Summary: Background: The case revolves around the appointment of five judges to the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K). The consultative process for these appointments involved the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chief Justice of AJ&K. The central controversy pertains to whether proper consultation, as required by law, was conducted before making these appointments. ----Issues: 1- Was the consultative process conducted in accordance with the provisions of Article 43(2-A) of the Constitution? 2- Does the Rule of Primacy apply in this case? 3- Did the learned High Court imply that the consultative process deviated from the relevant law? 4- Is the impugned judgment self-contradictory and based on assumptions? 5- Was the appellant eligible to be appointed as Judge of the High Court? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court found that the consultation process for the appointment of the judges did not meet the requirements of effective, meaningful, purposive, and consensus-oriented consultation as laid down by the superior courts. The process was deemed flawed due to the lack of simultaneous consultation and joint meetings between the consultees. Consequently, the appointments were declared ultra vires the Constitution and without lawful authority. The Court ordered the offices of the appointed judges to be declared vacant but validated all acts done by them based on the de facto doctrine, including the drawing of financial benefits. The appointing authority was directed to initiate a fresh process for the appointment of judges, adhering strictly to the guidelines provided in the relevant case law. ----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] Electric Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Sheikhupura v. Government of the Punjab and another [1979 PLC 416] 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] 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: The appellant's appointment as a judge was challenged on the grounds of ineligibility due to lacking three years of service as a District & Sessions Judge. The writ petitions contended that appointments were made according to constitutional provisions and principles set by superior courts. The High Court's division bench dismissed the petitions for several judges but set aside the appellant's appointment. ----Issues: 1- Whether the consultative process for the appointment adhered to the constitutional provisions and legal principles. 2- Whether the rule of primacy applied in the appointment. 3- Whether the High Court’s judgment was self-contradictory and based on assumptions. 4- Whether the appellant met the eligibility criteria for the appointment. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the consultation process was not conducted in accordance with the constitutional provisions and principles laid down by superior courts. The judgment noted various discrepancies in the consultation process, including lack of simultaneous consultation and meaningful deliberation. The appointments of the respondent judges were declared ultra vires the Constitution and void. The appellant was reverted to his previous 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. Shoukat 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] M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi v. Raja Waseem Younis & 6 others [2020 SCR 1] Electric Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Sheikhupura v. Government of the Punjab and another [1979 PLC 416] R. Pushpam and another v. The State of Madras [AIR 1953 Madras 392]

Summary: (a) Administrative Law – Appointment of Chief Executive Officer – Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan ----Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012, S.5(6) – Powers of the Federal Government – Eligibility Criteria for Appointment The petitioner challenged the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) through a notification dated 07.03.2019. It was argued that the appointment violated Section 5(6) of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012, which outlines the powers of the Federal Government and prescribes specific eligibility criteria for such appointments. The petitioner contended that the appointment of the CEO was void and legally unsustainable as it did not comply with the statutory provisions. -----Disposition: Notices were issued to respondents No.5 and No.6 for filing reports and para-wise comments within ten days. The Attorney General for Pakistan was also directed to assist the court on the matter.

Summary: Income Tax case, regarding recovery notice

Summary: Income Tax Case, against show cause notices u/s 122(9) r/w 122 (5) of Income Tax (Part Heard)

Summary: Criminal Appeal Against the acquittal

Summary: Petitioner seeks direction to respondents for removing name from ECL

Summary: A/Y 2004

Summary: The petitioners were appointed as project employees in the year 2015 on a contractual basis against various posts in a project under ADP Scheme (2014-15), identified as "Establishment of Mines Labour Welfare Girls Higher Secondary School, Chak No.119/SB, Tehsil Sillanwali, District Sargodha." The core issue pertains to the petitioners' claim for regularization. The letter of appointment explicitly mentioned that the contract appointment would confer no right of regular employment. However, in 2016, the project was converted from a development to a non-development category, leading to the creation of thirty-two (32) posts. The primary question before the court is the scope and extent of the alleged right claimed by the petitioners to be regularized. The court observed that the right claimed is not an absolute or vested right but extends a right to claim appointment on a regular basis, subject to certain conditions. The court clarifies that the policy, acknowledged the right of the petitioners to be considered for appointment on a regular basis upon the conversion of the project. The court rejected the petitioners' request for exclusivity in consideration for regular appointment and emphasizes that there is no vested right to be regularized. The court highlighted that any claim to be considered for a regular appointment is embedded in the policy, subject to the specified conditions. Furthermore, the court dismissed the petitions as incompetent and asserts that the petitioners can claim rights accrued in terms of the policy.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Ibrar Hussain and Riaz Hussain were tried for the murder of Abdul Aleem, convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and sentenced to death. The High Court altered their sentence to life imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the verdict, they filed separate petitions, Criminal Petition No.263-L of 2015 and Jail Petition No.407 of 2018, challenging the High Court's judgment.---Issues:Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain the conviction.Whether there are discrepancies in the witness testimonies, timing of the incident, and the postmortem report that cast doubt on the guilt of the petitioners.Whether reliance solely on the testimony of a chance witness, in light of the aforementioned discrepancies, is justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court observed several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including discrepancies in the timing of the incident, the postmortem report, and the source of light used for identification. The reliance on a single chance witness, coupled with these discrepancies, raised doubts about the petitioners' guilt. Furthermore, the absence of evidence such as bullet casings and the suspect circumstances surrounding the witness testimonies weakened the prosecution's case. Therefore, the court concluded that it would be unsafe to maintain the convictions. Consequently, Criminal Petition No.263-L of 2015 and Jail Petition No.407 of 2018 were allowed, and the petitioners were acquitted of the charges, with orders for their immediate release unless detained in any other case.