Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 202, 203 & 212(3) Judicial Officers—Permission to pursue LLM abroad on scholarship—Fair treatment and discretionary powers of the High Court—Policy formulation regarding study leave—Scope and principles—Judgment of Tribunal and Administration Judge set aside for lack of reasoning. Petitioner, a judicial officer serving for over ten years, sought permission under a circular issued by the Lahore High Court to pursue an LLM degree on scholarship from a foreign university. The permission was denied without assigning any reasons, and the Tribunal upheld the denial without citing justification. Under Articles 202 and 203 of the Constitution, the High Court holds supervisory and administrative control over subordinate courts, yet such authority must be exercised fairly and transparently. Study leave rules applicable to government servants, including Rule 8.129 of the Civil Service Rules (Punjab), permit study leave under certain conditions, which the petitioner fulfilled. The Supreme Court held that denying permission without stating valid reasons amounted to arbitrary discretion, which cannot be sustained. Additionally, the Court directed the Lahore High Court to formulate a clear, transparent, and uniform policy regarding study leave for judicial officers to prevent ambiguity and ensure equity. (b) Civil Service Rules (Punjab): ----R.8.129 & Appendix 20—Study Leave—Entitlement and Conditions—Applicability to Judicial Officers. Study leave may be granted under Rule 8.129 of the Civil Service Rules (Punjab) for acquiring advanced qualifications relevant to the officer’s work, provided certain conditions, including minimum service tenure and proximity to retirement, are met. The petitioner met all these conditions and secured admission on scholarship, with no financial liability on the Lahore High Court. The refusal of leave without valid justification was contrary to established rules and principles of administrative fairness. (c) Administration of Justice: ----Judicial Discretion—Requirement to Provide Reasons—Fair and Transparent Decision-Making. Any administrative or judicial decision impacting an individual’s rights or career must be supported by reasons. Arbitrary exercise of discretion without justification violates principles of transparency and fairness. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal and the decision of the Administration Judge were set aside as neither cited valid reasons for denial of permission for study leave. -----Disposition: Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The petitioner was granted permission to pursue his LLM degree abroad on scholarship. In case the current academic year could not be availed, the permission would remain valid for the following academic years. The Lahore High Court was directed to formulate a clear and uniform policy regarding study leave for judicial officers.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Maintainability---Alternative remedy---Petitions under Art. 199 for quashment of FIRs and orders under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C.—Scope---Where statutory remedy of revision existed and no constitutional right was infringed, extraordinary jurisdiction could not be invoked merely to circumvent the regular criminal process—However, Court examined legality as petitions were consolidated and involved identical legal questions. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 561-A, 249-A & 403—Quashment of FIRs—Double jeopardy—Dishonoured cheques issued on different dates---Distinct transactions---Held, each dishonour arising from separate cheque constitutes a separate cause of action and distinct offence; multiple FIRs, each based on an independently dishonoured cheque, do not attract the bar of S. 403, Cr.P.C. or Art. 13 of the Constitution---Petitioner’s plea that subsequent FIRs were hit by double jeopardy was misconceived—No illegality in dismissal of S. 249-A applications by trial and revisional courts. Cited Cases: • *Saira Fatima v. The State* (2024 P Cr.LJ 1289) • *State v. Saeed Khan* (2021 P Cr.LJ 608) (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 234—Joinder of charges—Dishonour of cheques within twelve months—Discretion of trial court---Where several offences of the same kind are alleged within one year, trial court may, on request, join them in a single trial to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 503 & 539-B—Recording of complainant’s statement through local commission---Legality---Where complainant’s physical appearance before court was impracticable due to health or security concerns, trial court may appoint an advocate-commissioner to record evidence at residence—No prejudice caused to accused if attendance is already dispensed with—Order modifying mode of recording evidence held lawful and within discretion of trial court. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 489-F—Dishonoured cheque—Successive prosecutions---Separate FIRs for distinct cheques dishonoured on different dates do not offend double jeopardy principles; each dishonour gives rise to a fresh and independent offence. (f) Criminal Justice—Quashment proceedings ----Jurisdiction under S. 561-A Cr.P.C.—Parameters—Only exercisable where continuation of proceedings is manifestly illegal, oppressive, or amounts to abuse of process—Mere existence of multiple FIRs for separate transactions or pendency of trial does not justify quashment. Disposition --- All petitions dismissed. Orders dated 20-07-2022 (refusing acquittal under S. 249-A), 15-10-2022 (revisional order), 10-06-2023 (appointment of local commission), and 26-08-2023 (revisional confirmation) upheld. Trial court directed to ensure police security during recording of complainant’s statement at his residence. No order as to costs.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The case revolves around two criminal original petitions filed by environmentalists against the government’s decision to transfer the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board (IWMB) from the Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Coordination to the Ministry of Interior. The petitioners contend that this transfer is a violation of a previous Supreme Court order dated 11 June 2024, and allege that it is intended to facilitate the further desecration and destruction of the protected Margalla Hills National Park. ----Issues: 1- Whether the transfer of the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board from the Ministry of Climate Change to the Ministry of Interior is in violation of the Supreme Court's order dated 11 June 2024. 2- Whether the transfer of the IWMB to the Ministry of Interior, which lacks expertise in environmental protection, constitutes a mala fide action. 3- Whether the involvement of the Secretary Cabinet Division, whose brother has a direct interest in the matter, amounts to nepotism and a conflict of interest. 4- Whether the issuance of banners promoting "Margalla Hills Tree Drive 2024" is a guise for allowing the Pine City project, which could harm the National Park. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court, recognizing the seriousness of the allegations, questioned the legality and appropriateness of the transfer of the IWMB. The Court highlighted that the Ministry of Interior has no expertise in environmental protection and that the National Park should remain under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Climate Change. The Court also expressed concern over the Secretary Cabinet Division’s role, considering his familial connection with an interested party. The Court pointed out that bypassing established procedures for such a significant transfer raises serious questions about potential nepotism and a hidden agenda that could harm public interest. The Attorney-General, representing the government, acknowledged the issues raised and requested time to reassess the situation. He undertook that the contested notifications and orders would not be implemented until further notice, and that the National Park would remain under the Ministry of Climate Change. The Court postponed further action on the contempt petitions, expecting the government to provide a detailed response by the next hearing. Additionally, the Court sought full disclosure from the Capital Development Authority regarding any projects, including Pine City, that could affect the National Park. ----Citations/Precedents: Order dated 11 June 2024 - Previous Supreme Court directive regarding the protection of the Margalla Hills National Park. The Court emphasized the importance of following established government procedures and avoiding conflicts of interest in decision-making processes.

Summary: ----Quote: (1) The constitutional importance of the implementation of Orders of the Supreme Court by individuals and entities. (2) Contempt and the role of the law of contempt in this context. ----Background: This case involves an appeal filed by a petitioner against a respondent in relation to the payment of pensions to retired employees of a national bank. The Supreme Court had previously issued a judgment on 25.09.2017, directing the bank to pay pensions to over 11,000 pensioners. Despite the court's order, there was a significant delay in the payment process. The petitioner sought enforcement of this judgment, leading to the current proceedings where the court reviewed the implementation status and the bank’s compliance. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent bank had complied with the Supreme Court’s previous order to pay pensions to retired employees. 2- Whether the delay in the payment of pensions constitutes a violation of the Supreme Court's order. 3- What measures should be taken to ensure full and timely compliance with the court’s directives. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of complying with its orders, emphasizing that in a constitutional democracy, the rule of law is paramount. The court noted that non-compliance with its orders threatens the integrity of the judiciary and the entire legal system. The court acknowledged that the bank had begun the payment process but expressed concern over the delay and the need for verification of certain pensioners’ records. The court directed the President of the national bank to appoint a senior officer as a focal person to oversee the implementation of the court’s order. This officer is tasked with ensuring that all pensioners receive their due payments and resolving any issues that may arise during the verification process. The court ordered that a compliance report be submitted by the next hearing date to ensure that the directive is being followed promptly and thoroughly. ----Citations/Precedents: 25.09.2017 Judgment - Supreme Court’s directive on pension payments. The case highlights the broader constitutional principles of rule of law, judicial authority, and compliance with court orders.

Summary: Note by Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J. ''For reasons to be recorded later, we dispose of these appeals, petitions and miscellaneous applications through a short order as under: 1. These matters involve a controversy regarding the allocation of seats reserved for women and non-Muslims. The Sunni Itehad Council (“SIC”) did not contest the General Elections of the year 2024. SIC, which demands allocation of reserved seats on account of inclusion of independent parliamentarians in it, did not secure a single seat in the National Assembly or any of the Provincial Assemblies nor submitted a list of its candidates for seats reserved for women and non-Muslims. Thus, it is not entitled to any of the reserved seats in the National Assembly and in the Provincial Assemblies. The impugned judgment and the order dated 1 March 2024 of the Election Commission of Pakistan (“ECP”) to such extent is upheld. 2. Under Article 51(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”), the total number of seats in the National Assembly shall be 326, out of which 60 seats are reserved for women and 10 seats for non-Muslims. Such right of women and non-Muslims has been guaranteed by the Constitution. They shall be elected in accordance with the law through proportional representation system of political parties’ list of candidates on the basis of total number of general seats secured by each political party from the Province concerned in the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies, as provided by Article 51(6) (d) and (e) of the Constitution. Therefore, they cannot be deprived of this right of theirs by leaving these seats vacant, and all reserved seats must be filled in, as provided by Article 224(6) of the Constitution. 3. The impugned judgment of the High Court and the said order of the ECP to the extent of the proportional representation distribution of seats amongst the political parties which won and secured seats is also maintained, however, since the ECP calculated and allocated the seats to the parties by the exclusion of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”) candidates, therefore, to such extent, the impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of the ECP are set aside. 4. During the hearing, it transpired that a number of candidates had submitted their nomination papers declaring on Oath that they belonged to PTI supported by an affiliation certificate of the said party, though some did not submit affiliation certificates of PTI, however, since they stated on Oath that they belonged to PTI, and did not contradict themselves, they should be considered to be members of PTI in the National and the Provincial Assemblies. The ECP by misinterpreting the judgment of this Court dated 13 January 2024, which was regarding non-holding intra-party elections in PTI, wrongly mentioned the said candidates of the PTI as independents in Form 33 of the Election Rules. The ECP had no authority to declare validly nominated candidates of a political party to be independent candidates. Similarly, a candidate once declared himself/herself as a candidate of a political party, could not subsequently resile from his/her candidature of a particular party, after the last date of withdrawal of the nomination papers. 5. It is important to mention here that neither the PTI nor any candidate affiliated with PTI approached either this Court before or during the hearing of these proceedings, or the High Court to challenge the decision of the ECP, declaring them as independents. However, in view of the fact that the appeal and the petition are a continuation of election proceedings before the ECP, we can look into the vires of the decision of the ECP in the light of the provisions of Article 51(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution read with sections 66, 67 and 104 of the Elections Act, 2017 to safeguard the interest of women and non-Muslims. As a consequence whereof, the candidates who had submitted their nomination papers declaring that they belonged to PTI and had not filed a document showing affiliation with another political party before the last date of withdrawal of the nomination papers, should have been treated as the Parliamentary Party of PTI, but the needful was not done by the ECP. Consequently, the PTI as a Parliamentary Party is entitled to the reserved seats. The ECP should recalculate and reallocate the reserved seats amongst the political parties, including the PTI, as provided by Article 51(6)(d) and (e) of the Constitution. 6. The candidates who had submitted their nomination papers by 24 December 2023, which was the last date of submission of nomination papers, and had declared themselves either as independent candidates or had left blank the relevant column in the nomination papers/declaration and were elected shall be considered to be independents. SIC is a registered political party and every independent member of the National Assembly and of the Provincial Assemblies has a right to join it. All those who joined the SIC are presumed to have done so out of their own free will. None of them claimed to have joined SIC because of any misunderstanding of any judgment, the law, compulsion, coercion or undue influence and it is not for this Court to presume otherwise. 7. We must ensure that words are not read into the Constitution nor to ascribe artificial meaning to commonly understood words. We must also abide by validly enacted laws and must not do anything either to hinder or facilitate a political party by ignoring the laws mandate.''

Summary: The Sunni Ittehad Council challenged the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) notifications declaring certain individuals as returned candidates for reserved seats for women and minorities in the National and Provincial Assemblies. The appellants argued that the notifications and the ECP's order were ultra vires the Constitution and issued without lawful authority. -----Issues: 1. Whether the ECP's order and subsequent notifications were constitutional and lawful. ---2. Whether the lack or denial of an election symbol affects the constitutional and legal rights of a political party. ----3. Determining the status of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as a political party that secured general seats in the 2024 General Elections. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----ECP's Order and Notifications: The Supreme Court declared the ECP's order dated March 1, 2024, and the subsequent notifications as ultra vires the Constitution, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect. ----Election Symbol: The court declared that the lack or denial of an election symbol does not affect the constitutional and legal rights of a political party to participate in an election and to field candidates. -----Status of PTI: The court confirmed PTI's status as a political party that secured general seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies in the 2024 General Elections. The court provided a process for determining which seats were secured by PTI and how to allocate reserved seats for women and minorities accordingly. ----Citations/Precedents: Specific case citations were not provided in the judgment. The judgment relies on constitutional provisions, particularly Article 51 and Article 106, as well as statutory provisions under the Elections Act, 2017, and the Elections Rules, 2017. ----Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court to the extent it was inconsistent with this order. The court provided detailed steps for verifying and confirming the candidates affiliated with PTI for the purposes of allocating reserved seats. The ECP was directed to notify the candidates accordingly and file a compliance report with the court. ----Notes: This case underscores the importance of lawful procedures and constitutional adherence in the election process. The court's decision ensures that political parties' rights are protected even in the absence of election symbols, and that reserved seats are allocated fairly based on verified election results.

Summary: (i) For computing ten days limitation period under section 22(2) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (Act) for filing leave to contest application, the first day of appearance is to be excluded in view of section 8 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956 (Act of 1956). (ii) Under section 5(4) of the Act, landlord or tenant will not absolve from the liability to register the tenancy agreement under the law relating to registration of document, therefore, the lease deed beyond 12 months if not registered under the Registration Act, 1908 shall deem to be a lease from month to month basis terminable on part of lessor or lessee by notice. (iii) The term landlord is defined under section 2(d) of the Act, which means owner of premises and include a person entitled or authorized to receive rent, hence ejectment petition by Mutwalli who is receiving rent is maintainable. 1009Crl. Revision 39439/24 Mst. Sanam Javed Vs Learned Special Judge Anti Terrorism Court Gujranwala etc. Mr. Justice Asjad Javaid Ghural 10- 07- 2024 2024 LHC 3408 PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1226 (DB) (Lahore High Court, Lahore), 2025 PCr.LJ 148 (Lahore)

Summary: Background: A group of individual and private limited companies operating in the erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) challenged the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and the Government of Pakistan regarding tax exemptions. These companies were enjoying immunity from sales tax and income tax before the 25th amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan in 2018. Post-amendment, the exemptions continued through specific statutory regulatory orders (SROs). However, a change introduced by the Finance Act, 2024, requiring the presentation of a pay order instead of a post-dated cheque for tax exemption, created a dispute. ----Issues: 1- Whether the new requirement for a pay order instead of a post-dated cheque for tax exemption, introduced by the Finance Act, 2024, applies retrospectively. 2- Whether goods already imported and manifested before the enactment of the Finance Act, 2024, should be subject to the new requirement. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2024, does not apply retrospectively to goods that were already imported and had reached Pakistan’s territorial waters or were manifested before July 1, 2024. The court emphasized that, at common law, there is a presumption against retrospective application of statutes unless explicitly stated. It referred to precedents where the courts have ruled against the retrospective application of statutes unless it is clearly intended. The amendment requiring a pay order instead of a post-dated cheque is seen as a new condition that should not affect past transactions. The court cited the principle that fiscal statutes are to be construed strictly and are not to impose additional burdens retrospectively unless explicitly stated. All the writ petitions were allowed, providing relief to the petitioners by ruling that the new requirement does not apply to their previously imported goods. ----Citations/Precedents: Messrs Taj Packages Company (Pvt) Ltd vs. The Government of Pakistan (2016 PTD 203) Pakistan vs. Hazrat Hussain (2018 SCMR 939) Al-Samrez Enterprise vs. The Federation of Pakistan (1986 SCMR 1917) Gas & Oil Ltd. Pakistan vs. Collector, Model Customs Collectorate of Preventive & others (C.P No. D-1650 of 2020, decided on 29.10.2020) M/s Gadoon Textile Mills and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (WP No. 6127-P/2019, decided on 07.09.2023) M.Y. Electronic Industries (Pvt) Ltd. vs. Government of Pakistan (1998 SCMR 1404) Zila Council Jehlum vs. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd (PLD 2016 SC 398) Member (Taxes) Board of Revenue Punjab vs. Qaisar Abbas (2019 SCMR 446) Wainwright vs. Home Office [2002] QB 1334 Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd vs. Minister of National Revenue (1977 1 SCR 271) Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs vs. Azizuddin Industries Ltd, Chittagong (PLD 1970 SC 439) ----Quote: Legislature can legislate prospectively and retrospectively, such power is subject to certain constitutional and judicially recognised restrictions. According to the canons of construction, every statute including amendatory statutes is prima facie prospective, based on the principle of nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, non praeteritis (which means ‘a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past’ as per Osborn: Concise Law Dictionary); unless it is given retrospective effect either expressly or by necessary implication. In other words, a statute is not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment, especially where the statute is to affect vested rights, past and closed transactions or facts or events that have already occurred. This principle (s) is attracted to fiscal statutes which have to be construed strictly, for they tend to impose liability and are therefore burdensome (as opposed to beneficial legislation). Furthermore, it is not only the wording/text of the statute which is to be considered in isolation; we are not to examine simpliciter whether such law has a retrospective effect or not, rather it has to be examined holistically by considering several factors such as, the dominant intention of the legislature which is to be gathered from the language used, the object indicated or the mischief meant to be cured, the nature of rights affected, and the circumstances under which the statute is passed. The law laid down in Zila Council’s case ibid was reaffirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Qaisar Abbas and others[1] , further elucidating the matter that retrospectivity can only be attributed to a statute where it is made explicit or can be inferred by necessary implications; it cannot be presumed. The close perusal of the Finance Act, 2024 does not give any impression that it applies to any transaction which has taken place prior to 1st July, 2024 nevertheless judgment of the Apex Court in the Al-Samrez Enterprise’s case (supra), in our humble view, is attracted to the present cases wherein it was held that “we are therefore, clearly of the opinion that if a binding contract was concluded between the appellants and the foreign exporter or steps were taken by the appellants created a vested right to the then existing notification granting exemption, the same could not be taken away and destroyed in modification of the earlier one, on the ground that under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the government could exercise the power of modification”. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member (Taxes) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and others Vs Qaisar Abbas and others (2019 SCMR 446)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ---Arts. 17(2), 51(6)(d) & (e), 63, 65, 106(3)(c), 184(3), 185(3), 224(6); Elections Act, 2017, Ss. 66, 67, 104 & Election Rules, 2017 Allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims—Scope—Constitutional validity of Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) Order dated 01.03.2024 and its notifications declaring returned candidates on reserved seats—Maintainability—Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), not having contested the General Elections 2024 or submitted any priority list for reserved seats, claimed entitlement to such seats based on independent candidates joining it post-election—Held, SIC did not fulfil constitutional or legal prerequisites to claim allocation of reserved seats under proportional representation system; did not contest elections or secure any general seat—ECP’s order and relevant notifications, insofar as they excluded PTI-affiliated candidates from the seat count, were declared ultra vires the Constitution and set aside—Supreme Court by majority held that PTI remained a political party under the law, and candidates declaring PTI affiliation in their nomination forms and supported by party certificates were to be treated as PTI members for purposes of seat allocation—Denial of election symbol did not affect right of a political party to field candidates or participate in elections—PTI held entitled to proportionate allocation of reserved seats based on its actual electoral success—Constitutional obligation imposed on ECP to recalculate and notify reserved seats for PTI accordingly—Petitions of SIC dismissed. Cited Cases: • Workers' Party Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 681 • Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416 (b) Constitutional Law: ----Arts. 51(6)(d) & (e), 106(3)(c), 63-A, 226 Interpretation of proportional representation—Returned candidates declared independent by ECP despite nomination as PTI members—Held, candidates who submitted nomination papers declaring PTI affiliation and did not contradict said declaration prior to withdrawal deadline must be treated as PTI members—Declaration by ECP that such candidates were independent held without lawful authority—Court declared that under constitutional provisions, party-list based allocation of reserved seats must reflect the true will of electorate and should not be frustrated by technicalities—Failure of ECP to recognize valid PTI candidatures undermined representational justice and electoral integrity. (c) Representation and Electoral Rights: ----Elections Act, 2017, Ss. 66, 67, 104; Election Rules, 2017 Submission of party lists and affidavits—ECP required to apply statutory provisions in a manner giving full effect to constitutional rights—Court directed ECP to issue notice to 41 other returned candidates (who were declared independent but declared PTI affiliation in part) to file notarized statements confirming party affiliation, with PTI granted opportunity to confirm such claims—Held, such mechanism would determine true number of general seats secured by PTI, entitling it to reserved seats accordingly—Court ordered timely publication of list and compliance report by ECP—Reserved seats not to remain vacant under Article 224(6), and must be filled to preserve parliamentary representativeness. (d) Constitutional Jurisdiction and Limitation: ----Arts. 184(3), 185(3), 175 Scope of Supreme Court’s power in electoral matters—PTI was not a party to the original proceedings before the ECP or High Court—Minority view emphasized that majority judgment extended beyond Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 185(3)—Concerns raised that judicial relief was granted to a non-party, creating enforceable rights in absence of lis—Joined candidates were not heard, and allocation affected without affording audi alteram partem—Held (minority), that such judicial overreach may result in constitutional violations and consequences for oath-bound office holders—Majority nevertheless exercised jurisdiction under Art. 184(3) to enforce fundamental representational rights.