Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 8, 9, 10A, 14 & 25---Fundamental rights---Due process and fair trial---Scope---Reference filed by the President of Pakistan under Art. 186 seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether the conviction and execution of former Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto met constitutional guarantees of due process and fair trial---Validity---Held, that the trial proceedings before the Lahore High Court and the appellate proceedings before the Supreme Court did not meet the requirements of a fair trial and due process as enshrined in Arts. 4, 9, and later explicitly guaranteed as an independent fundamental right under Art. 10A of the Constitution---The judgment convicting and sentencing Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, despite its flaws, attained finality after the dismissal of the review petition and could not be undone through the reference mechanism provided under Art. 186 of the Constitution. Cited Cases: Reference No. 1 of 2011 ----- (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 189---Binding precedent---Scope---Conviction and execution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto---Effect on future legal precedents---Held, that the reference did not specify any principle of law enunciated in the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto case that would be binding under Art. 189 of the Constitution---Therefore, it was not possible to determine whether any such principle had already been dissented from or overruled in subsequent decisions. Cited Cases: Reference No. 1 of 2011 ----- (c) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 186---Advisory jurisdiction---Scope---Supreme Court’s power to reappraise evidence in an advisory opinion---Held, that in its advisory jurisdiction under Art. 186, the Supreme Court could not reappraise evidence or undo the conviction and sentencing of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto---However, in the detailed reasons to follow, the Court would highlight the major constitutional and legal lapses that occurred in the trial and appellate proceedings with respect to fair trial and due process. Cited Cases: Reference No. 1 of 2011 (d) Islamic Law ----Quranic and Hadith principles of repentance (Tawba)---Application in criminal cases---Scope---Question posed in the reference as to whether the decision in the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto case met the requirements of Islamic law as codified in the Holy Quran and Sunnah and whether the doctrine of repentance applied---Held, that as no assistance was provided on this issue, the Court found it inappropriate to render an opinion. Cited References: Sura Al-Nisa, verses 17 & 18 Sura Al-Baqara, verses 159, 160 & 222 Sura Al-Maida, verse 39 Sura Al-Aaraaf, verse 153 Sura Al-Nahl, verse 119 Sura Al-Taha, verse 82 Sunan Ibn-e-Maaja, Chapter 171, Hadith No. 395 (e) Criminal Law ----Capital punishment---Judicial bias---Fair trial and due process---Scope---Reference questioned whether the awarding and maintenance of the death sentence against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was justified or amounted to a deliberate miscarriage of justice due to bias against him---Held, that while the Supreme Court could not reappraise the evidence in its advisory jurisdiction, it would, in its detailed reasoning, highlight constitutional and legal lapses in the trial process. Cited Cases: Reference No. 1 of 2011 ------ Disposition: Reference decided with the opinion that the trial and appeal of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto did not meet the constitutional requirements of fair trial and due process; however, the conviction could not be undone as the judgment had attained finality.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: Art. 186—Advisory jurisdiction—Scope of reappraisal of evidence In advisory jurisdiction under Art. 186, the Supreme Court cannot reappraise evidence or undo decisions made in adjudicatory jurisdiction. The Court noted that certain observations in the Chief Justice’s detailed opinion exceeded this scope by revisiting evidence already finalized. (b) Criminal Law—Due process and fair trial: Constitution of Pakistan—Art. 10A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—Ss. 411-A, 526 Violation of procedural safeguards—The trial and appellate proceedings in the murder case of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto failed to adhere to the principles of due process and fair trial. Judicial bias and manipulation of the bench composition were highlighted as critical issues undermining judicial impartiality. Statements by Justice Nasim Hasan Shah revealed external pressures and bias, which tainted the judicial process. (c) Judicial Independence—Bias and Bench Composition: Bias of trial judges—Justice Nasim Hasan Shah’s remarks and autobiography disclosed bias on the part of Justice Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain and manipulation in the composition of the Bench hearing the appeal. Such actions violated judicial propriety and impartiality, eroding public confidence in the fairness of the proceedings. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Saeed vs. Election Petitions Tribunal, West Pakistan (PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 91) Justice Dorab Patel, Justice Muhammad Haleem, and Justice G. Safdar Shah’s dissents in Bhutto’s case. (d) Constitutional Governance and Judicial Integrity: Political climate and judicial independence—The extraordinary political environment influenced the proceedings, compromising constitutional governance and judicial independence. Dissenting opinions of Justices Patel, Haleem, and Safdar Shah were noted as exemplars of judicial courage in upholding the rule of law. The Supreme Court concluded that the requirements of due process and fair trial were not fulfilled in the trial and appellate proceedings of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s case, marking a regrettable chapter in judicial history.

Summary: ----Opinion of Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi Background: The case centers around the trial and execution of former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who was convicted for the 1974 murder of Ahmad Raza Kasuri's father. Bhutto’s trial and subsequent execution were challenged by his political party, the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), which alleged that the proceedings were politically influenced and lacked fairness. The reference, filed by then-President Asif Ali Zardari, sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether the judicial process leading to Bhutto's execution met the constitutional requirements for a fair trial, including the protection of fundamental rights and due process under the Constitution of Pakistan. -----Issues: 1- Whether the decisions of the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court in the murder trial met the requirements of fundamental rights and due process under the Constitution of Pakistan. -----2- Whether the conviction and subsequent execution of Bhutto can be considered as a binding decision on other courts. -----3- Whether the death sentence was justified given the alleged bias and procedural lapses in the trial. -----4- Whether the decision met the Islamic legal requirements, particularly concerning repentance. -----5- Whether the conviction and sentence were supported by sufficient evidence. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court's opinion was given on March 6, 2024, addressing the fairness of the trial and its procedural irregularities. --On Question 1: The Court held that the proceedings of both the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court did not meet the constitutional requirements for a fair trial and due process. The Court recognized significant legal and constitutional lapses in the handling of Bhutto’s case. --On Questions 3 and 5: The Court concluded that in its advisory jurisdiction, it could not revisit the facts or reappraise the evidence, but it highlighted the major constitutional lapses that compromised the fairness of the trial. --On Evidence: The Court found that the evidence used for conviction, particularly the testimonies of the approvers, was highly questionable and lacked necessary corroboration. The Court observed that the trial was marred by significant bias, procedural missteps, and reliance on unreliable testimonies. As a result, the Court acknowledged the absence of sufficient legal grounds to uphold Bhutto’s conviction and death sentence, but noted that the judgment had attained finality due to the lack of a constitutional remedy to revisit the decision once a review petition had been dismissed. The case remains a poignant example of how political and legal systems can intertwine, raising questions about judicial independence and fairness in politically sensitive cases. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1964 SC 120 (Noor Ahmad vs. State, on fairness in trials) PLD 1975 SC 66 (Ch. Manzoor Elahi vs. Federation of Pakistan, on due process) PLD 1969 SC 14 (Government of West Pakistan v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri) PLD 1973 SC 595 (Abdul Majid and another vs. the State, on accomplice testimonies) PLD 1978 SC 171 (Allah Bakhsh vs. The State, on motive in criminal cases)

Summary: Issue(s):--Whether the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court proceedings in Mr. Bhutto's trial met the fundamental rights to a fair trial and due process as guaranteed by the Constitution.--Whether the conviction and execution of Mr. Bhutto could be considered as a decision based on or enunciating a principle of law binding on other courts under Article 189 of the Constitution.--Whether the death sentence awarded was justified or amounted to deliberate murder, considering the alleged bias against Mr. Bhutto.--Whether the trial's decision meets the requirements of Islamic laws as codified in the Holy Quran and Sunnah.--The effects and consequences of the doctrine of repentance in Islamic law concerning the case.----Opinion:The Court opined that the proceedings did not meet the requirements for a fair trial and due process as enshrined in the Constitution.--The Court could not answer the second question due to the lack of specificity regarding the principle of law in question.--The Court, in its advisory capacity, could not reappraise the evidence but identified major constitutional and legal lapses regarding fair trial and due process.--The Court did not receive assistance on the question concerning Islamic law requirements and the doctrine of repentance and therefore did not render an opinion.-----Conclusion:The Supreme Court, while acknowledging past mistakes and emphasizing the need for self-accountability, concluded that the trial and appellate processes in Mr. Bhutto's case did not adhere to the constitutional requirements for a fair trial and due process. However, the Court highlighted that it lacks the mechanism to set aside the judgment, which attained finality after the dismissal of the review petition.

Summary: Background:Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against the Election Commission of Pakistan and other respondents, challenging the legality of a recount order dated 22.02.2024 for the National Assembly constituency NA-154 Lodhran-I.-----Issues:Whether the Election Commission could order a recount after the declaration of election results.Whether the recount order violated principles of natural justice by not notifying the petitioner.Whether the writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against the actions of the Election Commission.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, finding:The Election Commission's order for a recount was beyond its jurisdiction as defined by the Elections Act, especially after the election results were finalized and the petitioner was declared the returned candidate.The recount order was issued without providing notice to the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice.The writ petition was maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution, as no other adequate legal remedy was available to the petitioner.----Citations/Precedents:Article 199 of the Constitution: Provides the basis for high courts to enforce legal rights when no other adequate remedy is available.Section 95 and 98 of the Elections Act, 2017: Detail the procedures for consolidating election results and the powers of the Election Commission concerning recounts.Zulfiqar Ali Bhatti v. Election Commission of Pakistan and others: Discussed the concurrent jurisdiction of the Election Commission and Election Tribunals and the conditions under which the Commission may order a re-poll.Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge: Established that the High Court can intervene in election matters when no other legal remedy is available, and the action challenged is without jurisdiction or patently illegal.

Summary: ''The Supreme Court held that ex-post facto approval by the cabinet cannot grant retrospective applicability to a notification. The impugned notification was authenticated by the cabinet after its issuance, and its effect began from the date of authentication''----Background:The Government of Balochistan through the Secretary Mines And Minerals Department challenged a judgment dated 17th April 2023 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Constitutional Petitions No.1294 of 2017 and 1826 of 2021. The impugned notification revised and enhanced rates related to mining activities. The respondents, Attock Cement Pakistan Limited and D.G Khan Cement Company Limited, challenged this notification through constitutional petitions, which were partially allowed by the High Court. The government, dissatisfied with the judgment, filed the present petitions before the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan.----Issues:Whether a notification receiving ex-post facto approval by the cabinet can have retrospective applicability.----Holding:The Supreme Court held that ex-post facto approval by the cabinet cannot grant retrospective applicability to a notification. The impugned notification was authenticated by the cabinet after its issuance, and its effect began from the date of authentication. The Court dismissed the petitions as devoid of merit and refused leave.----Citations/Precedents:Mustafa Impex Karachi and others v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad (PLD 2016 SC 808)

Summary: Facts: The petitioner, Muhammad Akram, challenged an order from the Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated 15.07.2023, which allowed the summoning of the Record Keeper of the Treasury Office, District Lahore, along with records regarding a specific stamp paper. This was to challenge the legitimacy of an agreement to sell land, purportedly executed on the said stamp paper. The case revolves around two suits for specific performance related to land in Mauza Arainyan, Raiwind Lahore, which were consolidated, with issues framed accordingly. The controversy emerged over the failure to file a list of witnesses and the subsequent denial to record petitioner's evidence, leading to various legal maneuvers culminating in the challenged order.----Issue: The primary issue was whether the Additional District Judge erred in allowing the summoning of the Record Keeper and the related records to challenge the legitimacy of the agreement to sell, especially when the petitioner was previously denied the opportunity to submit a fresh list of witnesses post-consolidation of the suits.----Holding: The Lahore High Court held that the Additional District Judge's order did not suffer from any legal or jurisdictional error. It was based on the principle of achieving complete justice by uncovering the truth about the disputed stamp paper and the agreement to sell.----Reasoning: The court noted that the summoning of the Record Keeper and the relevant records was crucial to resolve the material controversy regarding the genuineness of the agreement to sell. The court found that the application for summoning was not strictly under any particular rule but was rightly treated under Rule 14 of Order XVI, C.P.C., which allows the court to summon any person as a witness if necessary for justice. The distinction between the petitioner's earlier application (which was denied) and the respondents' application (which was accepted) was deemed justified based on the nature and objectives of the applications. The court emphasized the need to ascertain the truth and ensure fair and complete justice.----Disposition: The constitutional petition was dismissed for lacking substance. The Lahore High Court upheld the Additional District Judge's decision, allowing the summoning of the Record Keeper and the records for the purpose of ensuring a just resolution of the case.

Summary: Facts:Petitioners, occupants and descendants of the Sajjada Nasheen/Mujawareen of the shrine of Hazrat Ali Bin Usman Hajvery (Hazrat Data Ganj Bakhsh R.A.), challenged notices issued by the respondents directing them to vacate their possessed land within 24 hours without providing equivalent alternate land. The petitioners contended that these notices were illegal, unlawful, contrary to a previous Supreme Court judgment (PLD 1971 SC 376), and violative of their fundamental rights and preferential right to alternate land previously granted.----Issue(s):Whether the notices issued to the petitioners to vacate their possessed land were lawful.Whether the petitioners were entitled to equivalent alternate land before being dispossessed.Holding: The constitutional petition was dismissed for being without force and substance.----Reasoning:The Court noted that the control and management of the shrine and attached properties were lawfully taken over by the Auqaf Department, subject to the rights of the Mujawareen as recognized in the 1971 Supreme Court judgment. The Court found that the petitioners and other occupants were offered alternate land but refused all offers. The Court emphasized that the petitioners cannot be provided land as per their desires but only subject to its availability, as directed by the Supreme Court. The Court also pointed out that the petitioners' claims were barred by the principle of res judicata and the rule against splitting claims, as they failed to claim an alternate place adjacent to the shrine in their initial petition. The Court concluded that the petitioners were merely prolonging their possession and were not entitled to the land as per their own wishes and desires.----Disposition: Petition dismissed.

Summary: Facts: The Registrar of the Supreme Court received a note reporting systematic deforestation and tree cutting at Fatima Jinnah Park, F-9, Islamabad, allegedly under the direction of the CDA. The Supreme Court's Committee, established under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, considered this matter significant enough to warrant a constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, citing the public importance and the potential infringement on fundamental rights, including access to public places and the right to life due to environmental degradation.Issue: Whether the systematic deforestation and tree cutting at Fatima Jinnah Park, directed by the CDA, infringes upon the fundamental rights of the citizens of Pakistan, necessitating intervention by the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.Holding: The Court found that the preconditions stipulated in Article 184(3) of the Constitution were met, indicating a significant matter impacting fundamental rights, warranting the Supreme Court's intervention.Order:Notices were issued to the CDA and the Government of Pakistan through the Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Coordination, as well as the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board.The CDA was ordered to submit a detailed report addressing specific inquiries related to the tree cutting and deforestation activities.The Court appointed joint commissioners from the Press Association of Supreme Court to document the affected areas within the park.Representation for the Public was appointed to assist the Court.An interim order was issued prohibiting the CDA from further tree cutting or deforestation activities until the next hearing.The case was scheduled to come up again on 4 March 2024.Rationale: The Court's intervention was based on the potential infringement of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and access to public places, due to the environmental degradation caused by deforestation. The Court also referenced previous notices taken under Article 184(3) regarding illegal activities in the same park, reinforcing the significance of the matter.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, Muhammad Banaras, filed a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the legality (vires) of a notification issued by Respondent No. 2 on 07.03.2020. The contested notification was issued under the Guzara Land Rules, which the petitioner argued unlawfully restricted his rights to cut down trees on his privately-owned land within the Guzara Forest limits.---Court's Findings:---Importance of Trees: The court acknowledged the critical role of trees in environmental and climate regulation, highlighting the necessity for their protection and conservation.----Petitioner's Grievance: The court found that the petitioner had not clearly shown how the impugned notification personally affected him, noting that existing rules already allowed for the removal of certain trees for agricultural and domestic purposes.---Legal Framework: The court examined various legal provisions, including the Forest Act, 1927, and the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, concluding that the Deputy Commissioner might not have the authority to issue the contested notification.---Decision: The Lahore High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Secretary, Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries Department, Punjab, to assess the validity of the impugned notification. If necessary, the Secretary should initiate the process for framing or extending relevant rules in consultation with the Law & Parliamentary Affairs Department. The court emphasized the need for a fair hearing for all parties concerned and adherence to established legal and environmental principles.