Summary: Judgment recognizes the right to read as fundamental right as it is, intrinsically linked to life under Article 9, embedded in our constitutional principles and necessary for the preservation of our societal values. However, it is subject to lawful regulation; restrictions imposed through foreign policy on import and export of books are thus permissible, and the High Court cannot invoke suo motu jurisdiction in such matters. --- (a) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts.2A, 9, 19, 25-A & 37---Fundamental rights---Right to read---Derivation from right to life---Scope---Catalogue of fundamental rights expressly enumerated in the Constitution was exhaustive and courts could not invent new fundamental rights---Courts could, however, derive rights which, though not expressly mentioned, were intrinsically embedded in the text, structure, values and underlying purpose of an enumerated constitutional right---Constitution was a developing constitutional order capable of adaptation while remaining anchored to its text---Any unenumerated right sought to be derived from Art.9 was required to bear an intrinsic nexus with life, remain rooted in constitutional principles and be necessary for preservation of societal values---Right to read satisfied such requirements and formed part of the meaningful enjoyment of life under Art.9. Cited Cases: Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2020 SC 641 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization 597 U.S. 215 (b) Constitution of Pakistan---Art.9---Right to life---Meaning---Life not confined to physical or animal existence---Article 9 protected more than bare survival and extended to a life of dignity, purpose and worth---Acquisition of knowledge, education, critical thought and intellectual development bore a direct nexus with meaningful human existence---Reading enabled individuals to understand history, law, rights and obligations, engage with diverse ideas and participate as informed citizens---Obstructing access to readable material imperilled education, intellectual growth, informed citizenship and the rule of law---Right to read was, therefore, embedded in and protected by the constitutional right to life. Cited Cases: Shehla Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693 Employees of Pakistan Law Commission, Islamabad v. Ministry of Works 1994 SCMR 1548 Metropolitan Corporation v. Imtiaz Hussain PLD 1996 Lahore 499 Sajida Bibi v. Incharge Chowki PLD 1997 SC 666 Nizar Ali Fazwani v. Federation of Pakistan 2025 CLC 1607 (c) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts.2A, 9 & 37---Objectives Resolution---Freedom of thought, social justice and education---Right to read---Constitutional history demonstrated an unbroken commitment, through the Constitutions of 1956, 1962 and 1973, to promotion of education and meaningful participation of citizens in national life---Objectives Resolution guaranteed freedom of thought and required observance of social justice---Freedom of thought could meaningfully exist only where individuals had access to books, written material and knowledge---Right to read was a natural and necessary companion of freedom of thought and the constitutional commitment to education and social justice. (d) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts.9 & 25-A---Right to read---Formal education distinguished from general acquisition of knowledge---Article 25-A imposed an obligation upon the State to provide free and compulsory formal education to children between five and sixteen years of age---Provision was directed towards education imparted through schools and educational institutions within the prescribed age group---A generalized right to read, extending to books, journals, articles, treatises and other written material for persons generally, could not be derived from Art.25-A---Such broader right arose from Art.9 and its expansive protection of meaningful life, knowledge and intellectual development. Cited Cases: Headmaster v. Chairman 1996 CLC 1785 Ahmad Abdullah v. Government of Punjab PLD 2003 Lahore 752 Dr. Laiba Khan v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa W.P. No.1300-A of 2021 Imdad Hussain v. Province of Sindh PLD 2007 Karachi 116 Mehboob Ali Rind v. Secretary Education, Balochistan 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1526 (e) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts.9 & 19---Right to read---Access to law books---Scope---Law books were not confined to use by members of the Bar and Bench but were consulted by citizens seeking to understand their legal rights, obligations and pending or contemplated litigation---Importing the same books from countries other than India substantially increased their price and imposed a financial burden upon readers---Making access to books difficult, including through measures increasing their practical unaffordability, impaired the fundamental right to read---Right extended to books, journals, articles and other written or recorded material contributing to knowledge and education. (f) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts.90, 97 & 142 read with Federal Legislative List, Fourth Schedule, Entries 1 & 3---Foreign policy, national security and international trade---Executive authority---Judicial review---Federal Government possessed executive authority in matters falling within Parliament’s legislative competence, including national security, external affairs and foreign policy---Determination of the countries with which Pakistan would maintain trade relations was the exclusive prerogative of the Executive---Courts were institutionally unsuited to formulate or review such policy and could not direct the Government to trade with one country rather than another---Judicial interference in such matters would transgress separation of powers and encroach upon the constitutional domain of the Executive. Cited Case: Muhammad Shoaib Razzaq v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2019 Islamabad 339 (g) Constitution of Pakistan---Art.9---Right to read---Qualified right---Restrictions imposed by law and foreign policy---Right to read was not absolute---Article 9 itself permitted deprivation or restriction in accordance with law---Federal Government had lawfully exercised its executive authority by prohibiting import of goods originating from or imported through India and Israel under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 and the applicable Import Policy Order---Where restriction upon reading material resulted from a lawful foreign-policy and trade measure, Court could not substitute its own policy judgment---Affected persons could approach the Federal Government for reconsideration, but review of foreign policy remained the sole prerogative of the Executive. (h) Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950---S.3---Import Policy Order, 2020, para.5---Prohibition upon goods of Indian or Israeli origin---Law books---Constitutional validity---Restriction upon import of law books engaged the fundamental right to read, but such engagement did not by itself render the prohibition unconstitutional---Impugned measure had been issued within the lawful domain of the Federal Government on foreign-policy and trade considerations---Right to read being qualified and subject to law, the prohibition remained intra vires the Constitution. (i) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts.4(2)(c) & 199(1)(a)(i)---Writ of mandamus---Existence of legal duty---High Court directing appointment of officer to hear grievances and review import policy---Legality---Mandamus could issue only where an existing legal obligation required a public authority to perform a particular act---Article 4(2)(c) prohibited compelling any person to do that which law did not require---No statutory provision required the Federal Government to appoint an officer, devise a review mechanism or entertain private grievances concerning the import prohibition---Court could not create a new administrative duty, power or procedure by judicial command---Directions requiring appointment of an officer and creation of a review mechanism were without lawful foundation. Cited Case: Vice Chancellor, Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University v. Altaf Hussain Somroo F.C.P.L.A. No.14 of 2025 (j) Constitution of Pakistan---Art.199---High Court---Suo motu exercise of constitutional jurisdiction---Relief not prayed for---Certiorari converted into mandamus---Petitioners before High Court had sought declaration that the impugned SRO and Import Policy Order were unconstitutional, void ab initio and ultra vires---Relief sought was essentially in the nature of certiorari requiring the Court to determine whether the impugned instruments were legally valid---After holding the measures intra vires, High Court nevertheless directed the Federal Government to appoint an officer, hear grievances and establish a review procedure---By granting mandamus not claimed by the parties, High Court effectively acted suo motu---High Courts possessed no authority to invoke constitutional jurisdiction on their own motion and could grant relief only within the framework of the pleadings, prayers and powers conferred by law. Cited Cases: Khalid Mehmood v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance PLD 2026 FCC 1 M/s Sadiq Poultry v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa PLD 2023 SC 236 Akhtar Abbas v. Nayyar Hussain 1982 SCMR 549 (k) Constitution of Pakistan---Art.9---Right to read and right to write---Concurring opinion---Reading and writing constituted mutually dependent and inseparable components of literacy---Reading enabled acquisition and comprehension of knowledge, rights and duties, while writing enabled articulation of thought, assertion of legal claims, recording of transactions and participation in civic, democratic and judicial processes---Right to think and express oneself necessarily involved both the receipt and communication of ideas---Right to life, purposively construed, therefore included an integrated “right to read and write” essential for dignity, intellectual autonomy, moral agency and meaningful participation in society. (l) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts.9, 17, 19 & 25-A---Right to write---Freedom of expression, association and literacy---Concurring opinion---Written communication was one of the most enduring and structured forms of expression protected under Art.19---Elementary literacy contemplated by Art.25-A necessarily included the ability to read and write---Reading, analysis and written criticism influenced public opinion, facilitated informed decision-making and contributed to exercise of freedom of association under Art.17---Arbitrary or structural deprivation of the capacity to receive and impart ideas in written form would impair the dignity protected by the right to life---Right to read and write, however, remained subject to lawful constitutional restrictions and did not create an unrestricted entitlement to publish or disseminate prohibited material. (m) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts.9, 90 & 97---Import of Indian law books---Availability through digital sources---Concurring opinion---Professional material could increasingly be accessed through electronic and online sources, making an absolute physical-import prohibition capable of circumvention---Government was required to exercise care and caution when invoking patriotism and national security to restrict intellectual material so that development of an informed and intellectually competent society was not unnecessarily impeded---Nevertheless, foreign policy remained within the exclusive constitutional domain of the Executive and could not be judicially reviewed or reformulated by the Court. Disposition---Leave to appeal was granted and petitions were converted into appeals---Right to read was declared to form part of the right to life under Art.9 of the Constitution, but was held to be qualified and subject to restrictions imposed in accordance with law, including lawful foreign-policy considerations---Import prohibition was not struck down---Private respondents were permitted to approach the Federal Government for reconsideration of the policy---Directions of the Lahore High Court requiring appointment of an officer, hearing of grievances and establishment of a review mechanism were set aside---Concurring opinion further declared that the right to life included the integrated right to read and write.

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).