Summary: Issue:Whether S.R.O. No.927(I)/2019, banning the import of law books and law journals from India, is unconstitutional in light of Articles 9, 18, 19, and 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan.---- Holding:The Lahore High Court held that the impugned S.R.O. is not per se unconstitutional but directed the Federal Government to review the prohibition on importing law books and journals on a case to case basis. The judgment balanced national security interests with fundamental rights, suggesting a case-by-case review for law books and journals.--- Reasoning:Legal Authority for Import Restrictions: The court recognized the Federal Government's power under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1950, to regulate imports and exports for national security and foreign policy reasons.--- Balance Between National Security and Fundamental Rights: The judgment balanced national security interests with fundamental rights, suggesting a case-by-case review for law books and journals.--- Right to Read and Access to Information: The Court acknowledged the right to read as fundamental, linked to the right to life, liberty, and dignity under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution, and essential for the legal profession.--- Citations and Precedents:Chicago & Southern Airlines, Inc. v Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S 103 (1948): Highlighted the judiciary's deference to the executive in foreign affairs and national security matters.East and West Steamship Co. v Pakistan (PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 41): Discussed the right to conduct any lawful trade under common law, as acknowledged in Article 18 of the Constitution.City School Private Limited v. Govt. of the Punjab etc. (2018 PLD 509): Elaborated on the scope of Article 18 regarding the freedom of trade, business, or profession.Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: Mentioned to emphasize international recognition of the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information regardless of frontiers.--- Significance:This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in mediating between national policy imperatives and constitutional rights. It highlights the need for a nuanced approach to import restrictions, especially concerning educational materials critical for professional and judicial functions. The decision to allow a review process for the import of law books and journals respects both the executive's policy-making prerogative and the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Summary: ''Maintenance encompasses not only basic necessities but also expenses necessary for the mental and physical well-being of a minor including educational expenses'' ---- The SCP delved into the scope of the term "maintenance" and whether a Muslim father is under an obligation to pay the expenses incurred on education of his daughter/children or whether maintenance of child includes educational expenses? The court referred to various legal definitions and sources, including Black's Law Dictionary, Section 369 of the Principles of Muhammadan Law, and the dictionary meaning of "maintenance." It concluded that maintenance encompasses not only basic necessities but also expenses necessary for the mental and physical well-being of a minor.The judgment further explored the legal framework of maintenance under Islamic law, emphasizing that providing for a child's education is part of a father's obligation. It cited Quranic verses and Islamic principles to support this view.Additionally, the judgment referred to international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Article 27 of the UNCRC recognizes a child's right to a standard of living adequate for their development, including education. Pakistan ratified the UNCRC, withdrawing its reservation, making the commitment to uphold these rights absolute.The judgment concluded that it is in the best interests of the child to include educational expenses within the concept of maintenance. Respondent No.4, an unmarried daughter, was pursuing higher education, and the court found that the petitioner had the means to provide for her educational expenses.In light of these considerations, the court upheld the judgment of the Appellate Court, ruling that the granted maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000 per month for Respondent No.4's education was neither excessive nor unjustified. The court dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit and refusing leave to appeal. rel. PLD 1970 SC 75

Summary: Issues PresentedWhether the election in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province should be conducted under the supervision of Judicial Officers to ensure fairness and transparency.The legality and constitutionality of government officers appointed as DROs, ROs, and AROs by the Election Commission of Pakistan.---- HoldingThe Court dismissed the petition in limine (at the outset) without commenting on the merits, noting that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had already taken cognizance of the matter with a final judgment pending.ReasoningThe Court relied on the Supreme Court's intervention in a similar matter (CP No. 4385 of 2023) where the Supreme Court suspended the Lahore High Court's order that conflicted with its judgment and stayed further proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional duty of the Election Commission of Pakistan to conduct elections and questioned the maintainability of the petition filed before the Lahore High Court. Given this precedent, the Peshawar High Court decided not to proceed with the matter, acknowledging the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and pending judgment on the issue.--- Final OrderThe writ petition was dismissed in limine due to the Supreme Court's prior involvement in a similar case, indicating deference to the higher court's pending judgment on the matter.Citations and Precedents Relied UponConstitutional Petition No. 1783-P of 2023Constitutional Petition No. 2224-P of 2023Constitutional Petition No.80828/2023 before the Lahore High CourtCP No. 4385 of 2023 before the Supreme Court of PakistanArticle 198 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973Election Act, 2017Article 218(3) of the Constitution of PakistanArticle 199 of the Constitution regarding the jurisdiction and powers of High CourtsThe Lahore High Court and Supreme Court's directives on the appointment of DROs, ROs, and AROs

Summary: ''1. After introduction of new amendment in The CPC through The Act No. XLIX of 2020 namely The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020 in a suit in which an amount or the value of the subject matter of the suit is below fifty (50) million, then such suit shall be filed in the Civil Court and in a suit where an amount or value of the subject matter of fifty (50) million or above is involved then such suit shall be filed in the Court of District Judge and the appeal thereof would lie to the District Judge where the Civil Judge has acted as a trial Court and to the High Court where the District Judge has acted as a trial Court.2. Before the amendment, the forum of appeal in a suit was to be determined by Section 18 of The West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 where a specific amount was to be notified by the High Court under Section 9 of the ibid Ordinance for the pecuniary limits of the District Court of appeal, however, since after The Amendment Act of 2020 the necessary amendment has been brought in section 96 of The CPC to specify the forum of appeal for any eventuality as described in the amended Section 6 of The CPC and no amendment has been brought in Section 18 of The West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 which were earlier regulated the forum of appeal but since amended Section 96 of The CPC is having a non abstante clause and is a statute later in time, therefore, the provision of Section 96 of The CPC would prevail over the provision of Section 18 of The West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 19623. Where the plaintiff/s himself/themselves has/have fixed a specific amount for the purpose of affixing the court fee and jurisdiction, however, such amount could be adjudged by the trial Court that as to whether the suit has properly been valued or not and if the trial Court is prima facie of the opinion that the suit has not been properly valued then it could fix an amount for such purpose and then it would be the amount determined by the trial Court which shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and the amount so mentioned by the plaintiff/s would be immaterial. '' ---- Procedural History:The Senior Civil Judge's decision to transfer the case due to jurisdictional concerns was challenged in revision and review petitions, which were dismissed. These dismissals led to the filing of the instant writ petitions.Issues:Whether the Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad or the Additional District Judge-VI, Abbottabad has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the case.Holdings:The Peshawar High Court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming that the Additional District Judge-VI, Abbottabad has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case based on the pecuniary value involved.Legal Reasoning:The court analyzed the legal framework concerning the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts, specifically the amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure by The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020. The amendments clearly delineated the pecuniary jurisdictions of Civil Judges and District Judges, establishing that suits involving amounts or values below fifty million rupees fall under the jurisdiction of Civil Judges, while those involving amounts or values of fifty million rupees or above fall under the jurisdiction of District Judges. Given the claims in the plaint exceeded fifty million rupees, the court found the case properly belonged before the Additional District Judge-VI, Abbottabad.

Summary: ''The petitioners, failing to show that application for allocation of specific symbols was filed within time before the last date of its allocation, were not entitled to any relief.'' ---- Jatoi seeks a dove symbol instead of a feather, Dawood Khan a hukkah instead of a bowl, and Mannan Sajid a hukkah instead of a bottle.Legal Claims: The petitioners argue that they filed applications within the stipulated time for the allocation of their preferred symbols. They claim that the Returning Officers did not accede to their requests, allocating different symbols, which they assert is against the provisions of Section 67 of the Election Act, 2017.Proceedings and Responses: On January 18, 2024, notices were issued, and representatives of the Election Commission of Pakistan and respective Returning Officers appeared, denying the petitioners' claims about filing applications for specific symbols. It was pointed out that the petitioners had previously filed different Writ Petitions (Nos. 358, 359, and 374 of 2024) where the matter was referred to the Regional Election Commissioner for redressal. The Commissioner's decision on January 18, 2024, declined relief to the petitioners, stating that applications for the said symbols were not filed by the deadline (January 13, 2024).Court's Analysis and Decision: After examining the records and hearing the arguments, the judge found that the applications for symbol allocation were either dated incorrectly or did not have a date and receiving proof from the Returning Officers. The Court could not confirm if the requests were made within the stipulated time, making it a disputed fact not suitable for determination in constitutional jurisdiction. Since the petitioners failed to challenge the Regional Election Commissioner's decision, the Court concluded that it could not intervene in the matter of symbol allocation.Final Judgment: Consequently, the Court dismissed all three petitions for the reasons discussed.

Summary: ''Articles: 199, 04, 10, 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Sections: 46, 54, 61, 62, 167, 551 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.Rules: 23.17, 26.8 Police Rules, 1934.I) Arrest and detention: Arrest of a person in one case is arrest in all cases already registered against the person.II) Information Sheet ( Parcha 12) under police Rules, 1934.III) No action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation, or property of any citizen under the Constitution is permissible, subject to law.IV) Right of fair trial: every person for determination of his civil rights and obligation or in any criminal charge against him shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.V) Superior Courts jealously safeguard the rights of citizens. On release in one case, re-arrested of a person in another case(s) already registered against such person, prior to his arrest, is not warranted by Law'' ---- The petitioner sought judicial intervention to obtain information about criminal cases and inquiries registered against him, emphasizing his right to this information under Article 19-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to access information in matters of public importance.The court's deliberation touched upon various legal and constitutional provisions regarding arrest and detention, notably Sections 46, 54, 61, 62, and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), and Police Rules, 1934. These legal frameworks outline the procedure for arrest without a warrant, the reporting of such arrests, and the permissible duration of police custody. The court highlighted the necessity for law enforcement to adhere to these legal mandates to ensure that arrests and detentions are conducted lawfully and do not infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals.The judgment also reflected on the broader constitutional protections afforded to individuals, including Articles 4, 9, 10, and 10-A of the Constitution, which safeguard the rights to legal treatment, life, liberty, and fair trial. The court underscored the importance of these articles in protecting individuals from unlawful actions by the state that could detrimentally affect their life, liberty, body, reputation, or property.The court criticized the practice of re-arresting individuals in successive cases after they secure bail in one case, labeling it as an illegal practice that undermines the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. Drawing from the principles established in the cases "Mst. Razia Pervez and another vs. The Senior Superintendent of Police Multan and others" (1992 P Cr LJ 131) and "Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad vs. E-Movers (Pvt) Limited" (2022 SCMR 1021), the judgment emphasized the sanctity of personal liberty and the due process of law.The Peshawar High Court directed the respondents to provide the petitioner with the requested information about the criminal cases and inquiries against him. It further ordered that the respondents refrain from the practice of re-arresting individuals in a manner that violates their constitutional rights. The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding the constitutional guarantees of fair treatment, liberty, and justice, ensuring that state actions remain within the bounds of law and due process.

Summary: Javed Iqbal, the respondent, was employed as a Bio-Medical Engineer on a contract basis with the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (PESSI), Lahore, since 04.02.2009. His contract was extended periodically. However, unlike other contract employees, Iqbal was not regularized. He filed Writ Petition, during which he was granted interim relief that his services would not be terminated until further notice. Despite this, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, leading to his suspension and eventually dismissal from service on 05.05.2021. His departmental appeal against the dismissal was rejected on 21.03.2022. --- The main issue was whether the disciplinary actions taken against the respondent, leading to his dismissal and the subsequent rejection of his appeal, were justifiable in light of the interim relief granted by the High Court and the procedural and substantive aspects of his employment and dismissal --- The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the Lahore High Court's judgment that reinstated Javed Iqbal with all back benefits and directed the consideration of his regularization. ---The Supreme Court found no irregularity or perversity in the High Court's judgments. It noted that the allegations against Iqbal regarding poor performance and misconduct were not substantiated by evidence, as his performance evaluations from 2009 to 2020 were satisfactory. The Court also highlighted the mala fide intentions of the petitioners, evidenced by the timing of the disciplinary actions, which were initiated after Iqbal had sought legal redress. Furthermore, the Court observed that the High Court had thoroughly addressed all legal and factual aspects of the case. --- The judgment underscores the importance of fair and transparent disciplinary proceedings, especially when an employee is under the protection of interim relief granted by a court. It also emphasizes the need for employers to substantiate allegations against employees with clear and convincing evidence. --- This case reaffirms the judiciary's role in protecting employee rights against arbitrary and unjust disciplinary actions, particularly in the context of contractual employment within public institutions. It also highlights the need for administrative bodies to act in good faith and adhere to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Summary: ''The process of regularization requires backing of any law, rules or policy. Any regularization without the backing of law offends the principles of fairness, transparency and meritocracy and that too at the expense of public exchequer'' --- The core issue revolves around whether these employees, who served as Class IV employees from 2009 to 2012, are entitled to be considered permanent employees with all associated back benefits, despite their initial contractual status.The High Court had previously ruled in favor of the respondents (the contractual employees), directing their regularization in line with previous similar judgments. However, this decision was challenged, leading to the present appeal.The judgment meticulously discusses the principles and legal precedents governing the regularization of contractual employees. It emphasizes that there is no inherent right for contractual employees to be regularized unless there is a specific legal or policy framework supporting such a move. The court referenced several precedents, including "Province of Punjab through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development, Government of Punjab v. Dr. Javed Iqbal (2021 SCMR 767)" and "Hadayat Ullah v. Federation of Pakistan (2022 SCMR 1691)", to underscore that regularization should be a transparent process, grounded in an assessment of the employee's performance and the availability of permanent positions.The judgment also delves into the concept of institutional autonomy, arguing that courts should refrain from interfering in policy matters of educational institutions, including employment policies, unless such policies violate constitutional rights. This stance is supported by references to international principles, such as those outlined in the Magna Charta Universaitum 2020.Ultimately, the court concluded that the impugned judgments, which had favored the regularization of the respondents, were not in line with established legal principles and precedents. As a result, these judgments were set aside, and the petitions filed by the University of Agriculture, Peshawar, were allowed, effectively overturning the High Court's directives for regularization.

Summary: The backdrop of the case involves a habeas corpus petition filed under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by Fahad Saleem for the recovery of his brother, Mohsin Saleem, allegedly held in illegal custody. The original petition lacked specific details, notably the name of the police station involved, leading to procedural complications.The petitioner contended that all legal protocols, including the detainee's transfer and obligatory presentation before a magistrate within 24 hours, were adhered to, arguing that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace's order overlooked these legal compliances.The Lahore High Court, upon examination of the case, underscored several constitutional and legal frameworks pertinent to personal liberty and arrest procedures in Pakistan. The court invoked Article 10(2) of the Constitution and Section 61 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the paramount importance of personal liberty and the legal safeguards against arbitrary detention, including the mandate that an arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within a specified 24-hour period, excluding the time required for travel.The court meticulously analyzed the sequence of events, including the issuance of police records (Rapts) and the conduct of the bailiff appointed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. It was noted that there were inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the bailiff's reporting and in the actions taken by the petitioner, Muhammad Waqas, regarding the custody and subsequent presentation of the detainee before the court.Conclusively, the High Court determined that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing the contested order without proper regard for the constitutional and statutory provisions that regulate police custody and judicial remand procedures. As a result, the court annulled the impugned order, declaring it null and void ab initio, and without any lawful basis. This ruling, delivered by Justice Aalia Neelum on 17.01.2024, reiterates the judiciary's imperative to uphold legal and constitutional mandates concerning arrest and detention processes, ensuring adherence to due process and safeguarding individual liberties against unlawful state actions.

Summary: Merged judgement with Justice Ayesha Malik's Note --- ''Proviso to clause (2) does not apply to clause (3) of Article 212. Appeals against orders of the Provincial Administrative Tribunals are competent before the Supreme Court under Article 212(3). Gomal Medical College v. Armaghan Khan (PLD 2023 SC 190) overruled.'' ---- Background of the Appeal: The tribunal's decision in 2021 fixed the seniority of respondent No.1, appointed in 2001, above the petitioners appointed in 2002 and 2003.Preliminary Objection on Maintainability: During the hearing, a preliminary objection was raised about the maintainability of the petitions for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) based on the precedent set in the Gomal case. The Gomal case held that appeals to the Supreme Court in terms of Article 212(3) against decisions of a Tribunal created by Provincial law are not maintainable if the proviso to clause (2) of Article 212 has not been applied.Reference to Larger Bench: The regular Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench for interpretation of Article 212.Arguments and Decisions in Gomal: In Gomal, it was held that appeals from decisions of Provincial Tribunals are not maintainable before the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) unless the Federal Legislature extends clause (2) to the Provincial Tribunal. However, this interpretation was contested.Current Case Arguments: The law officers argued that Article 212(3) is a stand-alone provision and decisions of Provincial Tribunals can be appealed before the Supreme Court, irrespective of whether clause (2) is applicable.Analysis of Article 212: The Court analyzed Article 212, noting that clauses (1) and (3) allow the establishment of Administrative Tribunals and appeals to the Supreme Court, respectively. Clause (2) is an ouster clause, excluding other courts' jurisdiction over matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.Overruling of Gomal: The Court concluded that the interpretation in Gomal was incorrect. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court against decisions of Provincial Tribunals under Article 212(3) remains intact, regardless of whether the proviso to clause (2) is activated.Merits of the Present Case: The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the seniority of respondent No.1, appointed through the 2001 selection process, over petitioners appointed in subsequent years.Separate Opinion on Maintainability: A separate opinion agreed on the maintainability of the petitions but differed in reasoning, emphasizing the constitutional mandate of Article 212(3) and the independence of the Provincial Legislature to establish Tribunals under Article 212(1).The judgement concludes with the affirmation of the petitions' maintainability under Article 212(3) and upholds the seniority as decided by the Tribunal.