Summary: Background:The Prime Minister?s Performance Delivery Unit (the "Unit") and the Pakistan Citizen?s Portal (the "Portal") were established by the Federal Government to enhance citizen-centric governance and facilitate grievance redressal. A complaint alleging the respondents' involvement in terrorism was submitted through the Portal, investigated, and found baseless. The respondents, feeling harassed by the investigation, sought the complainant's identity via the Portal and the High Court, which declared the Unit and Portal's operations unconstitutional.----Issue(s):Whether the operations of the Unit and Portal, as established by the Federal Government, constituted an unconstitutional transgression into the executive domain of the provincial government.The legality of withholding the complainant's identity from the respondents.---Holding:The Supreme Court held that the Peshawar High Court erred in declaring the Unit and Portal's functions unconstitutional. The Court clarified that these platforms merely facilitate the transmission of complaints to relevant authorities without dictating any executive action, thus not interfering with provincial autonomy.----Reasoning:The Unit and Portal serve as intermediaries for complaint transmission, lacking authority to enforce action, making their operation constitutional.The complaint's serious nature justified its transmission to provincial authorities, not constituting federal overreach.The High Court's failure to notify the Attorney General as required indicated procedural oversight.The primary grievance regarding the investigation's conduct and the desire for the complainant's identity did not warrant questioning the Unit and Portal's constitutionality.---Order:The petitions were disposed of, correcting the High Court's misinterpretation regarding the Unit and Portal, affirming their constitutional status, and maintaining the confidentiality of the complainant's identity.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: [Distinction between public servant and civil servant] The notification clarified that the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) is a body corporate, and its employees are not considered "civil servants" or "public servants" under the Pakistan Penal Code. Muhammad Naeem, an employee of NBP, argued that NBP employees should be classified as government servants based on the definition of "public servant" in the PPC. However, the Peshawar High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that NBP is a statutory body, and its employees are not civil servants or government servants. The Supreme Court heard the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel and examined the case record. The court clarified that the terms "civil servant" and "government servant" are used interchangeably in civil service laws but have different meanings in legal language. The definition of "public servant" provided in the PPC is specifically for criminal law purposes and does not confer civil status or capacity. The court emphasized that NBP, as a statutory corporation, is subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts, and its employees can seek redressal for service-related matters. However, this does not make NBP employees employees of the federal government. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, declining the leave to appeal.

Summary: Section(s) of law; Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republicof Pakistan, 1973.1. A landowner cannot claim employment on the basis of grant ofland to the Government as the same has since been held to be asale of public office.2. The phenomena of keeping order issued by competent authorityas held in abeyance is alien to the service law and as such thisexercise needs to be curtailed and should not be exercised but inexceptional circumstances and that too for a reasonable period.3. When an order is issued by a competent authority and whenthe subject/employee has not administered any fraud andmisrepresentation, then such order conferred right on the subjectand as such the same cannot be withdrawn unilaterally, however,if an order is issued by incompetent authority or some fraud ormisrepresentation or concealment of fact has been made by thesubject, then such order could not be protected.4. While deciding the question of doctrine of laches, conduct of theperson invoking the constitutional jurisdiction and degree ofnegligence has to be considered.5. All public functionaries who are vested by law of the land toexercise any sovereign power(s) are constitutionally bound toadminister justice at their level in a fair, honest, impartial andtransparent manner.

Summary: Defamation Ordinance, 2002,---S.15---Khyber PakhtunkhwaGovernment Servants (conduct) rules, 1987-Rule 31-Government Servant, acting in official capacity, in case ofrecourse to a court of law to vindicate himself / herself for actsdone in official capacity, shall not do so without previoussanction / approval of the government----Government servantthough successfully contested suit for being blamed forcorruption / corrupt practices during the performance ofofficial duties as Head Teacher- suit filed without priorsanction of the government was against Rule 31 of the KhyberPakhtunkhwa Government Servants (conduct) Rules, 1987,hence appeal was allowed and suit filed by respondent wasdismissed. Relied-PLD 2019 Peshawar 135.

Summary: Section(s) of law; Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republicof Pakistan, 1973.1. The equality of arms, that is, consideration of the rights andinterests of the complainant/plaintiff at the trial is inseparable partof the right to a fair trial.

Summary: [Constitutional justification for quota for minorities and persons with disabilities (PWDs) - The Constitution not only caters to PWDs, being a depressed and backward class, and guarantees that both PWDs and minorities are equal citizens of Pakistan, having equal rights and safeguards, it also provides them with extra care and protection] The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard Civil Petition No. 2045 of 2019, which challenged the allocation and reservation of seats for minorities and persons with disabilities (PWDs) in the Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC). The petitioner argued that if these reserved seats remain unfilled, they should be made available to other deserving candidates under the general quota on open merit. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's claim, leading to the appeal. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional scheme and highlighted the importance of equality, tolerance, social justice, and democracy in Pakistan. It emphasized that the will of the people, as expressed in the Constitution, includes the will of minorities and PWDs. The court recognized that the Constitution provides equal rights and safeguards to all citizens, regardless of their religion, caste, creed, race, sex, or personal abilities. It underscored the significance of dignity as an absolute right and the need to protect the rights and interests of minorities and PWDs. The court further discussed the backward and depressed classes, including PWDs, and the challenges they face in accessing education, employment, and other opportunities due to discrimination and systemic barriers. It highlighted the State's obligation to attend to the legitimate interests of these classes and create an inclusive society. The court emphasized that minorities, comprising approximately 3% of the population, are equal citizens and entitled to fundamental rights under the Constitution. The court referred to Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah's vision, affirming the safeguarding of minority rights and equality for all citizens of Pakistan, regardless of their religion or creed. It emphasized that Islam promotes equality, liberty, and fraternity, and the principles of Islam call for the protection of minorities. In light of these considerations, the court upheld the constitutional values and provisions that protect the rights and interests of minorities and PWDs. It recognized the quota system for PWDs in employment and the reservation of posts for minorities in civil service examinations. The court rejected the petitioner's challenge and affirmed the legality of the seat allocation and reservation for minorities and PWDs.

Summary: Background: This case involves two writ petitions (No. 1607/2022 and No. 1952/2022) filed by advocates of the High Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The petitions were filed as quo warranto, challenging the appointments of several judges to the High Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioners argued that the appointments were not made in accordance with the mandatory constitutional procedures and sought the removal of the judges from their positions. ----Issues: 1- Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in their present form. 2- Whether the consultation process for the appointment of judges was conducted in accordance with the Constitution and legal precedents. 3- Whether the President of Azad Jammu & Kashmir was bound to seek a panel of three or more nominees for each vacant judicial post. 4- Whether the petitioners had a bona fide interest in the case or were engaging in proxy litigation. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, finding them to be unmaintainable. The court held that: Maintainability: The language used in the petitions was deemed contemptuous and not in accordance with legal norms, making them unfit for consideration. The court also noted that the petitions appeared to be based on information from social media rather than substantiated legal grounds. Consultation Process: The court found that the consultation process for the appointment of the judges was conducted properly, following the relevant constitutional provisions. The process was transparent, purposive, and consensus-oriented, involving multiple meetings between judicial consultees and the President of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The court emphasized that there was no requirement under the law for the judicial consultees to recommend three candidates for each vacancy. Proxy Litigation: The court determined that the petitioners lacked bona fide interest in the case and were likely acting on behalf of others with hidden motives. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1607/2022 was found to be unaware of the relevant law governing judicial appointments, further undermining the credibility of the petition. Costs and Warnings: The court dismissed Writ Petition No. 1607/2022 with a cost of Rs. 100,000, payable by both the petitioner and his counsel, to be deposited in the account of the AJ&K Bar Council Lawyers Foundation. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1952/2022, who showed a lack of interest by not appearing in court, was warned to be careful in future legal proceedings. ----Citations/Precedents: 2020 SCR 676: Addressed the inadmissibility of contemptuous language in legal pleadings. PLD 2022 High Court AJ&K 33 (Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan Vs. Govt. of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and 11 others): Clarified that the judicial consultees are not required to recommend multiple candidates for each vacancy. 1994 CLC 1108 (Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights Vs. Secretary Azad Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly): Discussed the concept of probono publico litigation and the inadmissibility of proxy litigation. 2014 SCR 272 (Raja Tahir Majeed Khan and others Vs. Azad Govt. and others): Held that only an aggrieved party has standing to file a writ petition, rejecting the concept of proxy litigation. PLJ 2004 SC 824 (Javed Ibrahim Paracha Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others): Emphasized the need for bona fide intent in public interest litigation. 1998 SCMR 2073 (Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Akram Vs. Federation of Pakistan): Addressed the principles governing public interest litigation. PLD 1980 SC AJ&K 5 (Ghiasul Haq and others Vs. Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir): Further discussed the requirements for public interest litigation. PLD 2018 SC 114 (Muhammad Hanif Abbasi Vs. Jahangir Khan Tareen and others): Highlighted the misuse of quo warranto as a tool for settling personal grudges or proxy litigation. The writ petitions were dismissed with the court imposing costs and issuing warnings to the petitioners.

Summary: (Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973)Petitioner sought conversion of lease of property from residential to commercial.Held: (i) Section 108 (A)(o)of the Transfer of Property Act provides that lessee must not use or permit another to use the property for the purpose other than that for which it was let out or leased. Therefore, lease of land for residential purpose could not be converted into commercial one. (Constitutional petition was dismissed in the circumstances)