Summary: Background: The petitioners, owners of flour mills in District Attock, filed a constitutional petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the enhancement of their wheat quota. They argued that the respondents, specifically the Punjab Food Department, had decreased the wheat supply to their mills without any legal justification. The petitioners claimed that the wheat quota allocation was based on the population's needs, and the reduction was affecting their ability to operate effectively. They also contended that the State had a constitutional duty to provide basic necessities, including wheat, as per Article 38 of the Constitution of Pakistan. -----Issues: 1- Do the petitioners have a right to claim an enhancement of the wheat quota? 2- Is the reduction of the wheat quota by the respondents legally justified under the Wheat Release/Milling Policy, 2022-23? 3- Does the State's obligation under Article 38 of the Constitution extend to providing an enhanced wheat quota to flour mill owners for commercial purposes? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Right to Claim Enhancement: The court held that the petitioners, as flour mill owners, do not have a vested right to claim an enhancement of the wheat quota. The allocation of wheat is a matter of policy within the domain of the executive branch. Legal Justification for Quota Reduction: The respondents provided a comprehensive report explaining the wheat quota reduction. The court found the explanation logical, as the allocation was based on various factors, including population growth, wheat production in the area, availability of private wheat stocks, and the needs of the urban population. The gradual decrease was also due to the availability of wheat in the open market and other government support programs. State’s Obligation Under Article 38: The court held that Article 38(d) of the Constitution, which mandates the State to provide basic necessities of life, does not extend to the petitioners, who are flour mill owners seeking to enhance their commercial interests. The constitutional provision is intended to support citizens unable to earn a livelihood due to infirmity, sickness, or unemployment, not to promote the business of commercial entities. The petition was dismissed, with the court reaffirming that policy matters, including the allocation of wheat quotas, fall within the exclusive domain of the executive. The court emphasized that it cannot interfere in such policy decisions unless there is evidence of illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide intent. -----Citations/Precedents: Ibrahim Flour and General Mills, District Sheikhupura vs. Government of Punjab (PLD 2008 Lahore 184) Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 1) The court reiterated the principles of trichotomy of powers, whereby the executive is responsible for policy decisions, and the judiciary’s role is limited to interpreting the law.

Summary: [NAB to provide quota for persons with disabilities (PWDs) as per law - disability quota is not limited to Grade-15 and below but is also for posts above Grade-15 all the way up to the highest post in the organization, irrespective of the grade] The petitioner, a wheelchair user, was initially appointed to the position but later relieved of his duties on the grounds that he did not provide an "unequivocal medical fitness certificate." The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that he was fit for the job and that NAB had violated his fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard the case and reviewed the relevant evidence. They found that the Medical Fitness Certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon declared the petitioner as "fit for office job" and that the additional comment stating he was "fit against disable quota" was inconsistent and unnecessary. The court determined that NAB had no authority to second-guess the validity of the medical declaration. Furthermore, the court examined the job description of an Assistant Director and found that the position involved desk/office assignments that could be easily performed by a person using a wheelchair. Therefore, the petitioner could have been allocated to one of the departments within NAB. The court highlighted that NAB and other institutions in the public and private sectors must understand the importance of persons with disabilities (PWDs) and their right to employment. It emphasized that employment for PWDs is not charity but a right protected by constitutional values and international conventions. Pakistan is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which promotes the employment and career advancement of PWDs and prohibits discrimination based on disability in all forms of employment. Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court set aside the previous judgment and departmental orders, directing NAB to appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Director in an appropriate wing that is fit for an office job. The court also emphasized the need for institutions to maintain the disability quota as required by law and to ensure their policies recognize and protect the rights of PWDs. This judgment serves as a reminder to public and private sector institutions in Pakistan to prioritize the inclusion, accessibility, and rights of persons with disabilities in their policies and decision-making processes.

Summary: [Rights of persons with disabilities - transfer of an incapacitated employee during service to another post] According to the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, an incapacitated officer should be transferred to a more suitable position considering the level of incapacitation. Umar Daraz was adjusted to a lower grade, but he appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal, which transferred him to an equivalent grade of Ticket Collector Grade-I (TCR). The petitioners, Pakistan Railways, challenged this decision, arguing that TCR was a selection post that required promotion. The court examined the relevant clauses of the Personnel Manual, which address the incapacitation of officers and emphasize finding suitable alternative appointments for them. The court also considered the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to which Pakistan is a party, which protects the rights of persons with disabilities and prohibits discrimination based on disability. The CRPD requires reasonable accommodation to ensure equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms for disabled individuals, including in the workplace. The court found that Umar Daraz's transfer to the TCR position was a reasonable accommodation given his visual impairment. The job description of TCR provided in the Commercial Manual of Pakistan Railways did not indicate any reasons why a visually impaired officer couldn't perform the duties. The court highlighted that in case of physical incapacitation, the department must reach out to the officer to provide the best possible option for continued service. The transfer to a suitable post is considered a special case to accommodate an employee who has been incapacitated during service. The court refused to interfere with the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal and directed Pakistan Railways to review its Personnel Manual in light of the Constitution and the CRPD to ensure compliance with fundamental rights and international standards for dealing with persons with disabilities. The petition was dismissed, and leave was refused.

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: [Flood management Sindh, inclusion of women in disaster management and the importance of a climate change adaptation plan] The respondents, who are affected by calamities in Sindh, filed petitions seeking relief work in their areas. They requested immediate action from the petitioners to provide food, shelter, and drainage in the affected areas. The respondents highlighted the discriminatory acts of the PDMA Sukkur and claimed that the government was prioritizing the lands of the political elite over the villagers' land. They also mentioned the lack of presence of PDMA or DDMA in Dadu District and the failure of the government in rehabilitation efforts. The court appointed Faisal Siddiqui as amicus curiae to assist in determining the jurisdiction of establishing citizens committees. The court heard all parties and acknowledged the exceptional circumstances of the case. The court stated that it generally does not interfere with interim orders of the High Court unless there are exceptional circumstances. The main issue before the court was the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in creating citizens committees and assigning judicial officers to oversee the work of these committees. The court argued that assigning executive functions to judicial officers goes against the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. The court referred to the relevant legal framework, including the National Disaster Management Act of 2010, which establishes the National Disaster Management Commission (Commission), the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), and Provincial and District Disaster Management Authorities (PDMA and DDMA). The court noted that these authorities should be responsible for relief work, coordination, and implementation. The inclusion of members of civil society in these authorities was deemed necessary to ensure effective disaster management. The court emphasized the lack of coordination and information regarding relief efforts and acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the floods in Sindh. It suggested that citizens' participation in PDMA and DDMA would improve coordination, response, and allocation of resources. The court also highlighted the importance of women's participation and the integration of a gender perspective in disaster management.The court ruled that citizens committees should work with the DDMA to monitor and coordinate relief efforts, facilitate communication with affected areas, and ensure that relief work reaches the affected population. The court emphasized the need for participatory approaches to disaster management, where affected communities have a say in decision-making and are actively involved in relief efforts. The court also stressed the inclusion of members of civil society and women in disaster management planning and implementation.

Summary: Constitution of Islamic Republic Of Pakistan, 1973 Article. 4 & 25 The Transgender Person (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018, Section 4 & 16Entitlement of women(Transgender) Family Pension:Held; Women (Transgender) being unmarried daughter of his father, on his demise is entitled to family pension under section 2(e) of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servant (Pension) Rules, 2021

Summary: Section(s) of law; Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republicof Pakistan, 1973.1. When a statue has not given the definition of a word, thenordinary dictionary meaning is to be taken and considered.2. A person blind with one eye is a disabled person withinthe meaning of The Disabled Persons (Employment andRehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981 and would be entitled to allbenefits guaranteed under the law of the land including Ordinanceof 1981.

Summary: The court addressed an appeal challenging the nomination papers of a transgender person, raising the legal question of whether a transgender individual can contest general seats in the National Assembly. The discussion revolved around the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018 (the ?Act of 2018?), which received assent from the President on 18th May 2018 and was notified in the official gazette on 24.05.2018. The Act defined "gender identity" and "transgender person," with section 3 emphasizing the recognition of a transgender person's identity and the right to be registered accordingly with government departments.In this context, the court considered a judgment by the Federal Shariat Court, specifically in the case titled ?Hammad Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan & others,? PLD 2023 FSC 301. The Federal Shariat Court had declared certain sections of the Act of 2018 as against Islamic injunctions, and the court noted that the judgment was subsequently challenged in the Lahore High Court in a case titled W.P.No.55208/2023, titled ?Nayab Ali v. Federation of Pakistan, etc.? The Lahore High Court, in its judgment dated 07.12.2023, overturned the decision, allowing the issuance of Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) with gender "X" for transgender individuals.The court further highlighted the issuance of a notice by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) on 13.06.2023, suspending the registration of transgender persons, which was subsequently challenged in W.P.No.55208/2023 before the Lahore High Court. The Lahore High Court disposed of the petition with certain directions, and a subsequent notification dated 25.09.2023 revealed that the earlier suspension had been withdrawn by NADRA.The court also referenced amendments in the Elections Act, particularly through the Elections (Second Amendment) Act, 2023 (hereinafter the ?Amendment Act?), acknowledging transgender persons as a marginalized segment. The court cited section 11 of the Act of 2018, stating that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and/or gender expression for transgender persons wishing to contest elections.Additionally, the court discussed constitutional principles, such as the elimination of exploitation under Article 3 of the Constitution and equal protection of citizens under Article 4. It referred to Article 25, emphasizing the equality of all citizens before the law and the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex. Assistance rendered by Advocate Syed Muhammad Ali Asghar, & Advocate Muhammad Shahryar Butt.

Summary: Summary Pending --- blasphemy case.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution(a) Disability certificate issued after the cut-off date given in the advertisement, but produced before the recruitment authorities at the time of interview, should be considered by the recruitment authorities.