Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 63, 169 & 497-Discharge of accused-Procedure-Magistrate may discharge an accused person during investigation but the same has to be done on report of police and not at his own-If Magistrate considers that there is no case whatsoever against accused person in custody then accused cannot be kept in custody by restricting his right of liberty-Provision of S.497, Cr.P.C. takes care and to order straight away under S.63, Cr.P.C. is contrary to the provisions of S.497, Cr.P.C. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 63 & 161-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.406-Criminal breach of trust-Discharge of accused on first day of arrest-Complainant was aggrieved of discharge of accused by Magistrate on first day of his arrest on the ground that offence under S.406, P.P.C. was not made out-Validity-Submission of report by police was necessary for such discretion to pass order under S.63, Cr.P.C. to discharge accused justly and fairly-Accused was discharged by Magistrate on the first day of arrest despite the fact that statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. were available on record-Magistrate had not already granted physical remand of accused and police could not collect incriminating evidence against them-High Court set aside such mechanical order of discharge and remanded the matter to Magistrate for decision afresh on remand application filed by police-Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Shafi and others v. S.H.O. and others 1999 PCr.LJ 1345; The State through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. v. Ubaidullah and another 2005 MLD 1883; Shahid Raza Bhatti v. Magistrate S. 30 and others 1999 MLD 1847; Imran Sattar v. Judicial Magistrate and others PLJ 2001 Lah. 728 and Hidayatullah and others v. State through Advocate General NWFP, Peshawar 2006 SCMR 1920 rel. Zafar Rahim Sukhaira, A.A.G. for the State.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Bail After Arrest in Case FIR No. 30/19 dated 22.10.2019 Offence U/s 20/21/24 of PECA read with section 500/506/103/34 PPC, PS FIA Cyber Crime, Islamabad

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Mst. Beena, sought custody of her son, Muhammad Rayyan, born in October 2012, from the respondent, Raj Muhammad, her former husband. The Family Judge initially granted custody to the mother, but the Peshawar High Court set aside this decision, relying on an agreement between the parties wherein Beena relinquished custody rights. Beena appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.---Issues:Whether an agreement relinquishing custody rights as part of a khula (dissolution of marriage) is legally valid.Whether a mother's physical disability can be a ground for denying custody.Whether the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that agreements surrendering custody rights as part of khula are void as they contravene Islamic principles of custody and public policy.The Court emphasized that a mother's physical disability cannot automatically disqualify her from custody, as the law prioritizes the best interest of the child.Relying on constitutional principles and Islamic teachings, the Court reaffirmed the importance of a mother's role in a child's upbringing and condemned derogatory language against disabled individuals.The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, ordering the respondent to hand over custody of Muhammad Rayyan to the petitioner within seven days.---Citations/Precedents:Razia Rehman v. Station House Officer (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 533)Asfandyar Khan Tareen v. Government of Punjab (PLJ 2018 Lahore 508)Articles 227, 25(3), 34, 35, and 31 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973Sections 23 and 25 of the Contract Act, 1872

Summary: Background: The case revolves around the appointments of five Judges in the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. These appointments were contested on the grounds of being made in violation of constitutional provisions and established legal principles. Practicing lawyers from the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court and High Court challenged these appointments, alleging that proper consultation with constitutional consultees was not followed. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appointments of the five Judges in the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir were made in compliance with constitutional provisions and the principles established by superior courts. 2- Whether the consultative process was effective, meaningful, purposive, and consensus-oriented as required by law. 3- Whether the appointment of one particular Judge was invalid due to the lack of requisite eligibility. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court determined that the consultative process for appointing the Judges did not adhere to the constitutional requirements and the principles laid down by superior courts. The court highlighted that proper consultation means it should be effective, meaningful, purposive, and consensus-oriented. The record showed that such a level of consultation did not occur. Consequently, the appointments were declared ultra vires the Constitution and set aside. The affected Judges were allowed to retain the financial benefits they received during their tenure under the de-facto doctrine. The appointment authority was directed to initiate a fresh process for appointing the Judges following the correct legal guidelines. ----Citations/Precedents: Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 1996 SC 324] Muhammad Younas Tahir v. Shoukat Aziz, Advocate, Muzaffarabad [2012 SCR 213] Bashir Ahmed Mughal v. Azad Government & 6 others [2014 SCR 1258] Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sardar Javed Naz [PLD 2016 SC (AJ&K) 1] M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi v. Raja Waseem Younas & 6 others [2020 SCR 1] Special reference No.1 of 1998 [AIR 1999 1] Munir Hussain Bhatti v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2011 SC 407] Mst. Zainab Bibi v. Mst. Bilqis Bibi [PLD 1981 SC 56] Government of Sindh v. Sharaf Faridi [PLD 1994 SC 105] Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2009 SC 879]

Summary: Background: The case revolves around attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results. The defendants were involved in activities aimed at overturning the election outcome. These activities included making false claims of election fraud, pressuring state officials to alter certified results, and attempting to disrupt the official certification process of the electoral votes. ----Issues: 1- Whether the defendants' actions constituted a criminal conspiracy to subvert the 2020 presidential election. 2- Whether the defendants' speech and actions are protected under the First Amendment. 3- Whether the defendants' actions amounted to obstruction of an official proceeding. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the defendants' actions exceeded the bounds of protected political speech and constituted a deliberate effort to undermine the electoral process. The court held that: The defendants exhibited clear intent to interfere with the lawful certification of election results. The First Amendment does not protect actions that form part of a criminal conspiracy or aim to obstruct an official proceeding. The defendants' actions, including pressuring state officials and disseminating false information about the election, were central to the conspiracy to subvert the election. The court concluded that the defendants were guilty of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and related charges. The ruling underscored the gravity of actions intended to compromise democratic processes, resulting in significant legal consequences for the defendants.

Summary: Background: This case revolves around the appointment of Mr. M. Tabassam Aftab Alvi as a judge of the High Court, which was declared invalid by the court. Consequently, the appointments of other respondents were also contested. The respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the appellants. However, these objections were previously resolved by the High Court, and a petition for leave to appeal against this resolution was dismissed. ----Issues: 1- Whether the consultative process for the appointment of judges was in accordance with the constitutional provisions. 2- Whether the High Court's interpretation of the word 'consultation' was valid. 3- Whether the new documents submitted without proper procedure were admissible. 4- Whether the respondents could raise objections that had already been settled by the High Court. 5- The eligibility of the appellant, Ch. Muhammad Munir, for appointment as a judge of the High Court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the consultative process for the appointment of the judges was not conducted in accordance with the constitutional provisions and the guidelines laid down by the superior courts. The High Court's reliance on dictionary meanings over judicial precedent was found to be impermissible. Additionally, the introduction of new documents without following the proper legal procedures was deemed invalid. As a result, the appointments of the judges, including Mr. M. Tabassam Aftab Alvi, were declared ultra vires the Constitution and set aside. The appellant, Ch. Muhammad Munir, was reverted to his position as District and Sessions Judge. ----Citations/Precedents: Al-Jehad Trust through Raeesul Mujahideen Habib-ul-Wahab-ul-Khairi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others [PLD 1996 SC 324] Muhammad Younas Tahir and another v. Shaukat Aziz, Advocate, Muzaffarabad and others [2012 SCR 213] Bashir Ahmed Mughal v. Azad Government & 6 others [2014 SCR 1258] Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 4 others v. Sardar Javed Naz, Advocate Supreme Court (AJ&K) and 2 others [PLD 2016 SC (AJ&K) 1] Mst. Zainab Bibi and others v. Mst. Bilqis Bibi and others [PLD 1981 SC 56] Muhammad Yaqoob Khan v. Secretary Forest/Tourism AJ&K and 7 others [1999 SCR 404] Syed Nazakat Hussain Shah v. Zeeshan Azam and 10 others [2019 SCR 301] Subesh Sharma v. Union of India [AIR 1991 SC 631] Muhammad Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority and 4 others [2014 SCR 1180] Rai Singh and others v. Allah Din and others [PLD 1950 Lah. 111] Khuda Bakhsh and others v. Amir and another [1980 SCMR 760] Syed Akhtar Hussain Zaidi v. Muhammad Yaqinuddin [1988 SCMR 753] Special reference No.1 of 1998 [AIR 1999 1] Munir Hussain Bhatti, Advocate v. Federation of Pakistan and another [PLD 2011 SC 407] Al-Jehad Trust through Raeesul Mujahideen Habib-ul-Wahab-ul-Khairi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others [PLD 1996 SC 324] Muhammad Riaz Khan v. Inspector General of Police and 19 others [2010 SCR 131] Muhammad Riaz v. Province of Punjab and others [2014 CLC 817] Maroof Baig v. Azad Government and 8 others [2016 SCR 1359] Dr. Azim-ur-Rehman Khan Meo v. Government of Sindh and another [2004 SCMR 1299] Constitution petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 [PLD 2015 SC 401] Electric Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Sheikhupura v. Government of the Punjab and another [1979 PLC 416] Sindh High Court Bar Association through its Secretary and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and others [PLD 2009 SC 879] Mr. Tabassum Aftab Alvi v. Raja Waseem Younis & 6 others [2020 SCR 1]

Summary: Background: Five judicial positions in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court became vacant, prompting the initiation of the appointment process. Subsequently, five individuals were appointed to these positions through a notification dated 21.05.2018. The appointments were challenged by practicing lawyers on the grounds that they were made without proper consultation as required under Article 43(2-A) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions concerning four appointees but set aside the appointment of one individual, Ch. Muhammad Munir, due to his ineligibility. ----Issues: 1- Whether the consultative process for the appointments was conducted in accordance with Article 43(2-A) of the Constitution. 2- Whether the consultation was effective, meaningful, purposive, and consensus-oriented. 3- Whether the Rule of Primacy was applicable in this case. 4- Whether the appointment of Ch. Muhammad Munir was valid given his lack of requisite eligibility. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court concluded that the consultative process did not comply with the constitutional requirements and the principles laid down by the superior courts. The Court emphasized that consultation must be effective, meaningful, purposive, and consensus-oriented. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that proper consultation occurred. Consequently, the appointments were deemed ultra vires the Constitution and were set aside. Ch. Muhammad Munir was reverted to his previous position as District and Sessions Judge. The Court ordered the appointing authority to initiate a fresh process for the appointments, adhering strictly to the guidelines provided. ----Citations/Precedents: Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 1996 SC 324] Muhammad Younas Tahir and another v. Shaukat Aziz, Advocate, Muzaffarabad and others [2012 SCR 213] Bashir Ahmed Mughal v. Azad Government & 6 others [2014 SCR 1258] Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 4 others v. Sardar Javed Naz, Advocate Supreme Court (AJ&K) and 2 others [PLD 2016 SC (AJ&K) 1] Mst. Zainab Bibi and others v. Mst. Bilqis Bibi and others [PLD 1981 SC 56] Sindh High Court Bar Association through its Secretary and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and others [PLD 2009 SC 879] Mr. Tabassum Aftab Alvi v. Raja Waseem Younis & 6 others [2020 SCR 1] R. Pushpam and another v. The State of Madras, represented by the Secretary, Local Administration Department, Fort St. George, Madras, and another [AIR 1953 Madras 392] Electric Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Sheikhupura v. Government of the Punjab and another [1979 PLC 416]

Summary: Background: The appeal concerns the appointment of five judges to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Following the vacancies, the process of appointments began, resulting in the appointments of Mr. Raza Ali Khan, Mr. Muhammad Ejaz Khan, Mr. Khalid Yousaf Chaudhary, Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan, and Ch. Muhammad Munir. Practicing lawyers of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court and High Court contested these appointments, arguing that the appointments violated Article 43(2-A) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, which mandates consultation with the Chief Justice of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and the Chief Justice of the High Court. The appellants claimed the consultation process lacked the necessary elements of being effective, meaningful, purposive, and consensus-oriented, and there was no consensus between the judicial consultees. ----Issues: 1- Whether the consultative process for the appointments adhered to Article 43(2-A) of the Constitution. 2- Whether the Rule of Primacy was applicable in the case. 3- Whether the appointment of Ch. Muhammad Munir was valid despite his alleged ineligibility. 4- Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitions against four appointments but set aside Ch. Muhammad Munir's appointment, was contradictory and against the law. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found that the consultation process did not meet the required standards of being effective, meaningful, purposive, and consensus-oriented. The judgment emphasized that mere correspondence without deliberation among the consultees is inadequate for fulfilling the constitutional requirement of consultation. The Court noted that the President's assertion of proper consultation was not substantiated by sufficient evidence, and the consultation appeared arbitrary and lacked fairness. Consequently, the appointments of the five judges were declared ultra vires the Constitution and set aside. Ch. Muhammad Munir was reverted to his previous position as District and Sessions Judge. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Younas Tahir and another v. Shoukat Aziz, Advocate, Muzaffarabad and others [2012 SCR 213] Al-Jehad Trust through Raeesul Mujahideen Habib-ul-Wahab-ul-Khairi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others [PLD 1996 SC 324] Bashir Ahmed Mughal v. Azad Government & 6 others [2014 SCR 1258] Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 4 others v. Sardar Javed Naz, Advocate Supreme Court (AJ&K) and 2 others [PLD 2016 SC (AJ&K) 1] Mst. Zainab Bibi and others v. Mst. Bilqis Bibi and others [PLD 1981 SC 56] Muhammad Yaqoob Khan v. Secretary Forest/Tourism AJ&K and 7 others [1999 SCR 404] Syed Nazakat Hussain Shah v. Zeeshan Azam and 10 others [2019 SCR 301] Subesh Sharma v. Union of India [AIR 1991 SC 631] Muhammad Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority and 4 others [2014 SCR 1180] Rai Singh and others v. Allah Din and others [PLD 1950 Lah. 111] Khuda Bakhsh and others v. Amir and another [1980 SCMR 760] Syed Akhtar Hussain Zaidi v. Muhammad Yaqinuddin [1988 SCMR 753] Special reference No.1 of 1998 [AIR 1999 1] Munir Hussain Bhatti, Advocate v. Federation of Pakistan and another [PLD 2011 SC 407] Sindh High Court Bar Association through its Secretary and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and others [PLD 2009 SC 879] M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi v. Raja Waseem Younis & 6 others [2020 SCR 1]