Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199(1)(a)(ii), Arts. 7 & 78; Fourth Schedule, Part-II, Entry 6; Fourth Schedule, Part-I, Entry 30 Maintainability—Stock exchange as “person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation”—Held, Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) is a voluntary corporate entity and not a statutory creation; the 2012 Act corporatizes/demutualizes/integrates existing exchanges but does not establish PSX as a State instrumentality; mere regulatory oversight by SECP does not convert PSX’s commercial activities into sovereign/public functions; PSX does not utilize or receive public funds and any charges/penalties accrue as its income and are not credited to the Federal Consolidated Fund under Art. 78—Consequently, PSX is not amenable to writ under Art. 199(1)(a)(ii). Cited Cases: • Pakistan Stock Exchange Ltd. v. Province of Sindh, 2024 CLD 580 • Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1997 SC 84 (b) Securities laws—nature of “regulations” and penalties ----Stock Exchanges (Corporatization, Demutualization and Integration) Act, 2012; Securities Act, 2015, Ss. 2(x), 2(xlvi), 2(xlix), 2(lv), 5, 7, 11, 160 & 161 Statutory “regulations” under the 2015 Act are those made by SECP; PSX’s “regulations” are internal instruments governing its marketplace and do not confer statutory power to impose penalties; no appeal lies under S. 161 against PSX-imposed measures; such amounts are not statutory exactions but form part of PSX’s income distributed per corporate law—PSX therefore not performing sovereign/regulatory functions of the State. Cited Cases: • Pakistan Stock Exchange Ltd. v. Province of Sindh, 2024 CLD 580 (c) Judicial review—scope of “person” and “functions” ----Art. 199(1)(a)(ii) read with Art. 199(5) Even where a respondent qualifies as a “person,” judicial review lies only if the impugned act was performed in connection with the “affairs” of the Federation/Province/local authority; PSX’s privately funded, profit-maximizing operations and internal disciplinary regime do not satisfy that test. Cited Cases: • Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1997 SC 84 • Pakistan Stock Exchange Ltd. v. Province of Sindh, 2024 CLD 580 (d) Necessary party—SECP ----Art. 199(1)(a)(ii) SECP impleaded without any “act done,” “proceeding taken,” or order passed against the petitioner in the arbitral matter—No cause of action or maintainable prayer made out—SECP neither a necessary nor a proper party. (e) Arbitration—alternative remedy and Kompetenz-Kompetenz ----PSX Rule Book (Chapter 18: Investors’ Claims, Securities Brokers’ Disputes and Arbitration Regulations) Ongoing institutional arbitration provides an adequate and efficacious remedy; objections on limitation and tribunal jurisdiction fall within the arbitral tribunal’s Kompetenz-Kompetenz and must be decided in that forum; constitutional writ not ordinarily invocable to interdict pending arbitration absent exceptional grounds, none shown. (f) Constitutional benches—post-26th Amendment framework ----Arts. 175, 175-A, 199(1)(a)(ii) & 202-A; Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024 Court records that reasons are rendered by the Constitutional High Court for the short order dated 13.11.2024; applying the “dominant relief” test, Art. 199(1)(a)(ii) governed the petitioner’s prayer for declarations (“without lawful authority,” “of no legal effect”), thus falling within the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction to issue reasons for the earlier short order. (g) Disposition --- Constitutional petition not maintainable; writ does not lie against PSX; no grounds made out against SECP; parties relegated to the agreed arbitral mechanism under PSX Regulations; petition dismissed vide short order dated 13.11.2024—present judgment contains reasons.

Summary: a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----S. 31---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.203 & 265-K---Finality of orders---Orders passed by Anti-Terrorism Court not appealable but final in nature---Scope---Finality clause under S.31, ATA, 1997 does not cover every order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court---Certain orders, though not appealable under S.25, ATA, 1997, are final in nature and can be examined through revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Such orders include: (i) discharge of an accused; (ii) remand of an accused; (iii) dismissal of private complaint under S.203, Cr.P.C.; (iv) summoning or non-summoning of accused in private complaint; (v) summoning or non-summoning of private witness; (vi) summoning or non-summoning of document or other thing; and (vii) rejection of application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----S. 31---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.435 & 439---Revision against order of Anti-Terrorism Court---Maintainability---High Court has revisional jurisdiction over orders of Anti-Terrorism Court where order is not appealable under ATA but affects rights of parties and attains finality in respect of such issue---Anti-Terrorism Court is a criminal court subordinate/inferior to High Court for purposes of revisional jurisdiction under Cr.P.C., except to extent expressly barred by special law. (c) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----S. 21-D---Bail orders passed by Anti-Terrorism Court---Revision---Bar---Special restriction imposed by S.21-D, ATA, 1997 excludes revisional remedy in bail matters to the extent provided therein---High Court’s revisional jurisdiction remains available for other non-appealable final orders of Anti-Terrorism Court under Ss.435 and 439, Cr.P.C. (d) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----Ss. 25, 31 & 32---Appeal, finality and application of Cr.P.C.---Interpretation---S.25 provides appeal against final judgment/order/sentence of Anti-Terrorism Court---S.31 gives finality to judgment/order/sentence of Anti-Terrorism Court subject to result of appeal under the Act---S.32 applies Cr.P.C. to proceedings before Anti-Terrorism Court so far as not inconsistent with ATA---Combined effect is that Cr.P.C. revisional provisions continue to apply to orders not falling within appeal mechanism and not expressly excluded by ATA. (e) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 175, 199 & 203---Anti-Terrorism Court---Status---Subordinate/inferior Court---Judicial framework under Constitution---Courts recognized by Constitution include Supreme Court, High Courts, Federal Shariat Court and such other courts as may be established by law---Anti-Terrorism Court, being created by statute, falls within category of courts established by law and remains subject to supervisory/revisional control of High Court unless expressly excluded by law. (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition against interim/order of Anti-Terrorism Court---Maintainability---Where an efficacious remedy of criminal revision is available against non-appealable final/interlocutory order of Anti-Terrorism Court, constitutional petition under Art.199 is not maintainable---Writ petition challenging non-summoning/summoning order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court was converted into criminal revision. (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss.435 & 439---High Court’s power of revision---Inferior criminal courts---Anti-Terrorism Court---High Court may call for and examine record of any inferior criminal court to satisfy itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order---Anti-Terrorism Court, though not subordinate to Sessions Court, is inferior/subordinate to High Court for revisional purposes. (h) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S.6---Classes of criminal courts---Courts created under special law---Effect---Cr.P.C. recognizes that, besides High Courts and courts constituted under Cr.P.C., there may be other criminal courts constituted under other laws---Such courts remain subject to revisional control of High Court unless revisional jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly excluded. (i) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----Private complaint---Order summoning some accused and refusing to summon others---Remedy---Petitioner filed private complaint before Anti-Terrorism Court and challenged order whereby some proposed accused were not summoned/deleted from array of accused---Such order was not appealable under ATA but was revisable before High Court---Constitutional petition was not proper remedy. (j) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S.203---Dismissal of private complaint by Anti-Terrorism Court---Revision---Order dismissing private complaint under S.203, Cr.P.C. by Anti-Terrorism Court is not appealable under ATA but is final in nature qua complainant’s grievance---High Court can examine such order in revisional jurisdiction. (k) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S.265-K---Application for acquittal---Rejection by Anti-Terrorism Court---Revision---Rejection of application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. is not appealable under S.25, ATA, 1997, but such order is final in nature for purposes of that application and may be assailed through criminal revision before High Court. (l) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 201---Judgment per incuriam---Effect---Decision rendered by a subsequent Bench of equal strength in ignorance of a statute, binding precedent of Supreme Court, or previous decision of equal strength of same Court on same issue, is per incuriam and has no precedential value. (m) Judicial precedent---- ----Short order of High Court/Supreme Court---Precedential value---Distinction---Short orders are of two kinds: first, those deciding a question of law in clear and operative terms; second, those merely admitting a case, fixing a matter, or making procedural/ad interim arrangements---Short order falling in first category has precedential value, while short order falling in second category has none. (n) Judicial discipline---- ----Coordinate Bench---Conflicting decisions---Reference to larger Bench---Where a Bench of equal strength disagrees with earlier decision of coordinate Bench, proper course is to refer matter to a larger Bench rather than deciding contrary to earlier view---Failure to follow this course creates uncertainty, undermines judicial comity and may render later contrary decision per incuriam. (o) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 175 & 203---Access to justice---Independence of judiciary---Subordination of special courts---Tribunal or special court exercising judicial power must fit within constitutional judicial hierarchy and remain under supervisory control of High Court, unless Constitution or valid law provides otherwise---Special criminal court cannot be treated as wholly outside High Court’s revisional/supervisory structure merely because it is established under special statute. (p) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----Purpose of special law---Speedy trial---Effect on revisional jurisdiction---Mere fact that ATA was enacted for speedy trial does not, by itself, exclude revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Exclusion of such jurisdiction must be express or necessarily implied from statute---No such general exclusion exists except where ATA specifically restricts remedy. (q) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss.435, 436 & 439---Writ petition converted into criminal revision---Proper procedural course---Where petitioner had invoked Art.199 against non-summoning order of Anti-Terrorism Court but High Court found revision to be proper remedy, writ petition was ordered to be converted into criminal revision and numbered accordingly. Disposition: Full Bench held that Anti-Terrorism Court is a subordinate/inferior criminal court to High Court for purposes of revisional jurisdiction; High Court can entertain criminal revision under Ss.435, 436 and 439, Cr.P.C. against non-appealable orders of Anti-Terrorism Court, except bail matters restricted by S.21-D, ATA, 1997. Constitutional petition under Art.199 was held not maintainable where revision was competent, and writ petition was directed to be converted into criminal revision.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 184(3)---Art. 175E(4)---Art. 10A---Art. 90---Art. 40---Suo motu proceedings---Transfer to Federal Constitutional Court---Scope of original jurisdiction Murder of Pakistani journalist abroad---Suo motu taken by Supreme Court under Art.184(3)---Matter transferred after Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025---Held, proceedings concerned ensuring fair, independent and transparent investigation; right to fair trial under Art.10A extends to investigation stage and requires collection of evidence holistically, including material supporting defence as well as prosecution---However, court’s role is limited and cannot extend to continuous monitoring or supervision of investigation, particularly where no allegation of impropriety in investigation is pressed and the concern relates mainly to pace owing to coordination with another sovereign State. (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----S. 4(1)(l)---Definition of “investigation”---Collection of evidence by police officer/authorized person (other than Magistrate)---Judicial restraint Court supervision of investigation---Limits---Held, investigation is a statutory inquisition for collection of evidence by police; continuous court control/supervision not contemplated and generally impermissible---Conduct and manner of investigation not to be scrutinized under constitutional jurisdiction as it amounts to interference and substitution of police function; courts and police perform complementary, not overlapping, roles---Exceptional circumstances for interference confined to limited categories (e.g., habeas corpus, mala fide investigation, lack of jurisdiction/excess of authority) and grievances may be pursued before competent forums. Cited Cases: • Ajmeel Khan v. Abdur Rahim, PLD 2009 SC 102 • Malik Shoukat Ali Dogar v. Ghulam Qasim Khakwani, PLD 1994 SC 281 • Fahad Ahmed Gulzar v. ASI/IO Saeed Mahroof, 2025 PCrLJ 1140 (c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 10A---Fair trial and due process---Investigation stage---Independence and transparency Fair trial---Commencement from investigation---Held, Art.10A protection begins from inception of investigation, requiring independent investigator and enabling environment free from undue pressure---Nevertheless, court’s continuous oversight may prejudice accused and undermine fairness of procedure; judicial monitoring of investigation therefore disfavoured. (d) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 90---Executive authority of Federation---State’s obligation to protect citizens’ rights---Government measures abroad Federal Government’s role---Diplomatic and investigative steps---Held, Federal Government, acting through executive authority, undertook measures including constitution of Special Joint Investigation Team (SJIT), liaison with foreign authorities, engagement with prosecutorial offices in Kenya and facilitation through Ministry of Foreign Affairs---Court noted no objection by any party to SJIT or fact-finding process/method, and no allegation of impropriety; primary concern related to pace due to need for coordination with another sovereign State. (e) Mutual Legal Assistance (Criminal Matters) Act, 2020 ----Ss. 2(1)(c), 4, 7---Central authority (Secretary, Ministry of Interior)---Request to foreign state---Admissible evidence and cooperation Mutual legal assistance framework in Pakistan---Held, 2020 Act provides statutory mechanism for MLA in criminal matters through designated central authority empowered to make requests to foreign authorities for investigation/proceedings---Request made to Kenya and agreement executed; once MLA process invoked, central authority exercises powers relating to request under the Act, and investigation proceeds within the statutory framework, reducing scope for judicial interference. (f) Kenya Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2011 ----Ss. 5, 6---Kenyan central authority (Office of Attorney General)---Handling foreign requests Bilateral cooperation---Held, Kenya maintains corresponding statutory framework empowering its central authority to act on MLA requests---Where both States possess legal frameworks and are coordinating under MLA, courts ought not to interfere when law and investigation are taking their due course and sovereign processes are engaged. (g) Constitutional law and foreign policy ----Art. 40---Principles of policy---International forums---Separation of functions Direction to pursue international fora---Held, judicial orders directing State to raise matter in international forums would encroach upon foreign policy domain and interfere with ongoing MLA-based investigative process; handling of foreign relations is for Federal Government/MoFA to determine what is appropriate in international context; issue left to executive’s judgment, with note that recourse could be considered if need arises. (h) Criminal law ----Pakistan Penal Code, 1860---Ss. 302/34---FIR registered in Pakistan for murder abroad---Inter-state coordination Registration of FIR and domestic steps---FIR registered under sections 302/34 PPC at P.S. Ramna, Islamabad as produced before Supreme Court---SJIT constituted to investigate and coordinate with Kenyan counterparts; court noted ongoing diplomatic and legal steps including warrants and MLA cooperation, without making findings on merits of evidence so as not to prejudice any future trial. Disposition: Suo moto proceedings disposed of; all pending applications disposed of; Court declined to keep proceedings pending for continuous supervision/monitoring of investigation and declined to issue directions concerning international fora, noting MLA process and diplomatic coordination underway; legal heirs left at liberty to approach courts/forums of competent jurisdiction in case of specific grievance (Suo Moto Case No. 3 of 2022, heard 14.01.2026).

Summary: a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 175E(1), 184(1) & 199---Original jurisdiction in disputes between Governments---Scope---Mischaracterization of dispute as inter se between Federal and Provincial Governments---Writ petition dismissed by High Court for want of jurisdiction on premise that dispute lay between two Governments attracting original jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Art.184(1)---Held, Constitution recognizes only Federal and Provincial Governments; dispute between a federal statutory corporation and a provincial department does not, by itself, constitute a “dispute between two Governments”---Original jurisdiction under Art.184(1) (now under Art.175E(1) after 27th Constitutional Amendment) attracted only where parties are Governments in constitutional sense---High Court erred in declining jurisdiction merely on basis of nomenclature and concession made at bar. Cited Cases: • Pakistan Railways v. Karachi Development Authority 2003 SCMR 563 (b) Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 ----Ss. 3(1), 3(2) & 4(2)(s)---Status and legal personality of Evacuee Trust Property Board---Body corporate---Power to sue and be sued---Board constituted by Federal Government but statutorily recognized as separate juristic person with perpetual succession and common seal---Expressly empowered to institute and defend suits and proceedings in courts of law---Held, Board was proper litigating entity in matters concerning evacuee trust property and could not be equated with Federal Government for purposes of constitutional jurisdiction. (c) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art.199---Writ jurisdiction of High Court---Effect of misdescription of parties---Petitioner described as “Central Government through Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board”---Held, no constitutional entity known as “Central Government”; misdescription in memo of parties could not divest High Court of jurisdiction otherwise vested under Art.199---Jurisdiction determined by substance of dispute and legal status of parties, not by erroneous nomenclature or concessions made by counsel. (d) Administration of justice ----Concession at bar---Jurisdiction---Principle---Concession or admission by counsel on question of law or jurisdiction not binding on court---Jurisdiction cannot be conferred or taken away by consent, waiver or erroneous concession---High Court obliged to independently determine its jurisdiction on constitutional and statutory footing. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal; appeal allowed; impugned order dated 17.04.2024 set aside; case remanded to Lahore High Court, Lahore for fresh decision in accordance with law, preferably within three months. (C.P.L.A. No. 1451-L/2024, order dated 09.12.2025)