Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
ACTION AGAINST GIVING OF DIRECT OUTLETS FROM NASEER BRANCH ROHRI CANAL BY CHIEF MINISTER SINDH IN THE MATTER OF
Summary: Summary pending.
SHAKEEL KHAN R P VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
IMAM BAKHSH VS MST AMEERAN MAI
Summary: Summary pending.
MUHAMMAD AMIN VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
HASHMAT ALI VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
IRFAN VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
OGRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY VS MS MIDWAY II CNG STATION CONSTITUTION PETITION NO OF ENGINEER IQBAL ZAFAR JHAGRA VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Summary: Summary pending.
MS WASIM RADIO TRADERS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Summary: Summary pending.
HASHMAT ALI VS THE STATE ALLAH YAR
Summary: Summary pending.
Mst. Rohaifa v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Defence, etc
Summary: The bar of jurisdiction of Supreme Court in terms of Article 247(7) of the Constitution would be applicable where cause of action and subject matter of dispute is in the Tribal Areas and the parties to the dispute are also resident of Tribal Areas. ---- This case was brought to the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan. It involved the detention and alleged mistreatment of certain individuals by Pakistani security forces. The petitioners, Mst. Rohaifa (deceased) and her sons, alleged that their family members were unlawfully detained and subjected to torture, leading to the deaths of some detainees.Judicial Analysis and Key Issues:Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Over Tribal Areas:The Court examined its jurisdiction in relation to tribal areas under Article 247(7) of the Constitution. The Court?s jurisdiction was found to be limited, particularly in cases where the cause of action and the subject matter of the dispute originated in tribal areas.Allegations of Illegal Detention and Torture:The petitioners alleged that their relatives were unlawfully detained by Pakistani security forces and subjected to torture, resulting in the deaths of some detainees. The respondents, including the Ministry of Defence, denied these allegations, attributing the deaths to medical conditions and not to torture or maltreatment.Legal Status of Detainees:The detainees were initially acquitted by the Anti-Terrorism Court but were later arrested in the tribal areas and tried under the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR). This shift in legal proceedings highlighted the complexity of jurisdictional issues in Pakistan, especially concerning tribal areas.Constitutional Rights and Detention under FCR:The Court deliberated on the detainees' constitutional rights in the context of their detention and trial under the FCR. It recognized the right to life and liberty but also acknowledged the constraints imposed by the tribal justice system and the FCR.Treatment of Detainees in Custody:The Court issued directives to ensure the detainees' welfare in custody, including proper medical treatment, and allowed regular family visits, emphasizing the detainees' rights to health and humane treatment.Conclusion and Orders:The Supreme Court disposed of the petition, noting that the detainees were no longer under illegal detention as they were being tried under the FCR in the tribal area. The Court directed the prison authorities to provide proper care and treatment to the detainees and allowed regular family visits. The Court also dismissed related criminal petitions, finding no substantial evidence of contempt of court by the respondents. The case underscored the challenges of balancing constitutional rights with the realities of law enforcement and security operations in tribal areas.