Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) --- S. 25 --- Custody of minor daughters --- Second marriage of mother with stranger --- Effect --- Paramount consideration of welfare of minors. Petitioner, the biological father, sought custody of his minor daughters under S. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, on the ground that the mother (respondent) had contracted a second marriage with a man not related to the minors within the prohibited degree. Held, although under Muhammadan Law a mother forfeits her right of hazanat upon remarriage with a stranger, this rule is not absolute and may be departed from where welfare of the minor so requires. In the instant case, the daughters had attained puberty (ages 16/17 and 13/14 respectively), making the mother’s right of hazanat inapplicable. No exceptional circumstances were demonstrated by the mother to justify continued custody. Welfare of the minors, including emotional needs, living conditions, and religious considerations, demanded that custody be transferred to the father, who lived with his parents in a stable joint family home. Accordingly, the Court restored custody to the petitioner/father. Cited cases: Mst. Ansa v. Muhammad Ijaz (2014 SCMR 343) Muhammad Bashir v. Additional District Judge (1981 SCMR 200) Muhammad Abbas v. Mst. Saman (2018 YLR 1771) Mst. Parveen Akhtar v. Additional District Judge (2022 SCMR 2123) (b) Islamic Law --- Custody of daughters --- Living with stepfather --- Not permissible in absence of exceptional circumstances. Held, Islamic injunctions do not sanction minor daughters living with a non-mahram (stranger) man, even if he is the husband of their mother. In the absence of any evidence showing unfitness or inability of the father to maintain or care for the minors, judicial approval of continued custody with the mother—now married to a stranger—is untenable. Emotional convenience or existing arrangements cannot override religiously grounded norms unless supported by compelling and exceptional justification. (c) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) --- Welfare of minor --- Considerations for determining custody --- Scope. Held, welfare of the minor remains the paramount criterion for determining custody. Courts must consider all relevant factors including physical, moral, and emotional well-being, capacity of parents to maintain a secure and stable home, quality of relationship with each parent, and religious and cultural norms. In the instant case, the father was a well-placed officer residing in a joint family home, and no disqualifying factor was established against him. Welfare considerations thus favored granting him custody. Disposition: Petition allowed. Impugned judgments set aside. Custody granted to father with visitation rights to mother.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 397—Concurrence of sentences—Scope and exercise of discretion—Petitioner was convicted in three separate FIRs arising out of one and the same transaction, including charges under Ss. 364/34, 353/186/324/34, P.P.C., S. 13(e) of Arms Ordinance, 1965, and S. 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Trial Court sentenced petitioner separately in each case without directing that sentences would run concurrently—Held, when multiple convictions arise from the same transaction, the court has discretion under S. 397, Cr.P.C. to order sentences to run concurrently—Such discretion ought to be exercised particularly in cases involving minors, unless specific aggravating circumstances exist—In present case, petitioner was a minor at the time of arrest and had remained incarcerated since 2006, having already served most of his substantive sentence—Failure to exercise discretion for concurrency resulted in manifest prejudice—Supreme Court modified sentence by ordering that all sentences would run concurrently—Petitions accordingly dismissed with modification. ----Cited Cases: • Rahib Ali v. The State • Mst. Shahista Bibi v. The State (b) Criminal Law—Sentencing—Minor accused—Benefit of leniency: ----Sentencing discretion in favour of minors—Principles—Courts are expected to exercise leniency where the accused is a minor at the time of commission of the offence unless circumstances dictate otherwise—In present case, petitioner was a juvenile at the time of his arrest and had remained behind bars for nearly two decades—Held, failure of courts below to consider the accused’s minority and prolonged detention justified intervention by Supreme Court—Convictions upheld but sentences directed to run concurrently with benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. ----Disposition: Petitions dismissed with modification—Sentences ordered to run concurrently.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 –– Art. 44 –– University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir –– Appointment of Dean –– Statutory compliance –– Validity of unwritten practices –– Panel of senior-most professors –– Binding effect of University Statute. Held, under the University Statute, the Chancellor is to appoint a Dean from among the three senior-most professors recommended by the Vice Chancellor––Vice Chancellor has no discretion to exclude any eligible senior professor based on a non-statutory rotational policy––Practice of excluding previously appointed Deans or rotating amongst remaining senior staff not supported by any statutory provision––Statute does not bar re-appointment––Any deviation from the mandatory scheme of the Statute for appointment of Dean is ultra vires––Arbitrary exclusion of Professors ranked 1 to 3 in the seniority list held illegal––Held, statutory provisions prevail over any administrative practice or policy inconsistent with it. Cited Principle: Where law prescribes a manner of doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all. (b) University governance –– Discretion of Vice Chancellor –– Nature and limits –– Authority to recommend panel –– Chancellor’s powers –– Interpretation of university statutes. Statute permits Vice Chancellor only to recommend a panel of three senior-most professors; selection from the panel lies within the exclusive domain of the Chancellor––Recommendation of a single name or selective exclusion of senior professors without cogent reason or rule is beyond statutory authority––Held, Vice Chancellor’s discretion is confined within the framework of seniority and cannot be expanded through consistent practice or unwritten policy––Statutory language must prevail; no additional words or implied conditions can be read into it. (c) Administrative law –– Practice and policy versus statutory command –– Subordinate rules and circulars –– Limits. University’s reliance on an unwritten rotational practice to bypass senior-most eligible professors and instead select from amongst others was held to be unlawful––Held, practice or policy, however consistent, cannot override, substitute, or amend a clear statutory provision––Statute alone governs appointments––Circulars, internal practices, or administrative norms contrary to Statute cannot be enforced. (d) Constitutional petition –– Maintainability –– Challenge to past disciplinary orders –– Bar of res judicata –– Exhaustion of departmental remedies. Petitioner in W.P. No.2999/2023 sought to challenge disciplinary proceedings from 2010 and 2017 without having filed any departmental appeal––Earlier petition on the same cause of action had already been dismissed––Held, petition barred by principle of res judicata––Extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to unsettle a matter that has attained finality due to inaction and delay––Equitable relief declined. (e) Constitutional petition –– Maintainability –– Mandatory requirement –– Violation of rule or law –– Burden of proof. Held, to maintain a writ petition, petitioners must establish violation of governing rules or law by respondent authority––Petition is not maintainable in the absence of any identifiable illegality––Plea based on perceived unfairness or policy preference is insufficient where no legal right or rule is breached. Disposition: W.P. No. 2348/2024 accepted in part; matter remanded for fresh consideration of panel in accordance with seniority and University Statute within two months. W.P. No. 2857/2023 dismissed following the same reasoning as in W.P. No. 2348/2024. W.P. No. 2999/2023 dismissed as barred by res judicata and delay.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending