Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: This case concerns a custody dispute between divorced parents over two minor daughters. The mother filed a petition to quash a criminal FIR filed by the father under Sections 363/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), accusing her of unlawfully withholding the children after a family visit. The father alleged that the mother refused to return the children and thus filed a complaint with the police, resulting in a criminal case. The mother argued that, as the natural guardian, she could not be criminally charged for keeping custody of her children, and further alleged that the father, a Supreme Court employee, used his influence to register the FIR. -----Issues: 1- Whether an FIR can be filed against a natural guardian (mother) for retaining custody of her own children under Sections 363/34 of PPC. -----2- Whether habeas corpus under Section 491 Cr.P.C. is applicable in custody disputes when children are with a natural guardian. -----3- Whether the mention of the father's employment with the Supreme Court in the FIR impacted the fairness of the trial. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court ruled that the FIR was inappropriate and that the matter of custody should have been pursued through a Guardian Court, not through criminal proceedings. Since the mother, as a natural guardian, was lawfully entitled to custody, her refusal to hand over the children did not constitute kidnapping or an offense under Section 363 PPC. The court quashed the FIR, as the criminal charge was found baseless. Additionally, the father’s habeas corpus petition was dismissed, as Section 491 Cr.P.C. is not applicable for custody disputes when the minors are with a natural guardian. The court also expressed concerns about the mention of the father’s Supreme Court position in the FIR, suggesting it may have influenced the registration process. It directed that any future mention of a court in an FIR must first receive approval from the Registrar to avoid potential biases. -----Citations/Precedents: Kausar Parveen vs. The State [PLD 2008 Lahore 533] Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore vs. Muhammad Akram Khan [PLD 2013 SC 401] Rehmat Ali vs. Ahmad Din [1991 SCMR 185] Miraj Khan vs. Gul Ahmed [2000 SCMR 122] Muhammad Mansha vs. Station House Officer [PLD 2006 SC 598] Col. Shah Sadiq vs. Muhammad Ashiq [2006 SCMR 276] Emperor v. Kh. Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18] Shahnaz Begum vs. The Judges of High Court of Sind and Baluchistan [PLD 1971 SC 677] Mst Nadia Parveen vs. Mst Almas Noreen [PLD 2012 SC 758]

Summary: Background: The case involved a group of employees from the Capital Development Authority (CDA) who filed petitions seeking redress for grievances related to the terms and conditions of their service. These employees were not classified as civil servants and thus lacked access to the Federal Service Tribunal for resolving service disputes. With no alternative administrative forum for resolving their issues, the employees turned to the Islamabad High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The High Court, recognizing the significant backlog of service-related petitions and the lack of an adequate, inexpensive, and expeditious remedy for non-civil servant government employees, sought to address these systemic issues through a consolidated judgment. -----Issues: 1- Whether the CDA and the Federal Government have a constitutional duty to provide an effective, independent, and inexpensive forum for employees’ service-related grievances. -----2- Whether invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution serves as an adequate remedy for the employees’ service disputes. -----3- What steps the CDA and the Federal Government must take to fulfill the duty of care owed to employees regarding access to justice for service-related issues. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the Federal Government and the CDA have a constitutional obligation to ensure an effective and impartial forum for resolving employees’ service grievances, grounded in the right to access justice under Articles 9, 10-A, and 25 of the Constitution. It emphasized that without a specialized tribunal, employees are denied inexpensive and expeditious justice, resulting in a violation of their fundamental rights. To address this, the court ordered the CDA to establish an independent tribunal led by Justice (Retd) Maulvi Anwarul Haq for service-related disputes and directed the CDA to respect and implement the forum's interim and final orders. The court outlined an interim arrangement wherein the tribunal would decide all current petitions within six months, reserving the right for any aggrieved party to approach the High Court subsequently. Additionally, the court directed the Federal Government to propose legislative measures to establish a permanent appellate forum for such employees within 60 days. -----Citations/Precedents: Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority and others vs. Lt. Col Syed Jawaid Ahmed and others [2013 SCMR 1707] Donoghue vs. Stevenson (1932) A.C 562 Anns vs. London Borough of Merton (1977) 2 ALL ER 492 Caparo Industries plc vs. Dickman and others (1990) 1 ALL ER 568 Fairchild vs. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others (2002) 3 ALL ER 305 John Edward Walker vs. Northumberland County Council (1994) EWHC QB 2 Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs. Zahida Afzal etc [2006 SCMR 207] Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs. Abdul Wahid etc [2011 SCMR 1836] Abdul Majeed Khan vs. Tawseen Abdul Haleem [PLD 2012 SC 80] Al-Jehad Trust & others vs. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 1996 SC 324] Sharaf Faridi and others vs. The Federation and others [PLD 1989 Karachi 404] Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq and another vs. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2013 SC 501] Khan Asfandyar Wali and others vs Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2001 SC 607] Rauf B. Kadri vs State Bank of Pakistan [PLD 2002 SC 1111] Government of Baluchistan vs. Azizullah Memon [PLD 1993 SC 341] Watan Party and others vs. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2012 SC 292] Suo Moto Case No. 4 of 2010 [PLD 2012 SC 553] Baz Muhammad Kakar and others vs Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2012 SC 923] Muhammad Nadeem Arif and others vs. Inspector General of Police, Punjab [2011 SCMR 408]

Summary: Background: The petitioner was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of a university established under a legislative act. Later, the petitioner was informed via email from the Chancellor's office that he was "released from service." Contesting this action, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, seeking relief from the Islamabad High Court. The respondent argued that the petition was not maintainable since the university does not qualify as a “person” under Article 199. -----Issues: 1- Whether the university qualifies as a “person” under Article 199 of the Constitution, thus allowing the petition to be maintainable. -----2- Whether the university’s status as a statutory body established by an act of parliament automatically brings it within the court’s jurisdiction. -----3- Whether the petitioner’s contractual employment as Vice-Chancellor entitled him to the court’s intervention in an educational institution’s internal administrative matters. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the university does not qualify as a “person” under Article 199 of the Constitution, as it does not meet the functional test requirements. The court emphasized the three-pronged “function test” from previous case law: whether the entity exercises sovereign or public power, whether it is substantially controlled by the government, and whether it is funded primarily by the government. The university did not meet these criteria, lacking both government funding and control. The petitioner’s employment was based on a contract, which he accepted, and thus, his release was governed by contractual terms. The court highlighted the doctrine of in loco parentis, noting that educational institutions should maintain autonomy and authority, and judicial interference in such institutions’ internal matters should be minimal. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, as the university does not fall within the definition of a “person” under Article 199, and the court’s discretionary jurisdiction would not favor interference. -----Citations/Precedents: Miss Summara Nayaz vs. FOP through Secretary Establishment Division & others (I.C.A. No.501 of 2014) Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority and others vs. Lt. Col Syed Jawaid Ahmed and others, 2013 SCMR 1707 Pakistan International Airlines vs. Tanweer-ur-Rehman, PLD 2010 SC 676 Aitchison College vs. Muhammad Zubair, PLD 2002 SC 326 Anoosha Shaigan vs. Lahore University of Management Sciences through Chancellor and others, PLD 2007 56 University of Dacca vs. Zakir Ahmed, PLD 1965 SC 90 Ahmed vs. Vice Chancellor University of Engineering and Technology, PLD 1981 SC 464

Summary: '-------Ss. 43, 45 & 53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Disputed question of fact with regard to title and inheritance could not be decided by the revenue officer/revenue court by way of mutation proceedings which were summary in nature.

Summary: Section 13(e) of Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)---Possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Weapon allegedly recovered was not sent to Forensic and Ballistic Expert for opinion, so as to determine the nature and caliber of the weapon;