Summary: Background: The Federal Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister, decided to file a reference under Article 186 of the Constitution regarding the judicial process in the murder trial of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan. The President submitted the reference to the Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on whether the trial and subsequent conviction of Mr. Bhutto met the constitutional requirements for a fair trial and due process. ----Issues: 1. Whether the Lahore High Court and Supreme Court decisions in the murder trial of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto met the requirements of fundamental rights guaranteed under various articles of the Constitution. ---2. Whether the conviction leading to Mr. Bhutto's execution could be termed a decision of the Supreme Court binding on other courts. ---3. Whether the death sentence awarded to Mr. Bhutto was justified or amounted to deliberate murder given the alleged bias against him. ---4. Whether the trial and conviction of Mr. Bhutto fulfilled the requirements of Islamic laws as codified in the Quran and Sunnah. ---5. Whether the conviction and sentence against Mr. Bhutto could have been recorded based on the conclusions drawn from the evidence and material in the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court determined that the trial and appeal proceedings did not meet the requirements of a fair trial and due process as enshrined in Articles 4, 9, and 10A of the Constitution. The Constitution and the law do not provide a mechanism to set aside the judgment convicting Mr. Bhutto, which had attained finality after the dismissal of the review petition. The Court did not find a specific principle of law in the Bhutto case that could be binding or overruled as it was not clearly enunciated. The death sentence was questioned due to glaring bias against Mr. Bhutto, indicating it may not have been justified. The Court could not reappraise the evidence or undo the decision in its advisory jurisdiction but identified significant lapses in constitutional and legal principles affecting fair trial and due process. ----Citations/Precedents: Article 4 of the Constitution: Inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law. Article 9 of the Constitution: Prohibition of deprivation of life and liberty except in accordance with law. Article 10A of the Constitution: Right to fair trial and due process. Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC): Punishment for murder. Section 307 of the PPC: Attempt to commit murder. Section 109 of the PPC: Abetment of an offense. Section 120B of the PPC: Criminal conspiracy. Section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Confirmation of death sentence by the High Court. Article 45 of the Constitution: President's power to grant pardon, remit, suspend, or commute sentences. Various precedents cited in the opinion relating to the right to fair trial, due process, and judicial conduct.

Summary: Scope of Executive powers of the Federal Cabinet 1014Crl. Misc. 16105/24 Muhammad Rauf Vs The State etc Mr. Justice Farooq Haider 28- 06- 2024 2024 LHC 3281 PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1219 (Lahore High Court, Lahore), 2025 MLD 132 (Lahore), 2025 MLD 610 (Lahore)

Summary: Background: Senator Fesal Vawda held a press conference on 15 May 2024, at the National Press Club, Islamabad, where he made serious and malicious allegations against the Judiciary and commented on ongoing cases. This led to contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. A similar press conference was held by Mr. Mustafa Kamal on 16 May 2024, which was also broadcast live on several television channels. ----Issues: 1)Whether the statements made by Fesal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal during their press conferences constituted contempt of court. ---2) Whether the television channels that broadcast the press conferences should be held accountable for contempt of court. ---3) Whether the constitutional rights to freedom of speech, expression, and press, as provided under Articles 19 and 19A, protect the actions of the individuals and the media. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Contempt by Individuals: The Court found that the statements made by Fesal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal were contemptuous as they scandalized the judiciary and commented on sub judice matters, violating Article 204 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. However, both individuals tendered unconditional apologies, expressing remorse for their actions. The Court accepted their apologies and withdrew the show cause notices but warned of consequences for any future transgressions. ----Accountability of Television Channels: The television channels were initially issued notices to explain their actions. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the channels continued to broadcast and even re-broadcast the contemptuous statements without any retraction or apology. The preliminary replies submitted by the channels' counsel, Mr. Faisal Siddiqui, claimed that broadcasting the press conferences was in the public interest and that the channels were not responsible for the content. The Court found these explanations unsatisfactory and issued show cause notices to 34 channels to provide detailed replies, including information about advertisements aired during the broadcasts and the revenue generated. ----Freedom of Speech and Press: The Court reiterated that while Articles 19 and 19A of the Constitution protect freedom of speech, expression, and press, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, including those related to contempt of court. The right to freedom of speech does not permit slandering judges or the judiciary. ----Citations/Precedents: Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Article 2A. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19(2). Muhammad Hashim v. The State, PLD 2004 SC 856 Said Wazir v. The State, 2023 SCMR 1144 Muhammad Shoaib v. The State, 2022 SCMR 1006 Ishaq v. The State, 2022 SCMR 1422 Zahir Shah v. The State, 2019 SCMR 2004 Summary: The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the contempt proceedings against Senator Fesal Vawda and Mr. Mustafa Kamal for their derogatory statements against the judiciary. Both individuals tendered apologies, which were accepted by the Court, but with a warning for future conduct. The television channels that broadcasted the press conferences were found to have acted irresponsibly and were issued show cause notices to explain their actions and the financial benefits obtained from the broadcasts. The Court emphasized that the freedom of speech and press, while fundamental, does not override the need to respect the judiciary and maintain the dignity of the courts.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed an intra-court appeal (ICA) under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, challenging the judgment dated December 22, 2022, passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber. The appeal, along with other related appeals, concerns the constitutionality and application of section 8(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2022. The appeals were heard by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which reached different conclusions on certain issues, leading to the referral of specific questions for resolution. ----Issues: 1- Can the power under Order XLI, Rule 33 CPC be exercised without notice to the parties and without an opportunity of hearing, and whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge could be upset by exercising these powers? 2- Can the power under Order XLI, Rule 33 CPC be exercised unilaterally by one member of a Division Bench hearing the appeal? 3- If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, can the constitutionality of section 8(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2022, be upheld by invoking Article 141 of the Constitution in ignorance of entry 50 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution? 4- Has the levy under section 8(2)(b) been imposed on a resident individual or a foreign asset? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Order XLI, Rule 33 CPC Powers: The court held that the power under Order XLI, Rule 33 CPC, which allows an appellate court to pass any decree or make any order that ought to have been passed, can be exercised without prior notice to the parties if it is necessary to do complete justice. This power is broad and permits the appellate court to act even if the appeal is only against a part of the decree and can be exercised in favor of any of the parties, regardless of whether they filed an appeal or objection. --Unilateral Exercise of Powers: The court found that the power under Order XLI, Rule 33 CPC, can be exercised by one member of a Division Bench as long as the issue has been discussed and documented during the hearing. The defense set up by the respondents, including the arguments on the constitutionality of section 8(2)(b), was considered adequately. --Constitutionality of Section 8(2)(b): The court upheld the constitutionality of section 8(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2022, by invoking Article 141 of the Constitution, which permits the Parliament to make laws having extra-territorial operation. The court rejected the argument that entry 50 of the Fourth Schedule limits this power, emphasizing that the body of the Constitution itself provides the necessary legislative authority. --Levy on Resident Individuals or Foreign Assets: The court clarified that the tax under section 8(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2022, is imposed on resident individuals for their foreign assets exceeding PKR 100 million. The court found that the appellant's interpretation, which sought to exclude these assets from taxation, was incorrect. ----Citations/Precedents: Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1922 PLD 1965 Supreme Court 15 Ranjana Prakash and Ors Versus The Divisional Manager And Anr, 2012 AIR SCW 848 Mst. Bibi Fatima Versus Muhammad Sarwar, 2022 SCMR 870 Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and Others Versus M.Q.M. through Deputy Convener and Others, PLD 2014 SC 531 Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. and Others Versus Federation of Pakistan and Others, 2018 SCMR 802 Government of Sindh through Secretary Health Department and Others Versus Dr. Nadeem Rizvi and Others, 2020 SCMR 1 Muslim Commercial Bank Limited Versus Muhammad Anwar Mandokhel and Others, 2024 SCMR 298 M/s Ellahi Cotton Mills LTD and Others Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Finance, Islamabad and 06 Others, PLD 1997 Supreme Court 582 The court dismissed the intra-court appeal along with connected matters, upholding the constitutionality of the Finance Act, 2022, and rejecting the appellant's arguments. The case was referred back to the Division Bench for the announcement of the final decision.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the orders and notifications issued by a state commission and the federal government, which directed that contempt proceedings against the petitioner be held in a jail instead of an open court. The petitioner argued that these orders violated the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees a public hearing. The proceedings were initiated after the petitioner allegedly made contemptuous remarks against the commission during a media talk. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to nullify the orders and ensure that the proceedings were conducted in an open court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite similar proceedings being dismissed for non-prosecution in another High Court. ----2- Whether the orders directing contempt proceedings to be held in jail violated the petitioner's right to a fair and public trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. ----3- Whether the commission had the authority to regulate the location of contempt proceedings, particularly by holding them in jail. ----4- Whether the procedural laws, specifically the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Civil Procedure Code (CPC), applied to the contempt proceedings held by the commission. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Maintainability: The court held that the petitions were maintainable. Even though similar proceedings were dismissed for non-prosecution in another High Court, the dismissal did not bar the petitioner from challenging the current orders in the present court. The petitions were filed before the contempt proceedings were initiated in jail, making them valid. --Fair Trial & Public Hearing: The court ruled that the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A includes the right to a public hearing, and holding the proceedings in jail without allowing public or media access violated this right. The orders to conduct the trial in jail were found to be without justification, as no exceptional circumstances were provided to warrant such a venue change. --Regulation of Proceedings by the Commission: The court acknowledged the commission’s authority to regulate its own procedure but noted that this power did not extend to violating constitutional rights. The commission's discretion in choosing the venue for contempt proceedings could not override the fundamental right to a public hearing. --Application of CrPC and CPC: The court held that the Criminal Procedure Code applied to the contempt proceedings conducted by the commission, particularly in matters relating to trial venue. Section 352 of the CrPC mandates that trials should be held in open court, and the commission’s orders were inconsistent with this requirement. -----Citations/Precedents: Lieutenant General (R) Salahuddin Tirmizi vs. Election Commission of Pakistan, PLD 2008 SC 735 Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and another vs. Momin Khan and others, 2002 PLC (CS) 898 Alam Dad Laleka vs. Election Commission of Pakistan, PLD 2020 Islamabad 20 Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs. Federation of Pakistan and others, PLD 2024 Islamabad 155 Naveed Akhtar vs. The State, PLD 2021 SC 600 Talal Ahmed Chaudhary vs. the State, 2019 SCMR 542 Contempt Proceedings against Imran Khan, Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-I-Insaf, PLD 2014 SC 367 State vs. Oadna Jabt Mulviya and another, AIR 1954 ALL 523 Shahid Orakzai vs. Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz Group) and 8 others, 2000 SCMR 1969 Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings initiated against Mr. Daniyal Aziz, Federal Minister, PLD 2018 SC 738 Vice-Chancellor Agriculture University, Peshawar and others vs. Muhammad Shafiq and other, 2024 SCMR 527 The State vs. Khalid Masood, PLD 1996 SC 42

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed constitutional petitions due to inadequate conditions and lack of services in government hospitals in the Sindh Province. ----Issues: 1- The inadequate conditions of government hospitals, including non-functional kitchens and insufficient ambulance services. 2- Absence of medical staff from duty. 3- Overall deterioration of medical facilities in rural areas of Sindh Province, affecting the quality of life for residents. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court reviewed a report from the District & Sessions Judge, Umerkot, noting that the hospital kitchen was not fully functional and ambulance service was insufficient. The court ordered the implementation of the recommendations provided by the Commissioner who inspected the hospital's premises. A compliance report is to be submitted by the official respondents before the next hearing. The court observed that medical facilities, particularly in rural areas of Sindh Province, have significantly deteriorated, violating Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The court suggested a policy where government representatives and their family members should seek medical treatment from hospitals in their constituencies unless specialized treatment is required. This aims to ensure better medical facilities for all citizens.

Summary: ''Islamabad High Court held that FIR registered for occurrence in one province cannot be registered in another province; furthermore Police cannot file FIR for a non-cognizable offence and that multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same occurrence. Writ Petition allowed, FIR quashed.'' --- Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petition sought to quash several FIRs (First Information Reports) alleging political victimization. The FIRs were registered in various locations across Pakistan, including Islamabad, Murree, and Karachi, for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). ---Issues: 1. Whether FIRs can be registered in cases where the allegations do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offense. 2. Whether FIRs can be registered in multiple provinces for occurrences that allegedly took place in Islamabad. 3. Whether multiple FIRs can be registered regarding a single occurrence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Registration of FIRs for Non-Cognizable Offenses: The Court held that FIRs cannot be registered for non-cognizable offenses. The FIRs in question did not disclose the commission of cognizable offenses. Jurisdiction of FIRs: The Court held that FIRs related to occurrences in Islamabad cannot be registered in other provinces. The jurisdiction for registering FIRs is determined by the location where the offense was allegedly committed. Multiple FIRs for a Single Occurrence: The Court held that multiple FIRs cannot be registered for a single occurrence. Only one FIR can be registered, and cross versions can be recorded during the investigation. This was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Mst. Sughran Bibi vs. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595). Quashing of FIRs: The Court quashed FIR No. 40/2023 registered at police station Mochko, Keamari, Karachi, as it was found to be an abuse of the process of law and was registered without lawful authority. ----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Sughran Bibi vs. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595): Establishes that multiple FIRs for the same occurrence are not permissible. Muhammad Sultan vs. Muhammad Raza and others (2020 SCMR 1200): Discusses the jurisdiction and venue of trial. F.I.A. through Director General, FIA and others vs. Syed Hamid Ali Shah & others (PLD 2023 SC 265): High Courts can quash FIRs registered without lawful authority. Miraj Khan vs. Gul Ahmed and 3 others (2000 SCMR 122): Highlights the circumstances under which High Courts can quash FIRs. Muhammad Bashir vs. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. and others (PLD 2007 SC 539): Emphasizes that police must perform their duties within the confines of the law. Muhammad Azam Khan Swati vs. Inspector-General of Police, Balochistan and 2 others (PLD 2023 Balochistan 85): Reiterates that multiple FIRs for the same offense are an abuse of the process of law.

Summary: The petitioner and respondent No.2 ("the respondent") were employed by Lahore University of Management Sciences ("LUMS"). The respondent alleged that on 01.01.2021 and 04.01.2021, the petitioner's behavior was misogynistic. The matter came before the LUMS's Sexual Harassment Committee and was decided in favour of the petitioner against which further remedy was not availed by the respondent and after lapse of almost one year jurisdiction of the Federal Ombudsman (respondent No.1) under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ("Federal Act") was invoked by filing a complaint and objection was raised by the petitioner that the Federal Ombudsman has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate, which objection was dismissed by the Federal Ombudsman through impugned order on the ground that LUMS was a Federally Chartered University with President of Pakistan as its Head, therefore, Federal Ombudsman is empowered to adjudicate the matter. Held: The fact that an institution was established by the Federal Government and/or has a federal character is not the litmus test to draw the conclusion that only Federal Act is applicable in cases of harassment of women at workplace. Unless an organization transcends the provincial boundaries, jurisdiction of the Provincial Ombudsperson for protection of women against harassment at workplace is not ousted and no incident to trigger the assumption of jurisdiction by Federal Ombudsman takes place. The charter of LUMS clearly indicates its operations has been localized within the Province of Punjab (at Lahore), therefore, for the purpose of determining as to which of the two Ombudsmen (Federal or Provincial) in relation to protection of the Women from harassment at workplace has the jurisdiction in respect of harassment caused by or to the employee of an organization, the charter alone could not be made basis of such determination, more particularly, if the place of business, operations and activities of the organization were ? localized' in a particular province and/or city. 1023Writ Petition- Tax and duties- Sales Tax 169-24 PAK GUL CONSTRUCTION VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 13- 06- 2024 2024 LHC 3253 2025 PTD 255 [Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)] (https://sys.lhc.gov.pk/appjudgments/2024LHC3253.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 260(3)(a) & 260(3)(b) Review of Judgment—Status of Ahmadis (Quadiani Group or Lahori Group) and Bahais under the Constitution—Effect of Reproduced Observations from Prior Judgments The applicant sought a review of specific paragraphs reproduced from earlier judgments, namely Mst. Balqis Fatima v. Najm-ul-Ikram Qureshi (PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lahore 566) and Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin (PLD 1967 SC 97), claiming inconsistency with the constitutional provisions. The grievance pertained to the observations made in Paras Nos.4, 12, and 14 of the earlier case and Para No.2 from the latter case. It was held that with the promulgation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and the insertion of Articles 260(3)(a) and 260(3)(b), the definitions of "Muslim" and "non-Muslim" are now constitutionally enshrined. Consequently, the observations reproduced from the earlier judgments lose their efficacy and legal status. As per the constitutional definitions, members of the Quadiani Group, Lahori Group, Ahmadis (by any name), and Bahais, or individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes, cannot be termed as "Muslim" or classified under any sect of Islam. Disposition: Review application was disposed of with observations forming part of the original judgment dated 12th June 2024. Cited Cases: Mst. Balqis Fatima v. Najm-ul-Ikram Qureshi (PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lahore 566) Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin (PLD 1967 SC 97)

Summary: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) filed two civil petitions for leave to appeal against a common judgment dated May 29, 2024, by a single judge of the Lahore High Court. The respondents, Salman Akram Raja and Rao Omar Hashim Khan, had challenged the authority of the ECP to appoint Election Tribunals, asserting that the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court should have primacy in the consultation process. ----Issues: 1. Whether the Election Commission of Pakistan has the authority to appoint Election Tribunals without meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. 2. Whether the writ petitions filed by the respondents were maintainable. 3. Whether the interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions and the Elections Act, 2017, by the Lahore High Court was correct. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the substantial constitutional and legal points raised. The court noted that the petitions involve the interpretation of the Constitution and the Elections Act, 2017. The court directed the ECP to file relevant correspondence and notifications regarding the appointment of Election Tribunals in other provinces, indicating that no issues were encountered there. The matter was referred to the Committee constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, for further orders. ----Citations/Precedents: Al-Jehad Trust v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 324) Riaz-ul-Haq v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 501) Constitution of Pakistan: Articles 219(c), 222(d), 225 Elections Act, 2017: Sections 140(1), (2), (3), 151 Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972: Section 3 Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023: Section 4