Summary: Dismissed because of being frivolous.

Summary: Background:Justice Maqbool Baqar, a judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenged Presidential Reference No. 1/2019 ("the purported Reference") sent to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) under Article 209(5) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Reference alleged that Justice Baqar had failed to declare certain properties owned by his wife and children in London, as required by Section 116(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (ITO 2001). Justice Baqar contended that the Reference was filed with mala fide intent and lacked jurisdiction, alleging it was a product of political animus.---Issues:Whether the Presidential Reference against Justice Baqar is valid and justified.Whether Justice Baqar was obligated to declare properties owned by his wife and children in London under Section 116(1)(b) of the ITO 2001.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Validity of Presidential Reference: The court held that the Presidential Reference lacked jurisdiction and was filed with mala fide intent. It was noted that the Reference was based on information collected illegally and without proper authority. The actions of the Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) and its Chairman, who initiated the Reference, were deemed unconstitutional and unlawful. The court emphasized the need for proper legal sanction and justifiable cause for initiating investigations against citizens, which the Reference failed to meet.Obligation to Declare Properties: The court ruled that Justice Baqar was not obligated to declare properties owned by his wife and children in London under Section 116(1)(b) of the ITO 2001. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the ITO 2001 and concluded that the wealth statement filed by Justice Baqar did not require disclosure of assets owned by his spouse and children, unless acquired directly or indirectly through him. The court cited precedents and legal principles supporting its interpretation of the law.---Citations/Precedents:Article 209(5) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Establishes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council.Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (ITO 2001): Relevant provisions interpreted include Section 116(1)(b).Miss Sabira B. Nanjiani, Karachi v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Salary Circle03, Zone-D, Karachi (2007 PTD 1810): Precedent supporting interpretation of Sections 116(1) and (2) of the ITO.Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (1992 SCMR 1652): Precedent regarding the retrospective effect of beneficial notifications.State v. Ziaur Rehman (PLD 1973 SC 49): Precedent emphasizing that courts cannot create rights, liabilities, or obligations not founded in law.Yousaf Rerolling Mills v. Collector of Customs (PLD 1989 SC 232): Precedent regarding interpretation of tax laws strictly based on statutory language.

Summary: Background:Justice Qazi Faez Isa, a judge of the highest constitutional court in Pakistan, authored a judgment in the Faizabad Dharna case, making critical observations about political events and interference by military intelligence agencies. Subsequently, review petitions were filed, alleging that Justice Isa violated his oath of office and code of conduct. A complaint was made against him, leading to an investigation by the Asset Recovery Unit (ARU), chaired by the Special Assistant to the Prime Minister. This investigation raised questions about the independence and accountability of judges and governmental institutions.---Issues:Did the ARU, acting without statutory authority, have jurisdiction to investigate a judge of the highest constitutional court?Was the investigation into Justice Isa's alleged misconduct conducted in accordance with due process and constitutional principles?What is the role of the President in arbitrating conflicts between branches of government concerning judicial independence?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the ARU, lacking statutory authority, acted beyond its jurisdiction in investigating Justice Isa. Furthermore, the investigation lacked due process and constitutional validity, as it violated judicial independence and fundamental rights. The court emphasized the importance of upholding judicial integrity and accountability while ensuring adherence to constitutional principles. Additionally, it declared that the President, as an arbiter between branches of government, must form an independent opinion regarding matters of judicial conduct, rather than merely rubber-stamping executive advice.---Citations/Precedents:Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) - Emphasizes the importance of judicial legitimacy and public acceptance.Muslim League v. Federation, PLD 2007 SC 642 - Affirms that governmental actions must be grounded in constitutional and legal authority.Ikram Chaudhry v. Federation, PLD 1998 SC 103 - Discusses limitations on the initiation of judicial misconduct proceedings.Assistant Collector v. Khyber Electric, 2001 SCMR 838 - Highlights the necessity of adhering to legal procedures in exercising jurisdiction.Zia Ur Rehman v. Ahmed Hussain, 2014 SCMR 1015 - Emphasizes the importance of following legal processes in administrative actions.

Summary: Background:The case involves Civil Appeal No. 731 to 733 of 2016 and C.M.A. Nos. 723 & 3199 of 2018, challenging the decision of the K.P.K Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal regarding the seniority and regularization of the appellants who were initially appointed on a contract basis as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrates in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.Issues:Whether the appellants were entitled to regular status and seniority from the date of their initial contractual appointments.Interpretation of the relevant sections of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973 regarding pension and gratuity entitlements for contract-based appointments.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the appellants' appointments, initially contractual, were deemed regularized under the NWFP Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005. This amendment retroactively regularized the status of contract-based appointees from July 1, 2001. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to all benefits, including seniority, from the date of their initial contractual appointments. Additionally, the Court clarified the amendments made to Section 19 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, regarding pension and gratuity entitlements for contract-based appointees.Citations/Precedents:NWFP Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005: Referred to regarding the retroactive regularization of contract-based appointments.Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973: Interpretation of relevant sections regarding pension and gratuity entitlements.Rule 5(e) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Service Rules 2001: Referenced in relation to the appointment process for judicial officers.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 90(1), 142 (b) & 199-Investigation, prosecution and judicial review-Legislator, Executive and Judiciary-Powers-Any intervention by High Court has to balance against Executive power of Federal Government to execute laws which include power to prosecute-Executive branch of government is its leadership branch-Executive power of Federal Government extends to matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws-Federal Government, under Art.90(1) of the Constitution, consists of Prime Minister and Federal Ministers-Power to prosecute is the power to execute and enforce laws and is a part of executive powers of the State-Constitution does not prescribe any particular prosecutorial regime and the Executive power to prosecute depends entirely on laws enacted by the Legislature-Legislature is empowered under Art. 142(b) of the Constitution to enact criminal law and to make law for criminal procedure-Proper legislature creates offences, provides procedure for their investigation, trial etc. and creates offices through which criminal prosecutions are to be conducted-If exercise of power to prosecute involves violation of the Constitution or a statute, Courts intervene. Brig. Rtd. Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior Division, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 2142; Duport Steels Ltd. v. Sirs (1980) 1 All ER 529; Mir Abdul Baqi Baluch v. The Government of Pakistan PLD 1968 SC 313; Norwest Holst Ltd. v. Department of Trade and others (1978) 3 All ER 280; The Application of Corner House Research and others v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60; Yick Wo v. Hopkin (1886) 118 US 356; US v Armstrong (1996) 517 US 456; US v. Nixon (1974) 418 US 683; Berger v. US 295 US at 88 and Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 rel. (b) Interpretation of statutes- -Preamble-Object, purpose and scope-Preamble is a key to open minds of makers of Act and mischief which they intended to redress. Asif Saigol and 2 others v. Federation of Pakistan and 2 others PLD 2002 Lah. 416; D.G FIA and others v. Kamran Iqbal and others 2016 SCMR 447; Stowell v. Lord Zouch (1962) Plowed 353 and Workers Welfare Funds v East Pakistan Chrome Tannery (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2017 SC 28 rel. (c) Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975)- -Ss. 3 & 4-Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiries and Investigations) Rules, 2002, R.3-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199-Constitutional petition-Quashing of inquiry-Letter issued by Federal Government-Superintendence by Federal Government-Officials from another agency-Petitioners were aggrieved of initiation of criminal inquiry by Federal Investigation Agency on the basis of letter issued by Advisor to Prime Minister relying upon Report of Inquiry Commission constituted to determine reasons for shortage of sugar in market-Petitioners also assailed letter issued by Federal Investigation Agency to Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan to nominate their two officers to become part of investigation team of the offences in which inquiry was being conducted-Validity-Letter in question, at the worst could be treated as written information by Federal Government to the Agency to confer upon it power to initiate inquiry-Letter made reference to report of the Commission and conveyed a decision of Cabinet and Prime Minister to the effect that Commission's report warranted further action to be taken amongst others by the Agency-Nothing was wrong with such act on the part of the Advisor who was merely acting pursuant to the decision of Cabinet-Federal Government could not only write to the Agency regarding commission of an offence or in respect of investigations or inquiries but could also review fairness of actions taken by the Agency in inquiries and investigations conducted by it-Federal Government had an overreaching role over Federal Investigation Agency and was empowered to exercise powers comprised in compendious term of 'superintendence'-Federal Government was not however empowered to regulate inquiries and investigations which were being carried out by the Agency in such a way so as to reach unlawful results or to influence the officer who was investigating the offences to reach a result which was not countenanced by law-Federal Government could not undertake cloak of superintendence exercise its powers for some extraneous or improper considerations such as pursuant for some racial bias, political vendetta or corrupt motive-"Superintendence"and any act taken must be taken in good faith and for the purpose of fulfilling Federal Government's objective of enforcement of rule of law and that the law was faithfully executed-There was no provision in Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 which could empower Director General Federal Investigation Agency to solicit services of officers from another agency-Such course of action was ultra vires and had no basis in law-High Court struck down the act of Director General Federal Investigation Agency writing to Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan for nomination of two officers and nomination of such officers by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan was also struck down-High Court declined to interfere in the inquiry as Federal Investigation Agency had lawfully and competently taken cognizance of the matters-Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Uncertain Justice; Adamjee Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Director, Economic Enquiry Wing 1989 PCr.LJ 1921; Shehnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judge of the High Court of Sindh and Baluchistan PLD 1971 SC 677; Morrison v. Olson 487 US 654 (1988); Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy (Seventh edition); The President in Administrative Law, 75 Geo. Wash. L. RW. 696, 702-704 (2007) and C.Ps. Nos.17 and 19 of 2019 ref. (d) Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975)- -S.3-Federal Investigation Agency-Purpose-Purpose of Federal Investigation Agency constituted by S.3 of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, is to inquire into and to investigate all offences specified in schedule-Two different streams of administrative powers have been conferred on Federal Investigation Agency, one relating to inquiry and other investigation of offences. (e) Words and phrases- -"Superintend"-Connotation-Term 'superintend' and its derivative mean an act of oversight and presume an authority to direct to exist-"Superintend" also includes directing of activities or a course of action. Phrases, Permanent Edition (vol.40C) and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Eleventh Edition) rel. (f) Administration of justice- -Investigation-Principle-If a prima facie offence is made out, an investigation may ensue. (g) Discretion- -Public policy-Effect-Authorities entrusted with statutory discretions are entitled to take into consideration public policy and in this regard policy of government may be a relevant factor. De Smith's Judicial Review (7th Edition) rel. (h) Administration of justice- -Reasons, giving of by public authority, in a matter-Scope-Duty to give reasons must be performed in such a way that it sufficiently shows that public authority has directed its mind to the issue and its failure to do so is a breach of procedural fairness-One ground on which fairness may require that reasons be provided is that reasons enable a person aggrieved by a decision to know not only whether he may appeal. R. Civil Service Appeal Board Ex p. Cummins ham [1991] 4 All ER 310 and Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 rel. (i) Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997)- -S.41-B-Independence of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP)-Reference to investigating agency-Decision, quashing of-Petitioners were aggrieved of decision made by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan made on the basis of letter issued by Advisor to Prime Minister who had relied upon Report of Inquiry Commission constituted to determine reasons for shortage of sugar in market-Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan decided to send reference under S. 41-B of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, to Federal Investigation Agency-Validity-In the armory of powers possessed by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, provision of S.41-B of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, was the most potent weapon, which related to investigation of regulated activity and acts under administered legislation by very powerful investigating agencies like National Accountability Bureau and Federal Investigation Agency-Reference could not be made lightly by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan as a matter of routine and without proper application of mind-Such decision could strike at the very economic and financial lifeline of a county and could spiral into unpalatable results, especially to be faced by Federal Government-Decision by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan should have been made independent of Inquiry Commission Report and while considering such aspects of individual corporate entities whose case was placed by the Commission-Omnibus and wholesale order could not have been passed by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan as was done in its decision in question and individual cases should have been sifted and analyzed to see whether each case merited a reference or not-Decision by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan should have been made on a balance of probabilities by invoking its powers of inquiry and by referring the matter to its officer to compile a report in respect of allegations-Individual companies had a right to adequate disclosure of allegations before a decision was taken and to enable them to make a meaningful and focused representation-Decision in question was lacking in duty of adequate disclosure by SECP-High Court set aside decision in question as Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan acted under dictation and failed to carry out a fact-specific balancing exercise before making the Reference-Commission failed to act fairly and its decision was aberrant-Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374; 1992 LQR 626 and Presidential Administration 114 Harv. L. RW.2245 (2001) rel. PETITIONERS BY Salman Aslam Butt, Shoaib Rashid, Salman Akram Raja, Shehzad Atta Elahi, Ch. Muhammad Ali, Abuzar Salman Khan Niazi, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, Atira Ikram, Arslan Riaz, Aneesa Agha, Mehrunnisa Sajjad, Waleed Khalid, Furqan Naveed, Ahmad Raza, Manahil Khan, Ghulam Mujtaba, Barrister Ch. Saeed Hassan Nagra, Syed Hammad Ul Hassan, Nadeem Yousaf Rana, Faisal Anwar Minhas and Zeeshan Ghani Sulehria. RESPONDENTS BY Barrister Khalid Jawed Khan, Attorney General for Pakistan. Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan, Addl. Attorney General. Asad Ali Bajwa, Deputy Attorney General. Zahid Sikandar, Asst. Attorney General. Ms. Zarish Fatima, Asst. Attorney General. Ms. Ruqia Ambreen, Deputy Director Law, FIA. Ruman Bilal and Shehzad Ali Rana for SECP. Dates of Hearing: 1st, 5th 6th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 20th October, 2nd and 3rd November, 2020.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: In case of abscontion the appeal can be dismissed due to conduct of the appellant but on his arrest the same can be revived and be decided on merits---The petitioner was convicted in two separate FIRs and had filed appeals. The appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution, leading to these revision petitions.mThe judgment analyzes the dismissal for non-prosecution, emphasizing that criminal appeals must be decided on merit once admitted for regular hearing. It cites relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure and High Court Rules, asserting that appeals cannot be summarily dismissed in default. Precedents from previous cases are referenced, including Multan Muhammad Ashiq Faqir v. The State (PLD 1970 Supreme Court 177), Muhammad Baksh v. The State (1956 SCAR 59), and Chulain Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1960(W.P) Lahore 11). The judgment also acknowledged a deviation from the principle in the case of Ikramidlah and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002), where dismissal was allowed if the appellant becomes a fugitive from the law, with the condition that the appellant may seek revival upon recapture or surrender.