Summary: Background:The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), a political entity with 82 general seats in Pakistan's National Assembly, filed appeals against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) regarding the allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims. The dispute arose after the ECP?s allocation of these reserved seats, which SIC contended violated constitutional provisions. The case, initially addressed by the Peshawar High Court and resulting in an unfavorable outcome for SIC, escalated to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.----Issues:The central issue revolves around the interpretation and application of Articles 51(6)(d) & (e) and 106(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan concerning the allocation of reserved seats in the National Assembly:1.Whether the reserved seats should be distributed among political parties based on their proportional representation from general seats won in the elections.2.The eligibility of a political party for reserved seats allocation if it has not contested or won any seat in the general elections.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address these constitutional questions, recognizing the case as one of first impression?meaning it involves legal issues that the Court has not previously decided. The Court noted the significance of ensuring that the allocation of reserved seats reflects the electorate's voice and upholds democratic principles, such as fairness and transparency in electoral processes.The appeals are scheduled for a hearing, with the Court permitting both parties to submit additional documents not included in the initial petitions. An interim order was issued, suspending the operation of both the judgment of the Peshawar High Court and the order by the ECP concerning the disputed reserved seats allocation, effective from the date of the Supreme Court's order.----Citations/Precedents:Article 51(6)(d) & (e) of the Constitution: Dictates the proportional representation system for the allocation of reserved seats based on the number of general seats a political party secures in the National Assembly.Article 106(2)(c) of the Constitution: Similar provisions as Article 51 but applicable to Provincial Assemblies.Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023: Mentioned for procedural guidance on forming a larger bench to hear the case, indicating the legal and constitutional significance of the issues at hand.

Summary: Judgement on Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018 --- International Organization Resolution: The court highlights a resolution from the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which expresses a stance against gender reassignment, viewing it as a change of Allah's creation.Gender Identity and Biological Sex: The court asserts that, according to Islamic principles, a person's gender must align with their biological sex. It argues that a change in one's ability to reproduce does not alter their gender in the eyes of Islamic law.Definitions in Legislation: The court identifies issues with how the law defines terms like intersex, eunuch, transgender man, transgender woman, and KhwajaSira, grouping them under the umbrella term "transgender person." The court finds these definitions confusing and problematic.Legal Implications: The court discusses potential legal, religious, and social implications of the law, particularly concerning access to gender-specific spaces, privacy, and inheritance rights.Ruling: The court ultimately declares certain sections of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018, as being contrary to Islamic injunctions. These sections pertain to the definition of gender identity, the definition of transgender individuals, gender identity change on identification documents, and inheritance rights.

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: Summary Pending --- blasphemy case.

Summary: Appointment of Bishop.

Summary: (a) Balochistan Protection of Communal Property of Minorities Act (XI of 2018)-------S. 3---Property of minorities---Bar on sale/transfer of---Scope---Petitioner/ChurchMissionary Trust Association challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order restraining therevenue authorities from issuing revenue entries/documents regarding communal propertiesof Christian Community to anyone except the person authorised---Validity---Minorities,particularly of Christian community, owned numerous properties all across the province andvarious fake/fictitious groups of encroachers/land mafia having power of attorneys of ChurchMissionary Trust Association and different Dioceses had been emerging from time to timefalsely claiming to be representatives of the said organisations and Christian community andasserting wrongful title and ownership in respect of the properties of community spreadedacross the province and in that regard a number of civil suits were pending before differentCourts---High Court disposed of the Constitutional petition in the terms that firstly, propertyof a minority community meant for its communal use should not be bought/sold/transferredby any person; secondly, every person belonging to minorities was entitled to receivecertified copies of revenue entries/document in respect of communal properties of minorities,but no one could buy the same; thirdly, Deputy Commissioner or any other authority was notempowered to approve the transfer of communal properties of minorities; fourthly, petitioneror representative of different Dioceses could transfer/sell/buy/alienate the communalproperties of minorities; fifthly, impugned order/letter was set-aside beingillegal/unlawful/void ab initio; sixthly, all judges/qazis of province were directed to decidethe fate of pending suits regarding the communal properties of minorities in the light ofprovisions of Balochistan Protection of Communal Property of Minorities Act, 2018.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Arts.20, 21, 22, 26, 27 & 36---Religious minorities, protection of---Islamic law---Respectfor the basic rights of minorities would create a harmonious environment in the society---Such harmony would need ethical firmity in the norms of society and strong/ rigid law tohelp minorities from all the flaws that emerge from inertia of the status-quo---Islamic lawgranted non-Muslim communities the right to considerable autonomy of self-determination intheir internal affairs regarding education, tax collection, law and religion---Treatment meted out by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) to the enemies of Islam at the conquest of Makkah wasactually what Islam stood for---Constitution had made it obligatory on the State to safeguardlegitimate rights and interest of minorities including their due representation inFederal/Provincial services.(c) International Law-------Religious minorities, protection of---Every State was duty bound to take necessarymeasures to ensure that the persons belonging to minorities may exercise fully/effectively alltheir human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full equalitybefore law---States were required to create favourable conditions to enable minorities toexpress their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions andcustoms, except where specific practices were in violation of national law and contrary tointernational standards.

Summary: The petitioner, a transgender person, applied for the position of Lecturer (Female) under the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act, 2018, but their application was rejected on the grounds that the posts were earmarked for Lecturers (Male/Female) and not for transgender persons. During the proceedings, representatives from the government conceded to the petitioner's claim, allowing them to participate in the recruitment process for the position of Lecturer (Female). The court subsequently set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's application and directed that it be considered for recruitment. The judgment reflects on the treatment of transgender individuals in society, emphasizing the importance of recognizing their rights and equal treatment under the law. It cited legal precedent including judgments such as Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki and others v. S.S.P. (Operations) Rawalpindi and others (PLD 2013 S.C. 188), which recognized the rights of transgender persons. This legal precedents serve as a foundation for arguing the petitioner's case for equal treatment under the law. The court expressed displeasure at the discriminatory mindset revealed during the proceedings and directs the relevant government department to implement the provisions of the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act, 2018, in letter and spirit. It calls for the formulation of comprehensive policies to safeguard the rights of transgender persons and directs the court office to send a copy of the judgment to ensure compliance.

Summary: Petition against allotment of plot in H -9 for construction of Mandir (Temple) (a) Constitutional Law – Rights of Minorities – Allocation of Land for Religious Purposes: ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 20, 25 – Capital Development Authority (CDA) Ordinance, 1960 – Allocation of Plot for Temple, Community Center, and Cremation Site in Islamabad The petitioners challenged the allotment of Plot No.2, Sector H-9/2, Islamabad, for the construction of a Hindu temple, community center, and cremation site. They argued that the plot allocation violated the Master Plan of Islamabad, lacked necessity given the small Hindu population in the area, and constituted a waste of public funds. The court held that the Master Plan provides a broad outline, while specific plot designations are determined by CDA through sector layout plans. Sector H-9/2 includes designated plots for minority graveyards, justifying the allocation. Additionally, the CDA halted construction due to the allottee’s failure to submit a building plan for approval, which must precede any construction activity under CDA rules. Disposition: The petition was disposed of with directions that CDA must ensure compliance with its rules and regulations before approving any construction. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the court again if grievances persist in the future. (b) Constitutional Law – State Funding for Religious Structures – Role of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII): ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 2-A, 20 – Federal Funding for Construction of Temple in Islamabad Petitioners argued that Federal Government funding of PKR 100 million for constructing a temple violated constitutional principles and amounted to misallocation of public funds, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court noted that the Federal Government had not disbursed any funds and had referred the matter to the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) for its opinion. Therefore, the grievance concerning funding was deemed premature and without basis at this stage. -----Disposition: The petitioners' concerns regarding funding were declared infructuous as no funds had been released, and the matter remained pending before the CII.

Summary: Islam emphasizes on inter-sect harmony and condemn sectarian hatred amongst brethern Muslims. Teachings of Quran & Hadith promote peaceful co-existence and precludes extremism in all its shapes and orms.Allama Iqbal our national poet and great Islamic philosopher also stressed upon unity and brotherhood among Muslims and discouraged division & Religious vendetta.

Summary: Background:Abdullah Waz Cheema (the petitioner) sought leave to appeal against the order of the Islamabad High Court, which dismissed his appeal in F.A.O. No. 93 of 2013.The dispute arose from the allocation of a vacant seat in the CSS Women's quota to a female candidate who secured a lower merit position than the petitioner in the 2012 CSS examination.---Issues:Whether the allocation of seats in the Women's quota based on merit position was justified.Whether the petitioner, despite his higher merit position, could be allocated a group considering the closing merit position.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court clarified the mechanism for allocating seats in the Women's quota based on merit position, as established in the precedent set by the court's judgment in FPSC vs. Ms. Nargis Shazia Chaudhry (Civil Petition No. 941 of 2010).According to this mechanism, if a female candidate secures sufficient merit, she may opt for a better group in the Women's quota, and the vacant seat in the Open Merit quota will be transferred to the Women's quota.The petitioner's objection that vacant seats in the Women's quota should be filled by qualifying male candidates was dismissed, as it contradicted the precedent and rules governing seat allocation.The vacancies were carried over to the next year's examination as per the rules, and the allocation of seats to female candidates based on their merit positions was deemed proper, legal, and just.---Conclusion:The petitioner's appeal was dismissed, affirming the Islamabad High Court's decision regarding the allocation of seats in the CSS Women's quota based on merit position and the petitioner's inability to be allocated a group due to his lower merit position.---Quote: Where a female candidate secures sufficient merit to be allocated a group on the Open Merit, she may opt for a better group, if that is available in the Women Quota. Once she has opted for a better group, the one she had previously been allocated in Open Merit will be left vacant. This vacant group seat is then transferred to the Women Quota which was short a seat when the candidate had opted for the then available better seat. This allows for there to be a constant number of reserved seats in the Women Quota without depriving deserving Female Candidates, higher on the merit list, better group seats.