Summary: The petitioner, a senior counsel, sought to expunge remarks made about his conduct in an order issued by the Special Court in 2014 while he was representing General Retired Pervez Musharraf. The remarks were related to the petitioner’s courtroom behavior and were deemed by him to infringe upon his constitutional rights to dignity, fair trial, livelihood, and profession. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Judicial Review of Remarks: Could the Islamabad High Court review the Special Court’s remarks regarding the petitioner’s conduct? ----- 2) Fundamental Rights: Did the remarks infringe on the petitioner’s constitutional rights to a fair trial (Article 10A), dignity (Article 14), livelihood (Article 9), and profession (Article 18)? ----- 3) Persona Designata: Were the High Court judges in the Special Court acting as persona designata (designated persons), thus making their order subject to judicial review? ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome Judicial Review of Remarks: The High Court ruled it lacked grounds to interfere with the Special Court’s remarks, as they were made within the Court’s jurisdiction and did not constitute a penal action. The Court noted that such observations were intended to maintain decorum and were not a formal adjudication affecting the petitioner’s civil rights. ----- Fundamental Rights: The Court found that Article 10A (right to fair trial) was not violated as the remarks did not adjudicate the petitioner’s rights or impose any penalty. Similarly, no breach of dignity or livelihood occurred, as the remarks had no tangible impact on the petitioner’s career—evidenced by his subsequent appointment as Attorney General. ----- Persona Designata: While judges on the Special Court were indeed acting as persona designata, the High Court emphasized the need for deference and high thresholds for interference with orders involving judicial peers, especially in maintaining courtroom decorum. ----- Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, as the remarks were considered within judicial discretion to uphold courtroom order. The Court found no merit in claims that the remarks breached the petitioner’s fundamental rights or affected his professional standing. ----- Citations: Malik Feroz Khan Noon vs. The State (PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 333) Mian Jamal Shah vs. Member Election Commission (PLD 1966 SC 01) Gul Taiz Khan Marwat vs. Registrar Peshawar High Court (PLD 2021 SC 391) Taufeeq Asif vs. General Retired Pervez Musharraf (2024 SCMR 63)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The petitioner was working as Constable when he applied for the post of Sub-Inspector and was recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission and appointment order dated 03.08.2023 was issued which was later on withdrawn through impugned order dated 30.04.2024 on the ground that an F.I.R. has been registered against him (after filing of his application). The petitioner admittedly was acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction when his application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was accepted and in first departmental inquiry, he was also declared innocent but on the strength of the second departmental inquiry with which the petitioner was not associated, the impugned withdrawal order was taken as valid by the department. Held: The respondent-department seems to have fallen in error inasmuch as when the Court of competent jurisdiction, i.e., Magistrate Section 30, has clearly found that necessary material for commission of alleged offence is not made out from the facts of the case in addition to the fact that complainant of the case was also not interested to prosecute the case, therefore, in such an eventuality, the impugned order is without any lawful basis. Moreover, it has been held that the underlying rationale of the policy of the respondent-department to withdraw appointment as Sub-Inspector from a Constable who is found involved in a criminal act?registration of case, seems to maintain discipline in the force by shunning out such candidates who could potentially be troublesome for the discipline. In the instant case, strangely and ironically enough, the petitioner found to be involved in FIR can perform his duties as a Constable, by remaining part of the force but cannot be offered appointment as Sub-Inspector. Thus, the policy, the underlying rationale and the manner in which it has been implemented in the present case create a paradoxical situation and conflicting position of the respondent-department, the answer to which is absent on the part of the respondent-department. The petitioner could be or could not be troublesome both as Constable and as Sub-Inspector. -----Background: The petitioner was initially appointed as a constable in the police force and later applied for the position of Sub-Inspector. He successfully passed the written examination, interview, and medical test. On 03.08.2023, he was recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) and issued an appointment order. However, during the verification of his antecedents, it was revealed that a criminal case (FIR No. 269/2023) under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) was registered against him. Despite being acquitted of the charges in the criminal case by a competent court, the police department withdrew the petitioner’s appointment on 30.04.2024, based on the FIR. The petitioner challenged the withdrawal, asserting that his acquittal invalidated the department's decision. -----Issues: 1- Whether the withdrawal of the petitioner’s appointment was lawful, given that he was acquitted in the criminal case. -----2- Whether the second departmental inquiry conducted by the respondent-department was justified and conducted in adherence to principles of natural justice. -----3- Whether the respondent-department's policy regarding criminal cases and the withdrawal of appointments is reasonable, considering the petitioner’s fundamental right to livelihood. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Acquittal and Withdrawal of Appointment: The Court ruled that the petitioner had been acquitted by the Magistrate under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) due to lack of evidence. The Court emphasized that the acquittal decision from a competent court held more weight than the FIR and ruled that the withdrawal of his appointment based on the FIR was legally unjustifiable. --Second Inquiry and Natural Justice: The Court noted that although a second inquiry was conducted by the respondent-department, the department failed to provide any reasonable justification for initiating the second inquiry, which appeared to violate the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not informed or involved in the second inquiry, undermining his right to a fair process, as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. --Policy and Fundamental Rights: The Court observed that the respondent-department’s policy of withdrawing the appointment due to a criminal case, despite the petitioner’s acquittal and continued service as a constable, created a contradictory and unjust situation. The Court stated that the withdrawal of the Sub-Inspector appointment, after the petitioner had earned it through merit, violated his fundamental right to livelihood, which is protected under the Constitution. The petition was allowed, the withdrawal order was set aside, and the respondent-department was directed to proceed with the petitioner’s appointment as Sub-Inspector in accordance with the law. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. (Acquittal based on insufficient evidence) Pakistan Penal Code, Section 392 (Robbery) Constitution of Pakistan, Article 10-A (Right to a fair trial and principles of natural justice) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Sections on departmental inquiry and acquittal)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 4, 9, 25, 25A & 184(3)---Constitution petition before the Supreme Court---Maintainability---Public Sector Universities---Posts of Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice-Chancellors, Rectors, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Registrars, Heads of Faculties and Departments, Controller of Examination, Director Finance and other tenured positions either lying vacant and/or held on acting charge basis---Decision making bodies of the public sector universities, i.e., their board of trustees, board of governors, syndicates, senates and academic councils not meeting periodically and/or compliance not being made in holding the minimum prescribed number of meetings as stipulated in their respective laws---Matters raised in the present petition are within the ambit of clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution---Issues which have been raised are of public importance affecting the interest of all those attending these universities---People's taxes help run public sector universities, therefore, they expect that they be run in accordance with applicable laws and efficiently, and their taxes do not go to waste---Other pre-condition in clause (3) of Article 184 is that the petition must seek the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights---This requirement is also met---Article 25 of the Constitution mandates that citizens are entitled to equal treatment and to equal protection of the law, but if compliance is not made with the laws governing public sector universities, the citizens' Fundamental Rights are violated---Article 25A of the Constitution requires that children upto the age of 16 years must be educated, which demonstrates the importance the Constitution attaches to education---Position of a Vice-Chancellor of a university must not be left vacant, and if appointment to this position is delayed it adversely affects the functioning of the university, which attracts Article 9 of the Constitution-right to life-as life has been construed to include all of life's attendant benefits, including that of education provided by the law---Article 4 of the Constitution stipulates that citizens have an inalienable right to be treated in accordance with the law, but if public sector universities, funded by the taxpayers do not operate in accordance with laws governing them, then citizens are not being treated in accordance with the law---Constitution petition was held to be maintainable. Aamir Raza Ashfaq v. Minhaj Ahmed Khan 2012 SCMR 6 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 184(3)---Constitution petition before the Supreme Court---Public Sector Universities---Posts of Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice-Chancellors, Rectors, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Registrars, Heads of Faculties and Departments, Controller of Examination, Director Finance and other tenured positions either lying vacant and/or held on acting charge basis---Decision making bodies of the public sector universities, i.e., their board of trustees, board of governors, syndicates, senates and academic councils not meeting periodically and/or compliance not being made in holding the minimum prescribed number of meetings as stipulated in their respective laws---Legality---From the information provided by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) and the Federal Ministry of Education very serious transgressions committed by some Federal public sector universities were brought to the Supreme Court's attention---Supreme Court issued the following directions to all Federal and Provincial public sector universities ('the universities'), the Federal Ministries of Education, Science and Technology and Defence, the Provincial Ministries of Education, the HEC and the Provincial Higher Education Departments ('HEDs'): (i) Governing bodies of the universities, respectively referred to in their respective laws whether as board of governors, board of trustees, syndicates, senates and academic councils, must meet (at least) the minimum prescribed times; (ii) Appointments be made to all tenured positions in the universities as prescribed in their respective laws, including those of Vice-Chancellors, Registrars, Directors-General, Deans, Treasurers/Directors of Finance, Controllers of Examinations, Chairpersons and others specified therein, and this must be done transparently and on merit, by stipulating their respective criteria and inviting appointments through their respective websites and advertisements; (iii) Vacant tenured positions must not be held for more than six months on acting-charge-basis and such temporary charge be given to that person who is specified in the applicable law and, in the absence thereof to a person of equivalent seniority, failing which to the person next in seniority; (iv) The Federal Ministries of Education, Science and Technology and Defence, the Provincial Ministries of Education, the HEC and the HEDs of the Provinces must collate requisite information about the universities under their respective jurisdictions, and periodically check if they are compliant with their respective laws. Such information should be made publicly accessible on their websites; (v) The universities should not exceed the academic to non-academic staff ratio prescribed by HEC, and those universities which have exceeded the same must not hire further non-academic staff, unless absolutely necessary after specific permission is granted by their respective governing bodies; (vi) Student unions be revived in universities but it must be ensured that they are inclusive and not divisive, ethnic or sectarian; (vii) HEC and HEDs should annually rank the universities in their respective jurisdictions pursuant to internationally recognized criteria; (viii) The Shariah Academy, the Dawah Academy and the Iqbal International Institute for Research and Dialogue of the International Islamic University be made fully functional in compliance with their respective statutes; (ix) A safe and harassment free environment, free of psychotropic drugs and weapons must be ensured in the universities. Transgressors and those who destroy universities' properties must be dealt with strictly; (x) Hostels meant for the students enrolled in the universities must not be allowed to be occupied by those who have completed their studies and by outsiders; (xi) Community service, sustainable living, good environmental practices, inter-university competitions, sports, games and debates should be encouraged; (xii) Research culture and research based publications should be promoted; (xiii) The lands of the universities must be demarcated, if not already demarcated, and if their land or any part thereof is encroached upon, encroachments therefrom be removed. Universities must also secure their lands. Iron grills and steel mesh boundaries can be installed quickly and cheaply and do not require much maintenance and also do not block vision, however, if a solid brick or block wall is required it would be best not to plaster and paint it to avoid periodical and perpetual drain of resources. The universities' ownership of land must be recorded in the record of rights. Umer Ijaz Gilani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Malik Javed Iqbal Wains, Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan Supreme Court, Mohyuddin Wani, Secretary M/o F.E&P.T., Abdul Sattar Khokhar, Senior Joint Secretary, M/o F.E&P.T. and Dr. Agha Haider, Deputy Director, (Legal), M/o F.E&P.T. for Respondents No. 1 to 2. M. Nazir Jawwad, Advocate Supreme Court and Dr. Zia-ul-Qayyum, Executive Director, H.E.C for Respondent No. 3. Khalid Ishaq, Advocate-General, Punjab, Barrister M. Mumtaz Ali, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab and Abdul Rehman Ch., Senior Law Officer, HED, Lahore for Respondent No. 4. Shah Faisal Ilyas, Additional Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Ghulam Saeed, Special Secretary, HED, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Qazi Ayyaz, Senior Officer (Litigation) for Respondent No. 5. Hassan Akbar, Advocate-General, Sindh, Saifullah, Additional Advocate-General Sindh, Moeen-ud-Din Siddiqui, Secretary, HEC and Ms. Naheed Haider, Deputy Director, Legal HEC, Sindh for Respondent No. 6. Muhammad Ayaz Swati, Additional Advocate-General, Balochistan and Hafiz Muhammad Tahir, Secretary Education, Balochistan for Respondent No. 7. On Court's Notice: Dr. Saeed-ud-Din, Rector for Sindh Institute for Technology MS. Professor Dr. Akhtar Ali Malik, Vice-Chancellor and Nazeer Chishti, Director (Legal) for National Fertilizer Corporation Institute. Attaullah Hakim Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and Dr. Zabita K. Shinwari, Vice Chancellor for Federal Urdu University. Rizwan Shabbir Kayani, Advocate Supreme Court for National College of Arts. Dr. Muhammad Mukhtar, Vice-Chancellor for National Skills University. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Dr. Niaz Ahmed Akhtar, Vice-Chancellor for Quaid-e-Azam University. Rehan-ud-Din Golra, Advocate Supreme Court, Anis M. Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record, Professor Dr. Samina Malik, Rector and Atiq-ur-Rehman Chughtai, Director, HR for International Islamic University. Khalid Mehmood Iraqi, Vice-Chancellor for University of Karachi. Kamal-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court and Mir Qasim Jat, Advocate-on-Record for Shaheed Muhtarma Benazir Bhutto University. Dr. Mujeeb Memon, Vice-Chancellor for Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto University of Law. Abdus Salam Memon, Advocate Supreme Court and Professor Ikram-ud-Din Ujjan, Vice-Chancellor for Liaqat University of Medical and Health Sciences. Professor Dr. Gulshan Ali, Vice-Chancellor for People University of Medical and Health Sciences. Professor Dr. Arabella Bhutto, Vice-Chancellor for University of Sufism. Professor Dr. Yousaf Khushk, Vice-Chancellor for Shah Abdul Latif University. Applicant in person (in CMA. No. 10026 of 2024). Date of hearing: 20th September, 2024.

Summary: The petition was filed by the All Public Universities BPS Teachers Association (APUBTA), representing approximately 50,000 teachers working in Pakistan's public universities, raising concerns about mismanagement in the public sector universities. The petition sought enforcement of federal and provincial laws governing public universities, citing vacancies in leadership roles and non-compliance with statutory requirements for university governance. Specific issues included the absence of Vice-Chancellors in many universities, acting-charge tenures for several key positions, and inadequate oversight due to non-functional statutory bodies. The petitioners argued that these factors severely impacted educational standards, institutional autonomy, and adherence to laws governing academic institutions. ------- Issues: ------- 1) Whether the failure to fill vacant positions in public universities’ leadership and academic staff affects public sector university governance and autonomy. ------- 2) Whether non-compliance with statutory meeting requirements of governing bodies in universities violates the laws governing these institutions. ------- 3) Whether federal and provincial governments have a duty to enforce laws related to university management and governance under Article 25 and Article 25A of the Constitution. ------- 4) Whether the actions of certain university officials, holding positions past their tenure and engaging in mismanagement, contravene their statutory responsibilities. ------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court upheld the petition, emphasizing that non-compliance with governance laws in public universities was a matter of public importance affecting citizens' fundamental rights. The Court ruled that: ------- Vacant Positions: All tenured positions, including Vice-Chancellors, must be filled promptly and on merit, with temporary appointments not exceeding six months. Compliance with Laws: All universities must comply with laws governing statutory meetings, academic freedom, and governance. ------- Higher Education Commission (HEC) Ratios: Public universities must adhere to the HEC-prescribed academic-to-non-academic staff ratios to ensure financial sustainability. ------- Mismanagement of Resources: Universities with illegal tenures, financial mismanagement, and issues in governance must immediately address these issues, with oversight from the HEC and the Federal Ministry of Education. ------- Audit and Accountability: A special financial audit by the Auditor-General was mandated for universities showing significant mismanagement to restore accountability. Revival of Student Unions: The Court encouraged universities to revive student unions in a non-sectarian and inclusive manner, promoting dialogue and preventing unrest. The ruling ordered comprehensive measures for compliance and directed the HEC and the Provincial Higher Education Departments to rank universities based on internationally recognized criteria and publish compliance status. Additionally, it instructed translation of this judgment into Urdu for broader dissemination. ------- Citations/Precedents: Aamir Raza Ashfaq v. Minhaj Ahmed Khan (2012 SCMR 6): Established that the position of Vice-Chancellor must not remain vacant, as it affects university functioning and the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution. Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 195): Employees are bound to follow legal mandates and are not obligated to comply with orders that are manifestly illegal.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9 & 9A---Right to life---Right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a fundamental right---Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024---Scope and significance---Deforestation and environmental degradation---Held, through the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024, a new Art. 9A was inserted, recognizing every person’s right to a clean and healthy sustainable environment as a fundamental right---Prior to this amendment, superior courts had expansively interpreted Art. 9 (right to life) to include environmental protection, affirming that a life worth living requires a sustainable environment---Now, with Art. 9A’s explicit inclusion, Pakistan joins a select group of nations that enshrine environmental protection in their Constitution---The amendment strengthens legal obligations to preserve biodiversity, prevent pollution, and ensure sustainable ecological practices. Cited Case: • Province of Sindh v. Shahzad Hussain Talpur, 2022 SCMR 439 (b) Environmental Protection & State Responsibility ----Forests and climate change mitigation---Role of the Forest Department in preventing deforestation---Duty of the state to protect and preserve forests---Held, forests serve as natural rain catchment areas, prevent flooding and avalanches, and aid in sequestering greenhouse gases---Pakistan faces severe climate change risks, exacerbated by deforestation and industrial pollution---The Forest Department’s role is not to exploit but to protect forest reserves---State authorities must ensure that environmental degradation is curtailed through sustainable environmental practices and preservation efforts. (c) Public Accountability & Governance ----Submission of government reports in environmental cases---Transparency and responsibility of public officials---Held, the report submitted by the Division Forest Officer (DFO), Mardan, was undated, unsigned, and failed to provide province-wide data as required---Failure to disclose the name of the officer submitting the report contravenes settled legal principles and Supreme Court directives, as affirmed in Province of Sindh v. Shahzad Hussain Talpur (2022 SCMR 439)---Public officials must ensure complete and verifiable submissions in court proceedings, as environmental concerns bear long-term consequences for the country. (d) Deforestation & Illegal Logging ----Forest conservation---Impact of deforestation on environmental sustainability---Statistics on legal and illegal timber cutting---Held, over the past five years, 6,066,185 cubic feet of timber was legally cut, while 130,255 cubic feet was illegally cut and later confiscated---Pakistan’s declining forest cover exacerbates environmental risks, including landslides, flooding, and climate vulnerability---Deforestation policies inherited from colonial practices must be replaced with conservation-driven approaches ensuring sustainable resource management. (e) Environmental Responsibility in Islam ----Islamic principles on environmental protection---Rights of all living things---Held, Islamic teachings emphasize the preservation of nature, protecting trees, animals, and water resources---Environmental degradation and pollution violate ethical and religious responsibilities---Sustainable environmental practices align with both legal and religious imperatives, warranting immediate policy action. Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions to the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to implement best sustainable environmental practices and ensure effective forest preservation measures.

Summary: While agreeing with the final conclusion, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi disagreed with the reasoning of the majority judgment and offered a separate note outlining his concerns, particularly in relation to the scope of Intra-Court Appeals (I.C.A.) under the newly enacted Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 (SCPPA). ----- Issues: ----- 1) Scope and Extent of I.C.A.: Whether the I.C.A. under the SCPPA can be considered a full-fledged appeal in the traditional sense, or if it is merely an internal corrective mechanism of the same court. ----- 2) Judicial Propriety: Whether the majority judgment's critical remarks towards former judges of the court were appropriate, given the Code of Conduct for Judges, which demands courtesy and restraint among judicial peers. ----- 3) Constitutionality of Amendments: The constitutionality of the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022 and National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act, 2022, which altered the powers of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). ----- Holding/Reasoning: Scope of I.C.A.: Justice Rizvi emphasized that an Intra-Court Appeal (I.C.A.) is not an appeal against a decision from a lower court but an internal correction mechanism within the same court, where the appellate bench holds the same jurisdiction as the original bench. He drew upon Indian and Pakistani case law to support the notion that the powers of a bench hearing an I.C.A. are distinct from those hearing traditional appeals. The I.C.A. serves a corrective, not supervisory, function. ----- Judicial Propriety: Justice Rizvi took issue with the remarks made by the Chief Justice in the majority judgment, suggesting that they violated judicial comity. He cited the Code of Conduct for Judges, which requires disagreement between judges to be expressed courteously and constructively. He argued that criticism should be directed at legal principles, not the judges personally. ----- Constitutionality of Amendments: Justice Rizvi found that Parliament acted within its legislative competence when enacting the 2022 Amendments to the NAB Ordinance, and these amendments did not infringe upon fundamental rights or the Constitution. He argued that the NAB’s new threshold of Rs. 500 million for corruption cases was a matter of legislative discretion and could not be questioned by the courts unless it violated fundamental constitutional principles. ----- Citations/Precedents: Shahid Orakzai v. Pakistan Muslim League (2000 SCMR 1969) Raja Amer Khan & others v. Federation of Pakistan (PLJ 2024 SC 114) Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple (1996 SCC 52) Zaman Cement Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue (2002 SCMR 312) Province of East Pakistan v. Sirajul Haq Patwari (PLD 1966 SC 854) Messrs Cherat Cement Co. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 SC 327)

Summary: Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail dissented from the majority judgment ---- Issues: ---- 1) Whether SIC was entitled to reserved seats after independent candidates joined the party post-election. ---- 2) Whether PTI-affiliated candidates, declared as independents by Returning Officers (ROs), should be considered for reserved seats. ---- 3) Whether independent candidates can change their political affiliation post-election. ---- 4) Whether reserved seats for women and non-Muslims can be left vacant if not fully allocated to political parties. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome (Dissent by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail): Holding: Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail dissented from the majority judgment, holding that SIC should not be entitled to reserved seats since it did not contest the general elections nor submit its list of candidates for reserved seats within the required timeframe. The majority's decision to provide an option for independent candidates to join PTI was also not supported by Justice Mandokhail. ---- Reasoning: Entitlement of SIC: Justice Mandokhail emphasized that a political party must contest general seats and file its list of candidates for reserved seats by the deadline set by the ECP. Since SIC did not comply with these legal requirements, it could not be allocated reserved seats based on the independent candidates joining the party post-election. Justice Mandokhail maintained that allowing such an entitlement would contravene the constitutional and legal requirements governing elections. ---- PTI-Affiliated Candidates: Justice Mandokhail disagreed with the majority’s decision to offer independent candidates who had joined SIC the option to switch their affiliation to PTI within a specific time period. He argued that the Constitution and the Elections Act do not provide for such a post-election change of political affiliation, and any allowance for this would distort the electoral process. He believed that once a candidate declared themselves independent and was elected as such, they could not retroactively claim party affiliation. ---- Reserved Seats: Justice Mandokhail concurred with the view that the reserved seats for women and non-Muslims must be filled and not left vacant, as these groups have a constitutional right to representation. However, the allocation must strictly adhere to the procedures laid out in the Constitution and the Elections Act. SIC, having failed to comply with these procedures, was rightly denied the seats. Independents: Justice Mandokhail held that the independent candidates who chose to join SIC post-election exercised their constitutional right, and their status as independents could not be retroactively changed to benefit another political party. He opposed the majority’s stance that allowed for an option for these candidates to join PTI, maintaining that such actions would violate the established electoral rules. ---- Outcome: Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail dissented from the majority's judgment, supporting the decision to deny SIC the reserved seats and rejecting the option for independent candidates to change their political affiliation post-election. ---- Citations/Precedents: PLD 2024 SC 698 – Progressive and purposive interpretation of the Constitution. PLD 2024 Peshawar 89 – Election law concerning political parties and independents. PLD 2024 SC 267 – Interpretation of political party status under election law. ---- Justice Mandokhail's dissent emphasized a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the Election Act, arguing against the relaxation of procedural requirements to favor any political party.

Summary: Overview: Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, in his note, expressed agreement with the short order dated 12 July 2024 authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and provided detailed reasons for his concurrence. However, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa highlighted constitutional violations and procedural irregularities in the majority's decision, which included the short order of 12 July 2024, the detailed judgment of 23 September 2024, the order/clarification on 14 September 2024, and a further clarification on 18 October 2024. ------ Main Points in the Note: ------ 1) Unconstitutional Procedure Adopted by the Majority: Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa criticized the majority for allowing the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to file an "appropriate application" to be handled in chambers by only the majority judges. He emphasized that this process deviated from standard judicial procedures and was not supported by the Constitution or any law. According to Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, this action created a separate judicial process, which effectively amounted to judicial legislation. ------ 2) Departure from Precedent: Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa underscored that Supreme Court precedents require that the same Bench, with all members, hears review petitions and related matters. The majority decision to limit the handling of post-judgment applications to an eight-member group, excluding dissenting judges from the original thirteen-member Bench, contradicted these well-established judicial norms. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa stated that this was a clear breach of the court's practice. ------3) Failure to Conclude the Appeals: Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa pointed out that the majority did not fully dispose of the appeals but instead introduced procedural steps and timelines for the ECP and PTI to follow. This, he argued, meant that the case was never truly resolved. According to Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, leaving the appeals unresolved through these mechanisms violated the fundamental legal principle that judgments must be final and conclusive. ------ 4) Improper Handling of Orders and Clarifications: Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa highlighted several procedural issues with the majority's order of 14 September 2024, which was uploaded to the Supreme Court’s website without notifying the Chief Justice, other judges in the minority, or even the Registrar. After his inquiries, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa revealed that the applications were handled in chambers without proper hearings, notices to the parties, or adherence to standard court procedures. He described this as a violation of natural justice and the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10A. ------ 5) Unjustified Timeline Introduced by the Majority: The majority imposed timelines requiring returned candidates to file statements and the ECP to verify party confirmations, effectively keeping the case alive indefinitely. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa criticized this approach, arguing that it left the case unresolved, perpetuating unnecessary legal uncertainty and undermining the finality of judgments. ------ 6) Issuing Clarifications Without Legal Basis: Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa noted that the majority issued a clarification on 18 October 2024 in a manner similar to the 14 September clarification, without notifying all parties or adhering to standard procedures. He criticized this secretive approach and concluded that both clarifications were coram non judice (issued by an improperly constituted forum), and therefore legally void. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa emphasized that this undermined the trust and transparency of the judicial process. ------ 7) Misinterpretation of Constitutional Provisions: Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa expressed concern that the majority referred to "minorities" in their judgment instead of the Constitution’s term "non-Muslims." He argued that altering the language of the Constitution in this manner misinterpreted its provisions and potentially implied a reduction of citizenship rights. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa insisted that the exact constitutional terminology must be adhered to without modifications. ------ 8) Judicial Role in Amending the Constitution: Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa reiterated that judges have no role in amending the Constitution, a power that is solely within the domain of the legislature. He criticized the majority for effectively altering constitutional provisions governing elections by introducing novel procedural mechanisms and timelines. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa emphasized that the judiciary must apply the Constitution as written, without attempting to legislate through judgments.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 15, 20 & 199 Fundamental rights—Freedom of movement and religion—Petitioners argued that offloading passengers from an international flight and registering FIR No. 215/2024 violated their constitutional rights under Arts. 15 and 20 of the Constitution. Held, that fundamental rights are not absolute and may be lawfully restricted under specific circumstances, such as national security, public safety, or public interest. Restrictions on international travel are permissible to ensure compliance with immigration laws and international obligations, provided they are proportionate and non-discriminatory. (b) Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2018 (PTPA) ----Ss. 3, 4, & 5---Trafficking in persons—Elements of coercion, fraud, or exploitation—Case involved allegations of sending individuals abroad under the guise of Umrah visas for organized begging. Held, that allegations, including financial exploitation and control over victims, prima facie satisfied the elements of trafficking under Ss. 3 and 4 of the PTPA. However, determination of whether trafficking occurred required further investigation and factual determination at trial. (c) Emigration Ordinance, 1979 ----S. 22(b)---Unauthorized emigration and exploitation—Petitioners allegedly charged individuals for fake Umrah visas without hotel bookings or return tickets. Held, that while initial facts did not conclusively justify invoking S. 22(b), the Investigating Officer could incorporate the provision if further evidence emerged during investigation. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 154 & 561-A---Quashing of FIR—Principles—FIR can be quashed only where it unequivocally fails to establish an offence or reflects clear misuse of legal authority. Supreme Court precedents emphasize that quashing an FIR during investigation disrupts the criminal justice process and should only be exercised in extraordinary circumstances. In the present case, the allegations in FIR No. 215/2024 constituted a prima facie case, and there were no grounds for quashing. (e) Vagrancy Laws ----Punjab Vagrancy Ordinance, 1958 & Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act, 2004—Organized beggary—Definitions and remedies—While beggary alone does not fall under the PTPA unless it involves coercion or exploitation, it may constitute an offence under the Vagrancy Ordinance or other laws addressing organized begging. Cited Cases: • Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642) • Bashir Ahmad v. Zafar-ul-Islam (PLD 2004 SC 298) • Ajmeel Khan v. Abdur Rahim (PLD 2009 SC 102) • The State v. Chaudhry Muhammad Khan (2024 SC decision) ------ Disposition: Petition for quashing FIR No. 215/2024 dismissed. Held, that the investigation must proceed, and the trial court shall address the applicability of the PTPA or vagrancy laws based on evidence.