Summary: The Speaker of the National Assembly, under Article 63(2) of the Constitution, exercises powers which are not covered by the definition of internal proceedings of Majlis-e-Shoora, therefore, this Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, is not debarred from inquiring into the order of the Speaker by which she refused to send a reference against the Prime Minister to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in view of his conviction for contempt of court. The conviction of Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani has attained finality and he has become disqualified from being a Member of the Parliament in terms of Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution. ECP is required to issue notification of disqualification of Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani from being a member of the Parliament from the date of his conviction and the President shall take necessary steps under the Constitution to ensure continuation of the democratic process.

Summary: Contempt of Court Act, 2012:The Contempt of Court Act, 2012, is presumably a legislative enactment that defines and regulates contempt of court offenses. Contempt of court generally refers to any willful disobedience or disregard of the authority, justice, or dignity of a court. --- Legal Analysis:The court, in this scenario, engages in a comprehensive examination of various sections of the Contempt of Court Act, 2012. This analysis likely involves scrutinizing the language, intent, and implications of different provisions within the Act. ---- Constitutional Challenge:The court finds several provisions of the Act to be unconstitutional. This means that the court determines that certain aspects of the Act violate the constitutional principles or rights guaranteed by the country's constitution. The constitutional challenge may be based on issues such as fundamental rights, separation of powers, due process, or other constitutional safeguards. ---- Unconstitutionality Findings:The court specifically identifies the provisions of the Act that are unconstitutional. This could include sections related to the definition of contempt, immunities granted to public office holders, and procedural aspects of contempt proceedings. --- Declaration of Unconstitutionality:The court goes beyond striking down specific provisions and takes the drastic step of declaring the entire Act as unconstitutional. This means that, in the court's view, the entire legislative framework for contempt of court is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the constitution. ---- Void and Non-Existent:By declaring the Act as void and non-existent, the court essentially renders it null and void from the moment of its declaration. This means that the Act is treated as if it never existed, and its legal effects are erased retroactively. --- Emphasis on Non-Severability:The court emphasizes that severability is not applicable in this case. Severability is a legal principle that allows courts to strike down specific provisions of a law while leaving the rest intact if the unconstitutional parts can be separated from the valid ones. In this scenario, the court rejects the possibility of salvaging any part of the Contempt of Court Act, insisting that the entire legislation is so interconnected that it cannot stand without the unconstitutional provisions.

Summary: Supreme Court of Pakistan's Landmark Ruling on Article 62(1)(f) --- Majority Decision Sets Aside Lifetime Disqualification, Establishing a Five-Year Limit --- The court declared that Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is not self-executory and lacks clarity on the court responsible for making the mentioned declaration, the procedure for making it, and the duration of disqualification. --- It emphasized the absence of a law outlining the procedure for Article 62(1)(f) and highlighted the violation of the Fundamental Right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed by Article 10A. --- The court rejected the interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) that imposes a lifetime disqualification through an implied declaration of a civil court, considering it beyond the article's scope. --- The court ruled that until a law is enacted to make its provisions executable, Article 62(1)(f) serves as a guideline for voters, similar to other subsections of Article 62(1). ---- The court overturned the decision in Sami Ullah Baloch v Abdul Karim Nausherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405), stating that it amounted to reading into the Constitution and was therefore overruled. --- The court acknowledged Section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017, added through the Elections (Amendment) Act, 2023, which sets a five-year disqualification period and subjects the declaration to due process. --- As a result of these determinations, specific civil appeals and petitions were allowed, dismissed, or disposed of based on the individual circumstances of each case. The court also addressed withdrawal requests and de-listed certain cases for separate hearings. The order was announced on January 2024, with one judge dissenting on the interpretation of the duration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f).

Summary: ''The incapacity created for failing to meet the qualifications under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution imposes a permanent bar which remains in effect so long as the declaratory judgment supporting the conclusion of one of the delinquent kinds of conduct under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution remains in effect.'' --- This document discusses the interpretation and distinction between qualifications and disqualifications for candidates contesting elections to Parliament under Article 62 and Article 63 of the Constitution. It emphasizes that while the ultimate consequence of both lacking qualifications and incurring disqualifications is the same (i.e., ouster from the election contest), the two provisions serve different purposes and must be interpreted differently. The document refers to legal precedents, including cases like Govt. of Pakistan vs. Akhlaque Hussain, to establish the distinction between the two concepts.The document specifically delves into the interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, which pertains to the disqualification of a candidate based on a judicial declaration of misconduct by a civil court. It argues that the disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) is permanent and extends as long as the declaratory judgment remains in effect. The discussion contrasts this with Article 63(1)(h), which imposes a time-limited disqualification (five years) on a candidate convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude.The document cites cases such as Imtiaz Ahmed Lali vs. Ghulam Muhammad Lali, Abdul Ghafoor Lehri vs. Returning Officer, and Muhammad Khan Junejo vs. Federation of Pakistan to support the contention that the absence of a time limit in Article 62(1)(f) results in a permanent bar on the eligibility of a candidate.

Summary: Bail Granted ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 279, 337-G, 427, 302 & 34---Rashdriving or riding on a public way, hurt by rash or negligent driving, mischiefcausing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, qatl-i-amd and common intention---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Dishonest improvements---Scope---Prosecution case wasthat accused hit the complainant and his friends with his car while they were onmotorcycle as a result of which one of the friends of complainant died on the nextday---Other friend of complainant got recorded his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.wherein he stated that the accused had intentionally the motorcycle thrice atdifferent points, which was done in furtherance of previous enmity---Complainant,injured and the accused hailed from the same vicinity and there could be noimpediment in the way of complainant to identify the accused if he was recognized---Accused had remained unidentified, as a result, FIR was lodged against unknownaccused alleging that he had caused injuries to the driver and riders of themotorcycle through rash and negligent driving---Improvements in the case ofprosecution were for no other purpose except to tighten the screw of the accused---Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was accepted, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Mala fide of prosecution---Scope---Pre-arrest bail isan extraordinary relief, which is to be extended in rareand exceptionalcircumstances to the accused but at the same time, one cannot lose sight of the factthat liberty of a person is one of the paramount and inalienable right guaranteedunder the Constitution, which cannot be abridged lightly---One of the primepurposes of pre-arrest bail is to prevent the mala fide prosecution of innocentpersons---Term "mala fide" is not a uniformly identified term---Being a state ofmind, the term "mala fide" cannot always be proved through direct evidence, and itis often to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser v. The State and another PLD 2021 SC 708 rel.Khair Muhammad and another v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another 2021SCMR 130 ref.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Scope---Once the Court reaches at the conclusion thatin case of dismissal of pre-arrest bail the accused would become entitled for his release on post-arrest bail then it would be mere futile exercise to send him toprison.Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another 1986 SCMR 1380; KhalilAhmed Soomro and others v. The State PLD 2017 SC 730 and Khair Muhammadand another v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another 2021 SCMR 130 ref.Syed Azmat Ali Bukhari for Petitioner with Petitioner in person.Naveed Ahmad Warraich, Deputy District Public Prosecutor with Sohail,Inspector and Kashif S.I/SHO for the State.Sardar Abdul Raziq Khan and M. Bashir Paracha for RespondentNo.2/Complainant.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 498 & 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(vi), 337-L(2) & 504---Shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifahdamiyah, ghayr-jaifah munaqqillah, other hurt, intentional insult with intent to provokebreach of peace---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Mala fide of complainant---Offences withwhich accused persons were charged were punishable by way of imprisonment whichdid not fall within the prohibitory part of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---When the accused personswere entitled to post arrest bail, their prayer for pre-arrest bail, if declined, would be amatter of technicality alone---Accused persons were likely to be humiliated anddisgraced due to their arrest at the hands of the local police---In the present case, itappeared that net had been thrown wider and the injuries sustained by the victimsexcept one or two, had been exaggerated---Seemingly efforts had been made to showthat the offences fell within such provisions of law, which were punishable with fiveyears' or seven years' imprisonment---All said aspects, when considered combindly,constituted mala fides on part of complainant party---Accused persons were grantedpre-arrest bail accordingly. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Pre-conditions---Mala fide, inference of---For grant ofpre-arrest bail one of the pre conditions was that the accused person had to show thathis arrest was intended by the prosecution out of mala fide and for ulteriorconsiderations---At pre-arrest bail stage, it was difficult for the accused to prove theelement of mala fide through positive/solid evidence/materials, therefore, the same wasto be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case---Wherecertain events or hints to such effect were available, the same would validly constitutethe element of mala fide. (c) Police Rules, 1934-------V ol. II, Ch. XXV , R. 25.19(1)---Medico-legal opinion---Description of injuries bythe Medico-legal Officer in the examination report---Scope---Practice of describing the sections of penal law under which the injuries fell by the Medico-legal Officer---Supreme Court deprecated such practice by Medico-Legal officers and observed thatthey should not assume the status of the prosecution/prosecutors, as such was neithertheir domain nor they had lawful authority to direct or convey to the InvestigatingAgency the nature of offence; that the Medico-legal Officers should (only) describe thenature of injuries under the dispensation of law and not the provision of law, underwhich it fell.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)?????S. 497(5)??Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302??Bail,cancellation of??In a case of murder accused (respondent, wasgranted bail before arrest while other accused were granted bailafter arrest??Petitioner choosing to challenge bail granted toaccused (respondent) before arrest and not challenging bailgranted to other accused after arrest although latter were fallingin same category to which accused (respondent)belonged??Prima facie case of petitioner not distinguishablefrom that of other: to whom bail had been allowed??Held, nouseful purpose was likely to be served if bail of accused(respondent) was cancelled on any technical ground becauseafter arrest he could again be allowed bail on the ground thatsimilarly placed other accused were already on bail. Interference rejected by the court. --- The petitioner challenged the bail granted to Zafar Ullah Khan, a respondent in a murder case, before his arrest, while others were granted bail after arrest. The petitioner did not challenge the bail granted to other accused falling in the same category as the respondent.The court noted that the prima facie case of the petitioner was not distinguishable from that of others who were granted bail. The court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by canceling the bail of the respondent on technical grounds, as he could be granted bail again after arrest based on the precedent set by similarly placed other accused. Therefore, the Supreme Court declined to interfere, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Summary: Constitutional Mandate for Democracy: The judgment reiterates the constitutional imperative of establishing and nurturing a democratic government in Pakistan, emphasizing the duty of all State functionaries, including the Election Commission, to uphold democratic principles. (Reference: Article 17, Article 16, Article 19) ---- Compulsory Voting Proposal: The petitioners advocate for compulsory voting, asserting that the Election Commission must ensure substantial voter participation by making voting obligatory and imposing sanctions for non-compliance. This measure is seen as crucial for realizing the constitutional mandate of a government run by chosen representatives. (Reference: Article 218(3) of the Constitution, Representation of the People Act, and other laws/rules) --- Scrutiny of Election System: The judgment critically examines the existing 'First Past the Post' (FPTP) election system, referencing the petitioners' proposal for a mixed electoral system combining first-past-the-post and proportional representation. Legal precedent includes the case of Mir Salim Khan Khosa v. Chief Election Commissioner (2002 SCMR 109), which deemed the FPTP system undemocratic. (Reference: Section 42 of the ROPA, Mir Salim Khan Khosa v. Chief Election Commissioner) ---- Shortcomings of FPTP System: The judgment identifies the shortcomings of the FPTP system, referencing the 2008 elections where winners in a significant number of constituencies did not secure more than 50% of the polled votes. The court recommends the adoption of a 'runoff election' system in constituencies without a clear majority winner. (Reference: Section 42 of the ROPA, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) ---- 'None of the Above' Option: The petitioners propose the inclusion of a 'None of the above' option on ballot papers, allowing voters to express dissatisfaction with all candidates. This is viewed as a means to address low voter turnout and ensure that elected representatives genuinely represent the electorate. Legal precedent includes the case of Mir Salim Khan Khosa v. Chief Election Commissioner (2002 SCMR 109). (Reference: Articles 17, 51(6), 106(3), and 218(3), Mir Salim Khan Khosa v. Chief Election Commissioner) --- Defination of : ?Honestly?:(i) ?honest? means full of honour: just: fair dealing: upright:the opposite of thievish: free from fraud: candid: truthful:ingenious: seemly: respectable: chaste: honourable;?honestly? means in an honest way: in truth; ?honesty? isthe state of being honest: integrity: candour. [Chambers,20th Century Dictionary, New Edition 1983 at page 601](ii) ?honesty? ? ?according to the best lexicographers the words?truth? ?veracity? and ?honesty? are almost synonymous,very nearly the same definitions being given to each of thewords?. [P. Ramanatha Aiyar?s ?Advanced Law Lexicon?,2005 Edition, Vol. 2, at page 2153](iii) Honesty is a thing deemed to be done in good faith, whereit is infact done honestly, whether it is done negligently ornot. [Fakhruddin v. A. Shah (PLD 1982 Kar 790)](iv) Honestly is state of mind which is psychological factorcapable to prove or disprove only by a evidence orconduct. [Amjad Khan v. Marium (1993 CLC 175)]?Justly?(i) ?just? means ?conforming to or consonant with, what islegal or lawful, legally right, lawful?; ? ?The words ?just?and ?justly? do not always mean ?just? and ?justly? in a moralsense, but they not unfrequently, in their connection withother words in a sentence, where a very differentsignification. It is evident, however, that the word ?just? inthe statute [requiring an affidavit for an attachment toState that Plaintiff?s claim is just] means ?just ? in a moralsense; and from its isolation, being made a separate subdivision of the section, it is intended to mean ?morally just?in the most emphatic terms. The claim must be morallyjust as well as the legally just in order to entitle a party to an attachment.? Robinson v. Burton (5 Kan. 300.) [Black?s Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition of 1968, at page1001](ii) ?just? means righteous: fair: impartial: according to justice:due: in accordance with facts: well-grounded: accuratelytrue: exact: normal: close-fitting: precisely: exactly: somuch and no more: barely: only: merely: quite; ?justly?means in a just manner: equitably: accurately: by right;?justness? means equity: fittingness: exactness.[Chambers, 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition 1983 atpage 686](iii) ?just?. As an adjective, fair; adequate; reasonable;probable; right in accordance with law and justice right inlaw or ethics; rightful; legitimate, well founded;conformable to laws; conforming to the requirements ofright or positive law; conformed to rules or principle ofjustice. 2 Bom LR 845. As an adverb of time the word ?just?is equivalent to ?at this moment,? of the least possible timesince? (Ame. Cyc.) --- The word ?just? is derived from the Latin ?justus? which isfrom the Latin ?jus? which means a right, and moretechnically a legal right--- a law. The world ?just? is definedby the Century Dictionary as conforming to therequirements of right or of positive law, and in Anderson?sLaw Dictionary as probable, reasonable. Kinney?s LawDictionary defines ?just? as fair, adequate, reasonable,probable, and justa causa as a just case, a lawful ground.Being in conformity with justice [S.191, Expln. 2, ill. (a)IPC (45 of 1860) and Art 42, Const]; fair. --- The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional principles underpinning democracy in Pakistan, referencing legal precedents and proposing significant electoral reforms. It focuses on the need for compulsory voting, scrutiny of the FPTP system, and the introduction of innovative measures like the 'None of the above' option on ballot papers. --- Directions and Observations:The court concludes with specific directions to the Election Commission, emphasizing the strict implementation of election laws, monitoring of election expenses, and the initiation of door-to-door checking of voters' lists. It calls for the Election Commission to frame rules and issue instructions to ensure fair, free, just, and honest elections, citing legal precedents and emphasizing the sacred trust associated with public power.

Summary: Role of Media --- The media's ethical and legal framework, requiring fairness and objectivity, is emphasized. Journalists are criticized for not conducting due diligence before reporting news of significant importance, leading to the spread of rumors and insinuations. Statements from media persons, including Mir Ibrahim Rehman, Chief Executive of Geo Network, and Kamran Khan, are scrutinized for lacking thorough checks and contributing to a damaging media onslaught on the judiciary.The document points out the absence of professional thoroughness and due diligence in media reporting, citing examples of incomplete evidence and lack of verification in the alleged bribery case involving Malik Riaz.--- The Suo Moto case initiated on June 6, 2012, in response to talk shows implicating individuals in illegal acts, casting doubt on the judiciary's independence. Media personalities like Kamran Khan and Hamid Mir reported on alleged misconduct by Dr. Arsalan Iftikhar, son of the Chief Justice, involving blackmail and financial improprieties. --- Concerns are raised about media ethics and responsibility. Media coverage, driven by baseless allegations, led to public apprehension about the judiciary's integrity. The Court critiques journalists for lack of due diligence, emphasizing the need for fairness and objectivity in reporting. --- The Court, while not making a final judgment on guilt, concludes that the judiciary's integrity remains intact. Malik Riaz's admission that no favors were granted dispels doubts cast on the Court. The case highlights the importance of due diligence in media reporting and the need for discretion in private and public dealings, especially for family members of public functionaries. the Court urged the Attorney General to pursue legal action against individuals involved in any illegal acts, emphasizing the rule of law. The judgment concludes with hope for a brighter future and quotes from the poet Hafez, underlining the significance of justice and equality before the law.

Summary: The case revolves around the award of a Contract dated 29.12.2009 for the Islamabad Safe City Project. The project involved the procurement of goods, equipment, and services for establishing a Command Center and Network in Islamabad for a total cost of US$ 124,719,018.The factual background reveals that a Chinese company, M/s Huawei Technology Company Limited, approached the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) with an offer to implement a comprehensive surveillance and monitoring system for security, specifically in Islamabad. The project faced complexities, including discussions on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and considerations for a long-term concessional loan from the Chinese government.The case details the series of events, meetings, and decisions involving various government stakeholders, leading to the approval of the project by the Prime Minister on December 24, 2009. The judgment outlines the concerns and considerations related to the project, including financial aspects, procurement procedures, and the involvement of different ministries.--- Judiciary's role in scrutinizing government transactions involving public funds --- property, and contracts to ensure transparency, legality, and fairness. The text then delves into a specific case related to the procurement of goods and services by the Ministry of Interior, where the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules are invoked. The court declares the contract executed on December 29, 2009, as illegal and invalid, citing violations of procurement rules and lack of transparency. The judgment directs the government to reinitiate the procurement process in adherence to the law, allowing the involved company to participate. Additionally, the National Accountability Bureau is urged to initiate appropriate proceedings in line with the judgment --- Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002" and the "Public Procurement Rules, 2004." --- Miss Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan and Another (PLD 1988 SC 416):This case is cited to support the idea that the jurisdiction of the court is not limited to adversarial proceedings initiated by a wronged litigant. It establishes that the court can address the enforcement of constitutional rights for groups or the public at large.Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and Others (PLD 1993 SC 473):This case is referenced to emphasize the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the context of Public Interest Litigation, ensuring meaningful protection of the Rule of Law to all citizens.Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and Others v. Federation of Pakistan and Others (2012 SCMR 455):This case is cited to underscore the court's consistent exercise of jurisdiction to scrutinize government transactions, particularly those involving public money and property, to prevent arbitrariness and ensure fairness.Muhammad Yaseen v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and Others (PLD 2012 SC 132):This case is referenced in the context of exercising jurisdiction of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness, illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety in matters where government bodies exercise their contractual powers.Suo Motu Case, action regarding huge loss to public exchequer by ignoring lowest bid of Fauji Foundation and Multinational Energy from Vitol by awarding LNG Contract (PLD 2010 SC 731):This case is mentioned to illustrate the court's previous scrutiny of transactions to prevent loss to the public exchequer.Human Rights Cases, action taken on news clippings regarding Fast Food outlet in F-9 Park Islamabad (PLD 2010 SC 759):This case is cited as an example of the court's scrutiny of matters related to public interest.Non-Transparent Procedure of Purchase of 150 Locomotives by Ministry of Railways Resultantly Causing 40 Billion Losses to the National Exchequer, Suo Motu Case (2012 SCMR 226): This case is referred to highlight the court's involvement in cases related to financial losses to the national exchequer.Alleged Corruption in Rental Power Plants etc., Human Rights Case (2012 SCMR 773): This case is cited to show instances where the court has exercised jurisdiction to investigate alleged corruption in government contracts.