashing an FIR involving alleged fraudulent land transfers under Article 199 of the Constitution. ------2) Whether the existence of a civil dispute negates the necessity for criminal proceedings. ------3) Whether the High Court’s quashing of the FIR was justified based on the improbability of conviction. ------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, finding that quashing the FIR was improper. Key points of reasoning include: The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 to quash FIRs is limited to cases where the FIR is evidently without legal basis or constitutes an abuse of legal authority. Criminal proceedings should not be prematurely quashed, especially when material evidence supports a cognizable offense. The existence of a civil dispute does not preclude criminal liability; both civil and criminal proceedings can proceed concurrently if the facts disclose a criminal offense. Probable conviction or acquittal is a matter for trial courts to decide, and without strong evidence of malafide intent by investigative authorities, the FIR should not have been quashed at this stage. ------Citations/Precedents Ajmeel Khan v. Abdul Rahim and others (PLD 2009 SC 102) – On the complementary roles of judiciary and police and the conditions under which an FIR may be quashed. FIA, Director General FIA and others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others (PLD 2023 SC 265) – Reaffirming the High Court’s power to quash FIRs when the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offense. Seema Fareed and Others v. The State and another (2008 SCMR 839) – Civil disputes do not bar criminal proceedings if criminal liability is indicated. Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2021 SC 5041) – Guidelines on judicial restraint in staying investigations and quashing FIRs in India. Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani (2023 SCMR 246), Amir Jamal v. Malik Zahoor-ul-Haq (2011 SCMR 1023), Fida Hussain v. Mst Saiqa (2011 SCMR 1990) – High Court’s limited scope under Article 199 in cases requiring factual determinations. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, thereby reinstating the FIR for investigation and trial.

Summary: This case addressed a dispute over the fixation of Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) for drugs under the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018. The petitioners, including Getz Pharma and others, contested a decision of the Federal Cabinet communicated through the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP). The Federal Cabinet had rejected the recommendations of the Drug Pricing Committee (DPC) to increase MRPs for certain drugs on hardship grounds. The petitioners argued that the Federal Government acted arbitrarily and failed to adhere to the Drug Pricing Policy and statutory requirements, including providing reasons for its decision or affording affected parties the opportunity to be heard. The case raised questions about administrative fairness, procedural impropriety, and compliance with statutory and constitutional mandates. ------ Issues: Did the Federal Government’s decision to reject the DPC's recommendation breach the procedural requirements under Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897? Was the rejection of hardship pricing inconsistent with the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018, and the statutory framework under the Drugs Act, 1976, and the DRAP Act, 2012? Did the decision violate the petitioners’ rights under Articles 10A (right to due process) and 18 (freedom of trade) of the Constitution? Could the Federal Government resile from its own declared policy without recording reasons or adhering to procedural fairness? -------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome Holding: The Islamabad High Court set aside the Federal Cabinet’s decision to reject the DPC’s recommendations as arbitrary, procedurally flawed, and in violation of the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018, as well as the petitioners' constitutional rights. The Court directed the Federal Cabinet to reconsider the recommendations of the DPC and provide reasons if it chooses to reject them, after affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard. -------- Reasoning: Procedural Fairness and Section 24A of the General Clauses Act: The Court emphasized that Section 24A imposes an obligation on public authorities to act reasonably, fairly, and justly while recording reasons for their decisions. The Federal Cabinet’s failure to provide reasons for rejecting the DPC’s recommendations violated this statutory obligation. ------ Compliance with Drug Pricing Policy, 2018: The Drug Pricing Policy prescribes clear criteria for determining MRPs, including hardship pricing mechanisms under Clause 9. The DPC had followed the policy’s prescribed formula and timelines to recommend price adjustments, which the Federal Cabinet arbitrarily rejected without justification. Legitimate Expectation and Administrative Law Principles: By enacting the Drug Pricing Policy, the Federal Government created legitimate expectations among pharmaceutical manufacturers that pricing decisions would follow the criteria and processes outlined in the policy. The Federal Government’s decision to disregard its own policy without reasons was deemed irrational and in violation of the principle of legitimate expectation. ------- Constitutional Violations: Article 10A (Due Process): The rejection of the DPC’s recommendations without affording the petitioners a hearing violated their right to due process. Article 18 (Freedom of Trade): Forcing pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs below cost without providing a rationale was inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of lawful trade and business. Public Interest and Right to Life (Article 9): The Court highlighted that unreasonable drug pricing decisions affect the public’s right to access affordable medicine, which is linked to the constitutional right to life. ------- Judicial Review and Reasonableness: Applying the principles of Wednesbury reasonableness, the Court found the Federal Government’s decision irrational and disproportionate. The lack of reasons and procedural fairness rendered the decision invalid under administrative law principles. -------- Outcome: The Court: Declared the Federal Cabinet’s rejection of the DPC’s recommendations as arbitrary and unlawful. Directed the Federal Cabinet to reconsider the DPC’s recommendations in accordance with the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018, and statutory requirements. Mandated that the Federal Government provide reasons for any decision inconsistent with the DPC’s recommendations and ensure due process rights for the petitioners. ----- Citations/Precedents: Statutes and Policies: Drugs Act, 1976 (Section 12): Delegates authority to the Federal Government to fix MRPs. DRAP Act, 2012 (Sections 7(c)(vii) & 32): Governs drug pricing and mandates adherence to the Drug Pricing Policy. Drug Pricing Policy, 2018 (Clause 9): Provides mechanisms for hardship pricing and timelines for MRP adjustments. General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 24A): Requires public authorities to act reasonably, fairly, and document reasons. ------- Constitutional Provisions: Article 10A: Guarantees the right to due process. Article 18: Protects freedom of trade and business. Article 9: Ensures the right to life, including access to essential medicines. ------- Judicial Precedents: Associated Provincial Picture House v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948): Established the principle of Wednesbury reasonableness. Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan (2016 PTD 2269): Affirmed that the Federal Cabinet’s decisions must comply with statutory and constitutional obligations. Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (2015 SCMR 630): Reiterated the obligation to act reasonably and structure discretion. National Savings Central Directorate v. Muhammad Farooq Raja (2021 CLD 370): Emphasized the doctrine of legitimate expectation and fairness. Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board (PLD 2019 SC 189): Discussed proportionality in administrative decisions. ------ Significance: This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness, reasoned decision-making, and adherence to declared policies by public authorities. It reaffirms that government decisions impacting public and commercial rights must align with constitutional principles, administrative law norms, and statutory requirements.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199 & Art. 225---Maintainability of constitutional petition---Interlocutory orders of Election Tribunal---Bar of jurisdiction---Scope---Constitutional petitions filed under Art. 199 of the Constitution challenging interlocutory orders passed by the Election Tribunal were held to be not maintainable---Purpose of not providing right of appeal or revision against interim orders under the Elections Act, 2017 is to ensure expeditious disposal of election disputes and avoid piecemeal litigation---Jurisdiction of High Court is barred under Art. 225 of the Constitution when an election dispute is being adjudicated by the competent forum as prescribed by the law---Interlocutory orders are not amenable to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction since aggrieved parties have a statutory remedy of appeal against final orders under S. 155 of the Elections Act, 2017---High Court cannot act as an appellate forum over interim decisions of Election Tribunals---Relied on Muhammad Raza Hayat Hiraj v. Election Commission of Pakistan (2015 SCMR 233), Shella B. Charles v. Election Tribunal (1997 SCMR 941), Rashida Yaqoob v. Election Tribunal (2017 CLC Note 17), Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry v. Election Tribunal (2014 CLC 542). (b) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017) ----Ss. 142 to 145, 154, 155---Election dispute---Election Tribunal’s jurisdiction---Interlocutory order---Final remedy---Election Tribunals are empowered under Ss. 142 to 145 of the Act to summarily reject election petitions for non-compliance with statutory provisions---Only final orders of Election Tribunals are appealable to the Supreme Court under S. 155(1) of the Act, or to the High Court in local government cases under S. 155(2)---Legislature has deliberately excluded interlocutory orders from appealable orders to ensure efficient adjudication---Petitioner’s challenge to an interlocutory order through constitutional petition was held to be premature and legally barred. (c) Constitutional Law---Election Disputes---Judicial Review---Scope and limits ----Interference with interlocutory order by High Court---Impermissibility---Court held that even an allegedly erroneous interim order cannot be corrected in writ jurisdiction where the forum of trial is vested in the Election Tribunal---If such petitions were entertained, the very purpose of excluding interim challenges in the statutory scheme would be defeated---The Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide preliminary matters, and any wrong decision at the interim stage is to be remedied through statutory appeal upon final decision---Cited Habib Bank Ltd. v. Judge, Banking Court (2015 CLD 1875), Ali Adnan Dar v. Judge, Family Court (PLD 2016 Lahore 73), and Mian Aurangzeb Noor v. Rent Controller (2012 CLC 1729). (d) Disposition Writ petition challenging interlocutory order of Election Tribunal was held to be barred under Article 225 of the Constitution and dismissed in limine as not maintainable. Connected petition also dismissed.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, filed a public interest petition arguing that judicial powers are being exercised unconstitutionally by the Executive in the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT). He contends that officers from the ICT Administration exercise judicial authority without adhering to procedural rules framed by the High Court under Article 202 of the Constitution, thus bypassing the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 203. The petition seeks to prevent these executive officers from handling criminal matters and exercising judicial powers. -----Issues: 1- Whether the exercise of judicial powers by executive officers in ICT violates Article 175(3) of the Constitution, which mandates separation of judiciary and executive. -----2- Whether officers of the ICT Administration should be restrained from exercising judicial powers, given they fall under executive control. -----3- Whether the Federal Government’s failure to implement judicial reforms, as required by the Constitution, nullifies the judicial authority exercised by the Executive in ICT. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court held that the exercise of judicial authority by the ICT Administration's executive officers is unconstitutional under Articles 175(3), 202, and 203 of the Constitution. It was emphasized that judicial powers must be independent of the Executive, and the High Court must retain supervisory jurisdiction over judicial functions within ICT. The Court ordered: The Federal Government must issue the necessary notification to enforce judicial independence in ICT immediately. Until the notification is issued, executive officers are restrained from issuing final judgments in criminal trials, which will be reassigned to judicial magistrates. Judicial powers in ICT must adhere strictly to constitutional provisions, with any non-compliance deemed unconstitutional and void. -----Citations/Precedents: Government of Sindh v. Sharaf Faridi (PLD 1994 SC 105) Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 1445) Government of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon (PLD 1993 SC 341) Sharaf Faridi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1989 Karachi 404) Syed Abul A'la Maudoodi (PLD 1964 SC 673 at 710) Ms. Benazir Bhutto (PLD 1989 SC 416) Sh. Riaz-Ul-Haq v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 501) Tariq Transport Company v. The Sargodha-Bhera Bus Service (PLD 1958 SC 437) Messrs Ranyal Textiles v. Sindh Labour Court (PLD 2010 Karachi 27) Baz Muhammad Kakar v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 92) Chairman, N.-W.F.P. Forest Development Corporation v. Khurshid Anwar Khan (1992 SCMR 1202) Syed Zafar Ali Shah v. General Pervez Musharaf (PLD 2000 SC 869) Corruption in Hajj Arrangements in 2010 (PLD 2011 SC 963) Malik Toti Khan v. District Magistrate (PLD 1957 Quetta 1)

Summary: Issues: 1) Separation of Powers: Does the delegation of judicial powers to the executive officers of the ICT Administration violate Article 175(3) of the Constitution, which mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive? ------ 2) Judicial Independence: Can judicial powers be exercised by executive officers who are not under the supervisory jurisdiction of the judiciary, as required by Article 203 of the Constitution? Implementation of Reforms: Has the delay in issuing the notification for the enforcement of the judicial separation under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinances of 2001 been unconstitutional? ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the exercise of judicial powers by the executive magistrates within the ICT as unconstitutional. ------ Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence: The court held that the provisions of the Constitution are clear in mandating the separation of the judiciary from the executive. Any continued exercise of judicial powers by executive officers violates the Constitution, particularly Articles 175(3), 202, and 203, which require an independent judiciary. The exercise of judicial functions by ICT Administration officers was deemed unconstitutional. ------ Delay in Implementation: The court noted that the Federal Government had failed to issue the necessary notification to enforce the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinances of 2001, which were designed to separate the judiciary from the executive. The delay of over 23 years in issuing this notification was found to be unconstitutional. ------ Prospective Effect: The court’s ruling operates prospectively, meaning that it does not affect past judgments or decisions already made by executive magistrates under the de facto doctrine, but prevents them from issuing future judgments or orders in criminal trials until the necessary judicial reforms are enforced. The court directed the Federal Government to issue the notification for the enforcement of the 1st Amendment Ordinance without further delay and restrained executive magistrates from passing final orders in criminal cases pending before them. ------ Citations/Precedents: Government of Sindh v. Sharaf Faridi (PLD 1994 SC 105) Confirmed that executive magistrates cannot exercise judicial powers in violation of the principle of separation of powers. ------ Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 1445) Reiterated that the separation of the judiciary from the executive is a constitutional mandate. ------ Government of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon (PLD 1993 SC 341) Held that the period for separation of the judiciary from the executive expired in 1987, and any delay beyond that is unconstitutional. ------ Sheikh Riaz-ul-Haq v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 501) Distinguished judicial power from administrative functions, emphasizing that judicial powers must be exercised by courts subject to judicial principles. ------ Malik Toti Khan v. District Magistrate (PLD 1957 Quetta 1) The court emphasized that inconvenience to the administration cannot override constitutional provisions regarding judicial independence.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Citizenship ----Right to nationality—Issuance of CNICs—Fundamental rights— Citizenship is a foundational right, enabling individuals to enjoy civil and political protections guaranteed under the Constitution—Arbitrary deprivation of nationality or denial of CNICs contravenes Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other international conventions—State cannot adopt practices that risk statelessness, and must act in accordance with due process and safeguards enshrined in law. (b) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 ----S. 47 & NADRA Notification dated 19.04.2017 (as amended 03.01.2018)—Issuance of CNICs—Proof of Pakistani citizenship— Under the notification, NADRA is bound to issue CNICs to applicants who produce pre-1979 verified government documents such as land records, domicile, pedigree tables, or other state-issued certificates—Petitioners established their ancestral ownership through documentary evidence including revenue records and inheritance mutations dating back to 1965-66—Their entitlement to CNICs was fully supported by law. (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 115—Civil revision—Concurrent findings reversed by appellate court—Interference justified— Trial Court decreed suit for issuance of CNICs based on robust oral and documentary evidence—Appellate Court misread evidence and failed to consider applicability of statutory NADRA Notification—High Court exercised revisional jurisdiction to restore trial court’s decree, holding appellate judgment as unsustainable in law. **(d) Evidence—Documentary proof—Pre-1979 land records and pedigree table— Petitioners produced Khewat, Khatooni, Misl-e-Haqiat, mutation entries, and verified pedigree (Shajra-e-Nasab) to show lineage from Pakistani citizens recorded before 1979—Also supported claim through NADRA verification tokens and applications—Held, such evidence fulfilled statutory criteria for CNIC issuance. **(e) Administrative Law—Failure to provide remedy despite direction— Petitioners had earlier been directed to avail NADRA’s internal remedy, which they duly pursued—NADRA failed to act upon their applications despite tokens and supporting documentation—Such conduct amounts to violation of legitimate expectations and necessitated judicial intervention. Disposition: Revision allowed—Judgment of appellate court dated 22.02.2023 set aside—Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 08.11.2022 restored—Petitioners declared bona fide Pakistani citizens entitled to CNICs under NADRA Notification and Section 47 of Ordinance, 2000.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9, 10, 10(3) to 10(8), & 199(b)(1)--- Fundamental right to liberty---Preventive detention under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO)---Scope and judicial review---Petitioners, affiliated with a political party, were detained under orders of Deputy Commissioners on allegations of anti-state activities following political agitations on 9-5-2023---Contention raised that detention orders violated fundamental rights enshrined in Arts.9 & 10 of the Constitution---Held, that Art.9 guarantees protection of liberty, and no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law---Art.10 provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention; however, preventive detention under sub-articles (3) to (8) is an exception to these safeguards and must be exercised strictly in accordance with law---Detention orders, being subject to judicial review under Art.199(b)(1), must meet legal and constitutional standards---Impugned orders were passed without any substantive material, thereby failing to meet constitutional requirements---Petitions allowed. Cited Cases: • Begum Shorish Kashmiri case PLD 1969 SC 14 • Liaqat Ali case PLD 1999 SC 504 • Abdul Baqi Baluch case PLD 1968 SC 346 (b) Preventive Detention ----S.3, West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO)---Burden of proof---Scope of subjective satisfaction---Preventive detention cannot be ordered arbitrarily---Held, that while preventive detention requires satisfaction of the executive authority, such satisfaction must be based on credible material and not be arbitrary, capricious, or without basis---Detaining authority must demonstrate existence of material justifying detention, failing which the detention order is liable to be struck down---Impugned orders were passed on the basis of general allegations and political affiliations without substantiating material---No record was produced before the Court to justify the detention orders---Preventive detention, being an extraordinary measure, cannot be used as a substitute for criminal proceedings and must meet stringent legal standards. Cited Cases: • Shamas Din v. The State PLD 1997 SC 637 • Federation of Pakistan v. Ameer Hussain PLD 2023 LHC 204 (c) Public Order vs. Political Dissent ----Scope of preventive detention---Misuse of executive power---Held, that preventive detention under S.3, MPO, is intended for maintenance of public order and cannot be used to suppress political dissent---Concept of "public order" distinguished from "law and order" and "security of the state"---Public order signifies the even tempo of life in a community and must not be confused with politically motivated detentions---Impugned detention orders were issued against political workers based on allegations of participation in protests without any substantive evidence of actual or imminent breach of public order---Detentions were thus unconstitutional and liable to be set aside. Cited Cases: • Noor Muhammad v. Government PLD 2022 Pesh 187 • Anwar Ali v. The State 2021 SCMR 1283 (d) Burden of Proof in Preventive Detention Cases ----Standard of proof---Held, that burden of proof lies on the detaining authority to establish legality of the detention order---Authority must place before the Court the entire material on which satisfaction for detention was based---Mere production of detention orders is not sufficient---Detention orders must pass the test of reasonableness and objectivity---Failure to do so renders the detention illegal---In the present case, the detaining authorities failed to produce any evidence to justify the detention orders, which were consequently declared void. Cited Cases: • Khanan v. The State PLD 2020 SC 446 • Khurram Shahzad v. Government PLD 2019 SC 533 (e) International Human Rights Perspective ----Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art.9---International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art.9---Arbitrary detention---Pakistan’s international obligations---Held, that arbitrary detention without substantive justification is a violation of international human rights norms and Pakistan’s commitments under the ICCPR---International human rights law mandates that preventive detention must be based on clear, compelling evidence and should not be used as a means of political repression. Cited Cases: • Rizwanullah v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2021 SC 389 (f) Islamic Law Perspective ----Principles of Siyasah Shar’iyah---Fundamental rights in Islamic governance---Held, that an Islamic State cannot arbitrarily curtail individual freedoms and must act responsibly in securing public interest---Preventive detention laws should not be used as a tool for political suppression, as such use contradicts the principles of justice in Islamic law---Government action must align with principles of fairness and public welfare (Maslahah). Cited Cases: • Asif Gohar v. Government PLD 2018 SC 771 (g) Rule of Law and Limited Government ----Judicial review of executive action---Scope and limitations of preventive detention laws---Held, that rule of law requires that all persons, including the government, remain subject to legal constraints---Preventive detention laws must be exercised within the limits prescribed by law and must withstand judicial scrutiny---Courts are obligated to strike down orders that are arbitrary, vague, or issued without substantive material---In the present case, detention orders lacked legal and factual basis and were consequently declared void. Cited Cases: • Humayun v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2017 SC 539 (h) Conclusion and Disposition ----Preventive detention orders found illegal and unconstitutional---No substantive material was produced to justify the detention of the petitioners---Held, that the impugned orders were arbitrary, without lawful authority, and contrary to constitutional protections of liberty and due process---Petitions allowed---Detention orders set aside. Cited Cases: • Aftab Adam v. Government PLD 2023 Pesh 111

Summary: Earlier, the low-income people were being provided basic commodities through the USC and now the Government, as per minutes of meeting of Committee on rightsizing of the Federal Government attached with the petitions, has decided to explore alternate arrangement, which is a matter of policy involving complicated economic factors. The scope of judicial review of Government's policy is now well-settled. The Courts cannot assume the role of Appellate Authority to examine the rightness, suitability and appositeness of a policy. The scope of judicial review while examining a policy of the Government is to see whether it encroaches upon fundamental rights of the citizens or violates any provision of the Constitution or any statute. 985Civil Revision- Civil Revision (Against Decree) u/s. 115, C.P.C. 314-15 SYED MONIS RAZA ETC VS MST. ASIA BANO ETC Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi 04- 09- 2024 2024 LHC 3849 2025 CLC 168 [Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]