Summary: (a) Balochistan Local Government Act, 2010 (Amendment, 2023) ----S. 24-A—Disqualification on grounds of defection—Mandatory procedure—Scope— Under S.24-A(1) of the (Amendment) Act, declaration of defection must be made **only by the Party Head** in writing, who shall forward copies to (i) the Presiding Officer, (ii) the Secretary Local Government, and (iii) the concerned member—Provision further mandates issuance of *show-cause notice* prior to declaration—Complaint filed by “Secretary Coordination” and declaration issued by “Secretary General” of the political party held **without lawful authority**, being contrary to the explicit statutory mandate. (b) Interpretation of statutes—Mandatory vs. directory— ----Where statute prescribes performance of an act in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all—Doctrine of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius* applied—Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirement renders the entire process void ab initio. (c) Political parties—Intra-party authority— ----Party Constitution examined—Designation “Secretary Coordination” not recognized therein—Only Party Head authorized to make declaration of defection—Actions of unauthorized office-bearers confer no jurisdiction upon statutory authority to proceed. (d) Natural justice—Right to fair hearing— ----S. 24-A, proviso—Party Head must provide opportunity to the accused member to show cause before making declaration—Failure to afford such opportunity violates due process and vitiates proceedings. (e) Administrative law—Jurisdictional error— ----Secretary Local Government acted without jurisdiction by entertaining and deciding complaint filed by unauthorized person—Proceedings being coram non judice, order held unsustainable. (f) Disposition --- Appeal allowed. Order dated 07-02-2024 of Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department, Balochistan, set aside. Complaint under S.24-A of the (Amendment) Act, 2023 dismissed. No order as to costs.

Summary: Which classes of employees can approach which court? This case involves multiple appeals and petitions directed against various judgments of the Lahore High Court related to disputes over employment matters at the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank, Ltd. The core of these disputes revolved around the maintainability of writ petitions filed by employees of the bank under Article 199 of the Constitution, in the absence of statutory service rules. ----Issues: 1. Whether the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank's internal Staff Service Rules, 2010, can be considered statutory, thereby allowing employees to seek redress in the High Court under Article 199. 2. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions filed by the bank's employees given the non-statutory nature of the service rules. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals and dismissed the writ petitions, affirming that the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank's service rules were not statutory. The court clarified that such internal rules do not confer jurisdiction upon the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that disputes arising under non-statutory rules do not meet the threshold for constitutional jurisdiction and should be addressed in civil courts or through internal mechanisms as provided by the employer. ----Citations/Precedents: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009 SCMR 1279) Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore and 3 others v. Messrs S.M. Ahmad and Company (Pvt.) Limited, Islamabad (1999 SCMR 138) PIAC v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman (PLD 2010 SC 676) PIAC v. Syed Suleman Alam Rizvi (2015 SCMR 1545) Abdul Wahab v. HBL (2013 SCMR 1383) Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority v. Lt.Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707) Syed Nazir Gilani v. Pakistan Red Crescent Society (2014 SCMR 982)

Summary: Issues:Whether B.Tech (Hons.) degrees are equivalent to B.Sc. Engineering degrees for the purpose of eligibility and admission to higher engineering courses and professional registration.Whether educational institutions and professional councils have the autonomy to determine the equivalence of degrees without external judicial or executive interference.------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court ruled that:B.Tech (Hons.) degrees are not equivalent to B.Sc. Engineering degrees. The court found that both types of degrees serve different educational and professional purposes and should be treated as distinct disciplines.Educational institutions and professional bodies like the Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) have the autonomy to define and enforce standards for degree equivalence and professional accreditation without interference from the judiciary unless there is a clear violation of law.Appeals regarding the non-equivalence of B.Tech (Hons.) degrees for certain professional and educational purposes were upheld, reinforcing the PEC's regulatory role.----Citations/Precedents:Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975: Governs the accreditation and registration of engineering degrees.Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002: Establishes the HEC's role in determining the equivalence of educational degrees.Key judgments cited include:Maula Bux Shaikh vs. Chief Minister Sindh & others (2018 SCMR 2098): Discussed the role of government and professional councils in determining the equivalence of academic qualifications.Fida Hussain vs. Secretary Kashmir Affairs (1996 PLC (C.S) 44): Addressed the limits of judicial intervention in academic matters.Muhammad Sadiq vs. University of Sindh & another (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 182): Highlighted the autonomy of universities in setting admission criteria and course equivalence.

Summary: Background:This case involves a report published by Transparency International Pakistan (TIP) on December 9, 2023, titled "National Corruption Perception Survey: TI Pakistan 2023" (NCPS 2023). The report indicated that the judiciary in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) was perceived as the second most corrupt sector, with citizens reportedly paying the highest bribes for judiciary access, averaging Rs. 162,000. These findings attracted significant media attention and were heavily discussed on social media, which led to a formal complaint by the Human Rights Cell to the Peshawar High Court, arguing that the report damaged the judiciary's dignity and public confidence.-----Issues:Whether the findings of the NCPS 2023 regarding the KP judiciary are reliable, valid, and credible.Whether the report's findings were presented in language that is fair and not misleading.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Peshawar High Court, led by Chief Justice Mohammad Ibrahim Khan, found significant flaws in the methodology and ethical considerations of the NCPS 2023 report. The court noted that the survey did not accurately explain the nature of its data collection, misrepresented the extent of corruption perception in the judiciary, and failed to provide a clear context for its findings. As a result, the report was deemed to lack reliability, validity, and credibility. The court ordered TIP to recall and revise the NCPS 2023 report to correct these issues and to republish the findings with clarified and non-misleading language. The decision underscores the necessity of accurate, transparent, and responsible reporting by NGOs and similar entities when making public claims about corruption, especially concerning the judiciary.------Citations/Precedents:Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan and international human rights law regarding freedom of expression, with specific reference to permissible limitations such as contempt of court.The Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003.International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR).Case law from the European Court of Human Rights on the role of NGOs in public debate.Previous rulings by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the presentation and phrasing of research findings and their potential impact on public perception and the administration of justice.

Summary: ''Scope of overseas Pakistani, foreign resident, for the purposes of admissions in MBBS/BDS against foreign quota seats'' -----BackgroundIn the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, the case of Muhammad Abdullah Abrar Syed et al. vs. Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) et al., represented by Writ Petition No. 73273/2023, addressed the challenge against Regulation 4(7)(b) of the PMDC Regulation 2023. The petitioner argued that this regulation, which pertains to the eligibility criteria for the "overseas Pakistani quota" in MBBS admissions, was illegal, unconstitutional, and violated fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 4, 9, 25, and 25-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. The specific contention was against the requirement for candidates to be residents of a foreign country at the time of applying for admission, which was deemed discriminatory, particularly against Pakistani citizens residing in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia, where permanent residency or nationality is not typically extended.-----Issues:Whether Regulation 4(7)(b) of the PMDC Regulation 2023 is illegal, unconstitutional, and in violation of fundamental rights.Whether the regulation discriminates against Pakistani citizens residing in countries that do not offer permanent residency or nationality, like those in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.The validity of the petitioner's eligibility for the "overseas Pakistani quota" based on their residency status and the documentation provided.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Asim Hafeez ruled against the petitioner, holding that Regulation 4(7)(b) of the PMDC Regulation 2023 was neither illegal nor unconstitutional. The court found no specific disadvantage or discrimination directed towards Pakistani citizens residing in the Middle East or Saudi Arabia. It was clarified that the regulation requires candidates to be permanent residents of a foreign country at the time of application, a criterion not met by the petitioner, who admitted to residing in Pakistan. Furthermore, the court noted that no contradiction existed between the impugned regulation and other statutes, including regulation 2(f) of the same 2023 regulations. The court dismissed the challenge to the regulation's legality and constitutionality, finding no arbitrariness or perversity in the exercise of discretion by the PMDC.----Citations/Precedents:"Sundas and others vs. Khyber Medical University through V.C. Peshawar and others" (2024 SCMR 46)"Aina Haya vs. Principal Peshawar Model Girls High School-1, Peshawar and others" (2023 SCMR 198)"Yasir Nawaz and others vs. Higher Education Commission and others" (PLD 2021 SC 745)Reference to National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, Sections 10 and 12

Summary: Merged judgement by Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Yahya Afridi In the matter of letter dated 25th March 2024 of the Six Judges of the Islamabad High Court --- BackgroundThe Supreme Court of Pakistan convened to address issues raised by a letter from six judges of the Islamabad High Court, dated March 25, 2024. The letter, which expressed concerns about threats to judicial independence due to executive interference, prompted the Supreme Court to take up the matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.---Issues:The key issues raised involved:The alleged interference of the executive in judicial matters.The establishment of an inquiry commission to investigate these allegations.The appropriate institutional response to protect judicial independence.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court decided to engage key stakeholders in the judicial system to propose solutions to protect judicial independence and address the issues raised by the Islamabad High Court judges. Proposals were to be submitted by April 25, 2024, and were expected to help formulate a comprehensive institutional response.---Individual Judges' Notes:---Justice Yahya Afridi:Expressed caution against frequently invoking suo motu jurisdiction, especially for inquisitorial matters requiring factual investigation.Emphasized that the Supreme Court should not be swayed by public sentiment to take action without careful judicial consideration.Highlighted the independence of High Courts and cautioned against any Supreme Court actions that might undermine this independence.Recused from the bench due to concerns about proceeding with the suo motu action under the circumstances described.---Justice Athar Minallah:Declined to endorse the initial parts of the order due to unresolved legal and constitutional questions regarding the Prime Minister's involvement and the scope of the inquiry commission.Emphasized the need for full Court consideration of whether the inquiry commission's establishment by the executive was a breach of judicial independence.Expressed concerns over the historical pattern of executive interference in judicial matters.Called for an institutional response that respects and protects judicial independence, addressing the systemic issues highlighted by the Islamabad High Court judges.Like Justice Afridi, recused himself from the bench due to the sensitive nature of the issues at hand and the need for careful institutional handling.

Summary: Notices Issued to Respondents, date set for second week of May 2024 ---- Background:The All Public Universities BPS Teachers Association (APUBTA), a registered charity representing around fifty thousand teachers in public universities, filed a constitution petition addressing significant concerns in the governance and functioning of public sector universities. The petition highlighted three main issues: approximately 60 out of 147 public sector universities are operating without appointed vice chancellors, tenured positions remain unfilled, and decision-making bodies like boards of governors, syndicates, senates, and academic councils fail to meet as required by law or their statutes. These issues not only undermine the universities' performance and academic freedom but also contradict their intended autonomy, leading to undue external interference, including by federal and provincial governments.-----Issues:The petition sought to address matters of public importance and enforce constitutional and fundamental rights, arguing that the grievances directly impinge upon the right to education and the proper governance of public institutions funded by taxpayer money. The key constitutional provisions invoked included Article 4 (right to be dealt with in accordance with law), Article 25 (equality of citizens), and Article 25A (right to education), alongside principles of policy outlined in Article 37(c) and (f) concerning the availability of professional and technical education and the facilitation of full participation in national activities through education.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court overruled the office objection and entertained the constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, recognizing the matter as one of public importance involving the enforcement of fundamental rights and other constitutional rights. The Court issued a directive for the respondents to submit comments regarding the state of public sector universities within their jurisdictions, specifically identifying those without appointed vice chancellors or with tenured positions vacant or held on an acting charge basis. Additionally, the respondents were asked to provide information on the statutory requirements for the periodic holding of meetings by university decision-making bodies and their compliance with these requirements.----Citations/Precedents:Aamir Raza Ashfaq v Minhaj Ahmed Khan (2012 SCMR 6): Cited as a precedent where the Supreme Court held that the position of a Vice Chancellor in a university should not remain vacant, emphasizing the broad interpretation of Article 9 (right to life) to include the right to education and proper institutional governance.Article 37(c) and (f) of the Constitution: Highlighted to underscore the state's responsibility to make professional and technical education widely available and ensure higher education's accessibility based on merit, along with facilitating full participation in national activities through educational and developmental means.

Summary: Background:This case involves an intra-court appeal filed by Mst. Haleema and three others against an order passed by a single judge in chambers, which dismissed their writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The original petition sought to overturn the decision of the Executive Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), which appointed an inspector to investigate the affairs of M/s ISAKHEL ESTATE FARMS LTD. The appointment was contested by the appellants but upheld by the lower court, leading to the current appeal.-----Issues:The appeal primarily challenges the legal and factual bases of the single judge?s decision, arguing that the conditions necessitating an investigation under Section 265 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, were not present, thereby rendering the appointment of the inspector improper.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the appeal, finding it devoid of merit. It upheld the decision of the single judge and the Executive Director of the SECP, noting that:The appointment of the inspector was properly made under the powers conferred by Section 265 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.The evidence and circumstances justified the investigation into the company's affairs due to potential misconduct identified in the board's decision-making processes and the company?s failure to comply with regulatory filings.The court also dismissed the appellants' concerns about reputational harm and inconvenience, emphasizing the legal necessity and appropriateness of the investigation.-----Citations/Precedents:Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973: Grants the High Courts jurisdiction to enforce the rights conferred by the Constitution, ensuring legality and correctness of administrative actions.Companies Ordinance, 1984, Sections 152, 265, and 290: Details the powers and procedures relating to corporate governance and regulatory oversight, including the appointment of inspectors to investigate company affairs.SECP Order under S.R.O. 154(1)/2015: Supports the regulatory framework for the appointment and functioning of inspectors.Statutory interpretation principles: Applied to affirm the disjunctive use of "or" in legislative texts, allowing for flexibility in administrative decision-making.

Summary: Background:In the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, two related writ petitions, No. 2916 of 2006 and No. 7305 of 2019, were filed against the Federation of Pakistan by the heirs of the late Ameer of Bahawalpur, Sir Sadiq Muhammad Khan Abbasi. The petitioners challenged the vires of the notification No. SRO-436(I)2006, which distributed specific lands (Shikargah) among 23 legal heirs based on the recommendations of an implementation committee. The petitions raised questions of law and facts concerning the distribution of properties left by the Ameer of Bahawalpur post-1947, the Indian Independence Act, and subsequent legal and administrative actions regarding the estate.-----Issues:The legality of the distribution of the Shikargah land among the 23 legal heirs as per Notification No. SRO-436(I)2006.The adherence of the distribution process to the principles of justice, Sharia law, and previous Supreme Court judgments.The jurisdiction of the court in matters decided by the Federal Government under the Acceding State (Property) Order, 1961.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court, dismissed both writ petitions. The court found that the distribution of properties was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the implementation committee, established legal precedents, and Sharia law. It was emphasized that the Federal Government had the ultimate authority to decide on matters related to the devolution and distribution of the Ameer of Bahawalpur's properties, as stipulated by the Acceding State (Property) Order, 1961. The court also noted that it lacked jurisdiction to question orders made by the Central Government under this order.----Citations/Precedents:Indian Independence Act, 1947Acceding State (Properties) Order, 1961Devolution and Distribution of Property (Ameer of Bahawalpur) Order, 1969Supreme Court judgment in "Govt. of Pakistan V. Brig. His Highness Nawab Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi and others" (PLD 1982 SC 367)Supreme Court judgment in "Brig. H.H. Nawab Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi, Ameer of Bahawalpur V. Govt. of Pakistan and others" (PLD 1984 SC 67)Supreme Court judgment in "Prince A. M. Abbasi and another V. Federal Government through Secretary and 24 others" (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 170)Lahore High Court judgment in "Brig. His Highness Nawab Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi, Ameer of Bahawalpur. V. Government of Pakistan, through the Joint Secretary, Ministry of States and Frontier Regions, Rawalpindi and 23 others" (PLD 1978 Lahore 1166)Supreme Court judgment in "Sahibzada Muhammad Usman Khan Abbasi, etc. V. Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary M/O KANA and SAFRON, Islamabad, etc." (2020)

Summary: BackgroundMst. Sharafat Bibi filed a writ petition against the Ministry of Interior, Islamabad, after discovering that a Pakistani Origin (POR) Card had been mistakenly recorded in her name in the NADRA database. This issue came to light when she applied for a Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC). Her petition sought the cancellation of the POR card under the policies stipulated in a 2017 policy letter and requested the opportunity to present her case before a verification committee for clearance.-----Issues:Whether Mst. Sharafat Bibi, who claims to be a Pakistani citizen by birth and lineage, is entitled to have the POR card cancelled and her Pakistani citizenship affirmed.Whether the existing policy framework adequately addresses the cancellation of erroneously issued POR cards and allows for the proper reissuance of CNICs to affected individuals.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court recognized the petitioner's claim of being a Pakistani citizen by birth and acknowledged that the POR card was mistakenly issued. It highlighted a policy gap where Pakistani citizens could be erroneously registered as Afghan nationals due to administrative errors. The court directed:The petitioner should be allowed to present her case before the competent NADRA forum.NADRA to consider her application for cancellation of the POR card and subsequent issuance of a CNIC, ensuring proper verification and adherence to policies.The need for policy amendments to prevent similar issues and ensure that citizens can correct their nationality status in NADRA's database effectively.-----Citations/Precedents:NADRA Ordinance 2000: Guides the issuance and management of national identity cards and documents.Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951: Defines the legal framework for Pakistani citizenship and outlines the conditions under which citizenship may be renounced or confirmed.Additional ReferencesThe judgment references administrative practices and policies related to the registration of nationals and foreigners, emphasizing the need for accurate record-keeping and the provision of remedies when errors occur.It discusses the legal implications of erroneously issued identity documents and the administrative burdens placed on individuals to correct these mistakes.---Quotation: ''A Pakistani citizen cannot be compelled to apply for grant of Naturalization Certificate if an Afghan Citizenship Card is earlier issued in his name. Same may be cancelled by the NADRA itself.''