Summary: Issues: 1) Separation of Powers: Does the delegation of judicial powers to the executive officers of the ICT Administration violate Article 175(3) of the Constitution, which mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive? ------ 2) Judicial Independence: Can judicial powers be exercised by executive officers who are not under the supervisory jurisdiction of the judiciary, as required by Article 203 of the Constitution? Implementation of Reforms: Has the delay in issuing the notification for the enforcement of the judicial separation under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinances of 2001 been unconstitutional? ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the exercise of judicial powers by the executive magistrates within the ICT as unconstitutional. ------ Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence: The court held that the provisions of the Constitution are clear in mandating the separation of the judiciary from the executive. Any continued exercise of judicial powers by executive officers violates the Constitution, particularly Articles 175(3), 202, and 203, which require an independent judiciary. The exercise of judicial functions by ICT Administration officers was deemed unconstitutional. ------ Delay in Implementation: The court noted that the Federal Government had failed to issue the necessary notification to enforce the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinances of 2001, which were designed to separate the judiciary from the executive. The delay of over 23 years in issuing this notification was found to be unconstitutional. ------ Prospective Effect: The court’s ruling operates prospectively, meaning that it does not affect past judgments or decisions already made by executive magistrates under the de facto doctrine, but prevents them from issuing future judgments or orders in criminal trials until the necessary judicial reforms are enforced. The court directed the Federal Government to issue the notification for the enforcement of the 1st Amendment Ordinance without further delay and restrained executive magistrates from passing final orders in criminal cases pending before them. ------ Citations/Precedents: Government of Sindh v. Sharaf Faridi (PLD 1994 SC 105) Confirmed that executive magistrates cannot exercise judicial powers in violation of the principle of separation of powers. ------ Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 1445) Reiterated that the separation of the judiciary from the executive is a constitutional mandate. ------ Government of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon (PLD 1993 SC 341) Held that the period for separation of the judiciary from the executive expired in 1987, and any delay beyond that is unconstitutional. ------ Sheikh Riaz-ul-Haq v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 501) Distinguished judicial power from administrative functions, emphasizing that judicial powers must be exercised by courts subject to judicial principles. ------ Malik Toti Khan v. District Magistrate (PLD 1957 Quetta 1) The court emphasized that inconvenience to the administration cannot override constitutional provisions regarding judicial independence.

Summary: Facts:Officials from a local police station conducted a raid on a residence, detaining two individuals under a public order ordinance without a prior detention order from the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner, related to one of the detained individuals, filed a legal petition which was dismissed due to the detention being sanctioned under public order laws. Several legal challenges were filed, contesting the legality of the detentions and seeking improved detention conditions and medical examination for one of the detained individuals.----Issue:The legality of the arrest and detention of the individuals without a valid detention order.The entitlement of one detained individual to improved detention conditions and medical examination.----Holding:The court found the arrest and subsequent detention of the individuals without a valid order to be unlawful and void.The detention orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner were deemed arbitrary, an excessive use of lawful authority, and thus unlawful.One of the detained individuals was deemed to have been arrested in criminal cases registered against them, and the investigating officer was directed to produce them before the competent magistrate.The Deputy Commissioner was directed to classify the status and class entitlement of detainees in all future detention orders.A personal item taken into possession during the raid was ordered to be returned to the representative of one of the detained individuals immediately.The conduct of the Deputy Commissioner and the Incharge Police Station was deprecated for the arbitrary exercise of authority.A criminal original petition was disposed of, with provisions for revival if one of the detained individuals was not produced before the court as directed.----Rationale:The court determined that the arrest and subsequent detention under the public order ordinance without a valid order from the Deputy Commissioner violated lawful procedures. The judgment emphasized the need for state power to be exercised within legal boundaries, particularly in matters affecting individual freedoms.

Summary: (--Regarding constitution of Benches and fixation of cases at the Supreme Court---Upon examining the relevant provisions in the Supreme Court Rules, it was found that the power to nominate judges for benches rests with the Chief Justice, and there is no authority for the Registrar or the Chief Justice to change the composition of a bench or reduce the number of judges. The court referenced previous cases that emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Arbitrary reconstitution of benches undermines the judicial system and erodes public confidence. The court further highlighted the constitutional rights of equal protection of law and fair trial, which exclude arbitrariness and unstructured discretion. The court also raised concerns about the methodology for fixing cases and the apparent lack of logic or reasonableness in the process. It was revealed that a large number of cases, including civil petitions for leave to appeal filed in 2020 and 2021, were pending adjudication. The court questioned why these cases took precedence over others filed many years earlier. The Registrar referred to a circular from 2017 regarding urgent cases, but none of the cases listed for hearing fell into those categories. No other circulars, orders, notifications, or memoranda were mentioned to explain the methodology for case fixation. The court concluded that the exercise of power should adhere to the principles of justice and should not be arbitrary or fanciful. It stressed the need to structure discretionary power and avoid its arbitrary exercise. The court held itself to the same standards it applies to others and questioned the justification for not doing so. In light of these findings, the court expressed concerns about the arbitrary use of power and emphasized the importance of fair trial, due process, and the rule of law. It called for the rationalization and regulation of discretionary powers to ensure the highest quality of justice.

Summary: Issue(s):Whether the caretaker government has the authority to remove and appoint Additional and Assistant Advocate-Generals.The legality and constitutionality of the impugned Notifications regarding the removal and appointment of law officers.--- Holding: The court found the removal of law officers to be within the scope of the caretaker government's authority. However, the appointment of law officers who previously served in the same government was deemed unjustifiable, lacking public interest justification, and thus ultra vires of law including Section 230 of the Elections Act, and not sustainable??.---- Reasoning: The caretaker government is limited to conducting day-to-day affairs and ensuring fair and transparent elections. Major policy decisions, including appointments, should be deferred to the incoming elected government. The court noted that the impugned Notifications lacked justification in public interest and were retroactively defended, which is not acceptable in constitutional jurisdiction??.--- Rule of Law: The caretaker government is restrained from making substantial policy decisions or appointments that could influence administrative or political landscapes. Actions must be confined to day-to-day administration and maintaining neutrality, without taking undue advantage or making irreversible decisions??.--- Analysis: The judgment emphasizes the limited mandate of caretaker governments, highlighting the importance of neutrality and impartiality in the pre-election phase. It clarifies the scope of authority regarding appointments and removals, ensuring caretaker actions are reversible and do not pre-empt the authority of the future elected government??.

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: The petitioner, M/s Sadiq Poultry (Pvt.) Ltd., challenged the order of the High Court, which directed the formation of a committee to review prices of livestock and poultry products and imposed a ban on the export of dairy and poultry products. The petitioner argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising suo motu powers and issuing orders on policy matters that fall within the domain of the executive. They contended that the High Court's interference in fixing prices and forming committees to regulate prices of livestock and poultry products was unwarranted and against the constitutional separation of powers. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, concluded that the High Court did not have the authority to exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court stated that the High Court's orders went beyond the prayers made in the writ petition and constituted an encroachment on the executive's jurisdiction. They emphasized that the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction solely rests with the Supreme Court under Article 184 of the Constitution. The Court also noted that import and export are federal subjects, and the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing directions to the provincial government regarding the prohibition and restriction of exports. They cited relevant laws that grant the federal government the power to regulate imports and exports. Based on these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Peshawar High Court, declaring it unsustainable and legally unsound.

Summary: Government functionaries are bound to act in accordance with law by not allowing anyone to do as per his desire and wish to maintain the law and order situation and to implement the policies of the Government is the duty of the respondents, as such the respondents are directed to close all the illegal Stands/Terminals/addas in the entire District of Swat, within a period of one month and compliance report in this respect be submitted to the learned Additional Registrar of this Court by respondent No.4 i.e. Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Malakand Division, TMA and Deputy Commissioner, failure of which would be dealt with in consonance with Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003. Office shall immediately send the copy of this order to all concerned for compliance.

Summary: Full judgement on restraining political parties from holding public meetings in Islamabad before Voting on No-confidence Motion, reference No.1 of 2022, (Reference by the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution, seeking interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution), and Constitution Petition No.9 of 2022 Imposing Life Time Ban from contesting Elections on defection from Political Party.

Summary: Abuse of Authority

Summary: [Strictures not to be passed against judges of district judiciary - horizontal and vertical precedents - compliance of articles 189 and 201 and judicial effrontery]----The key issue revolved around whether an appellate court, including the High Court, has the authority to make negative remarks about the conduct or efficiency of a lower court judge in its judgment. The Lahore High Court had made critical observations against the conduct of the two civil judges from Sheikhupura. The Supreme Court, led by Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, extensively analyzed the matter.The court referred to the Nusrat Yasmin case (PLD 2019 SC 719) and the Aijaz Ahmed case (PLD 2021 SC 752) for guidance. The Supreme Court reiterated principles derived from these cases:An appellate court should not make derogatory remarks about the efficiency or conduct of the lower court judge whose decision is under review.An appellate court should not summon the lower court judge to explain their judgment.If procedural errors are observed, the appellate court may confidentially inform the judge without recording any public criticism.If serious inefficiency or misconduct is suspected, the appellate court can report the matter confidentially to the competent authority for appropriate action under relevant service laws.The Supreme Court emphasized that public reprimand of a judge's conduct by an appellate court damages public trust in the judiciary and affects the morale of the judge in question. Such criticisms should be dealt with administratively rather than in public judgments. The Court highlighted the crucial role of the District Judiciary and underscored that all judges are prone to making errors.The Court further stressed that its decisions set binding precedents for lower courts, ensuring national uniformity in judicial decisions. It's vital for judges to adhere to these precedents, and deviation without compelling justification weakens public confidence in the judiciary.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, expunging the impugned remarks made by the Lahore High Court against the two civil judges. The Court reiterated the principles established in previous cases and emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity, independence, and public trust in the judicial system of Pakistan.