Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Petitioner a General who retired from Army 27 Years back is aggrieved that on basis of his writing a book and giving an interview to BBC, he has been served by call up notice by GHQ. Seeks non -applicability Pakistan Army Act as well as Protection form arrest.

Summary: Petitioner impugns the act of respondents to scrap off the almost completed recruitment process

Summary: Sections of law; 302/34 PPC read with Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984(a) Dying declaration is admissible under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, but evidentiary value of a dying declaration and its exact place in prosecution evidence, is however a question which has to be answered in each case according to its attending circumstances.

Summary: Acquittal allowed---The case of Jamal Shah v. State involved the appellants Jamal Shah and Waheed Shah, along with three others, who were tried under Sections 365-B, 376, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The charges stemmed from a private complaint filed by Mst. Saima Bashir, alleging abduction and rape. The incident occurred when Saima Bashir was purportedly abducted at gunpoint by the appellants and two unidentified individuals while she was en route to a relative's house. During the investigation, the police declared innocence for all accused except one, Raja Saim Akhtar, who was later acquitted. The victim, identified Jamal Shah and Waheed Shah as the abductors and Jamal Shah as the perpetrator of rape. However, critical witnesses nominated in the crime report did not testify during the trial, raising questions about the prosecution's case. Medical evidence presented during the trial indicated signs consistent with rape, but the vaginal swabs failed to generate any male DNA profile. The defense argued inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and highlighted the lack of corroboration for her accusations against the appellants. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to established legal principles in evaluating evidence, especially in cases of alleged rape. Despite the seriousness of the accusations, the court stressed the importance of due process and the requirement for corroborative evidence to support convictions. Ultimately, considering the withheld evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, the court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants and allowed the appeal, resulting in acquittal.

Summary: The petitioner's counsel argued that since FCC-U operates under provincial government control, the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable. They cited the involvement of Punjab Higher Education Commission employees on the FCC-U Board of Directors and government financing as evidence.The respondents' counsels contested, asserting that FCC-U operates independently and the government has no control over its affairs. They argued that FCC-U is a private entity, and the terms of its employees' service are under the master-and-servant principle, thus beyond the court's jurisdiction.The legal counsels for both the petitioner and the respondents presented arguments citing previous judgments of the court, namely Sheikh Nadeem Ahmad v. G.C. University (2016 MLD 1966) and Aown Abbas Bhatti v. Forman Christian College (PLD 2018 Lahore 435), respectively. The divergence in these judgments prompted the matter to be referred to a Larger Bench. The petitioner's counsel argued that Forman Christian College University (FCC-U) fell within the definition of "person" under Article 199(5) of the Constitution, being controlled by the provincial government and having Punjab Higher Education Commission employees on its Board of Directors. However, the respondents' counsel contended that FCC-U operated independently, receiving no government funding, and was therefore beyond the court's jurisdiction. The learned Law Officer echoed this, citing the case of Abdul Wahab v. HBL (2013 SCMR 1383). Respondent No. 2 emphasized their regulatory role, while respondents No. 3 to 5 highlighted FCC-U's autonomy from government control. After thorough deliberation and referencing precedents, the court concluded that FCC-U, as a private institution, did not meet the criteria of "person" under Article 199(5). The judgment of Aown Abbas Bhatti (PLD 2018 Lahore 435) was upheld, affirming FCC-U's status as a private entity outside the court's jurisdiction. The petitioner failed to demonstrate statutory regulations governing employee terms and conditions, further weakening their case. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing FCC-U's independence and lack of government control, in line with the legal precedents cited.

Summary: The petition aimed to prevent political parties from organizing a public gathering in Lahore on December 13, 2020, citing concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners contended that the state functionaries were not adhering strictly to the Punjab Infectious Diseases (Prevention and Control) Act, 2020, while permitting large gatherings during the pandemic. They argued that the respondents had a duty to prevent and control infectious diseases like COVID-19. The court referred to legal precedents and constitutional provisions emphasizing the duty of citizens to adhere to laws and policies. These included judgments such as "Mian Asghar Ali v. Government of the Punjab and others" (2020 CLC 157) and "Muhammad Kamran v. Federation of Pakistan" (2014 CLC 1549). Additionally, the court cited "Riaz Hanif Rahi v. Federation of Pakistan, etc." (PLD 2020 Islamabad 175) to underscore the limits of court intervention in matters concerning governmental policies and administrative decisions. Moreover, the court drew on cases like "Kamran Martin v. Mst. Siera Bibi and 4 others" (2017 P L C (C.S.) 597) to establish the principle of locus standi for initiating proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. It highlighted the importance of protecting citizens' lives and the obligation of the state to enforce laws effectively. The court also acknowledged the role of government bodies such as the National Command & Operations Center (NCOC) in managing the pandemic. It ultimately directed the state departments to ensure compliance with decisions made by relevant committees and to enforce COVID-19 standard operating procedures (SOPs). The court emphasized that the matter was administrative and policy-oriented, not justiciable, and thus no interference was necessary from the court's end.

Summary: Issues:Whether Dr. Naveeda Rauf was entitled to full pay during her study leave.Whether Dr. Rauf's case was analogous to her colleagues, Dr. Salma Mehmood Malik and Dr. Shazia Mumtaz, who had been nominated by POF Hospital for their training and received different leave benefits.----Judgment:The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal erred in its judgment by granting Dr. Rauf full pay during her study leave, which contradicted the governing rules stipulating that Study Leave should be on half pay. The Court also differentiated Dr. Rauf's case from her colleagues, noting that they were officially nominated for their respective courses by POF Hospital, whereas Dr. Rauf applied for her training independently and even opted for part of her leave to be without pay. The Court held that Dr. Rauf's self-elected conditions and the distinguishable circumstances of her colleagues' leaves did not constitute discrimination against her.----Holding:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's judgments. It ruled that Dr. Rauf was entitled to half average salary during her study leave, as per the relevant rules, and clarified that her case was not similar to that of her colleagues who were sent for Mid-Career Courses by the Appellant.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:The case involves a criminal petition filed by Lal Marjan and Abid against an order passed by the Peshawar High Court in Cr. Misc. (BA) No.2881-P/2020.The petitioners were accused of involvement in a shooting incident on 28.7.2020 in Police Station Barra District Khyber, resulting in the death of Safeer.---Issues:Whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the continued detention of the petitioners.Whether the petitioners should be granted bail pending further proceedings.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, through Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, noted that the assailants in the shooting incident had concealed their faces with masks, and the suddenness of the attack was evident from the 19 casings of 7.66 caliber found at the scene.The investigating officer's failure to recover the weapon or the motorbike used during the incident weakened the prosecution's case.The court concluded that the evidentiary value of the supplementary statement provided by the complainant needed to be assessed after the recording of evidence.Based on the circumstances and the provisions of sub-section 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court granted bail to the petitioners upon their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed.

Summary: The petitioner sought the implementation of Policy/Notification No. So(IS-II)3-9/2011(N-1), which designated the area from Mian Mir Bridge to Post Master General's Office on Mall Road as a Red Zone. The petition emphasized the protection of fundamental rights, including property, life, and trade, as guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan. During the hearings, arguments centered on the government's obligation to adhere to court orders and implement the Red Zone policy, especially considering protests by special persons (blind citizens) demanding employment opportunities. Legal precedents, such as the case of Dewan Salman Fibber Ltd. vs. Federation of Pakistan (2015 PTD 2304), highlighted the importance of honoring governmental commitments and policies. Additionally, references were made to judgments like National Bank of Pakistan vs. Iftikhar Rasool Anjum (2017 PLC (C.S.) 453), emphasizing citizens' duty to obey the constitution and law. The court noted that while the right to peaceful protest is fundamental, it should not infringe upon others' rights to free movement and trade. It cited a Kerala High Court case (AIR 1993 Kerala 1) to illustrate the balance between individual liberties and societal order. Furthermore, the court emphasized the need for citizens, including protestors, to obey the constitution, laws, and government policies. Throughout the proceedings, the court urged government departments to take concrete steps to resolve the issue, including the formulation of the Punjab Red Zones (Establishment and Security) Act, 2020. It underscored the importance of protecting citizens' lives and ensuring smooth traffic flow on Mall Road. In its final ruling, the court directed government departments to implement the Final Draft Act 2020 once enacted by the provincial assembly. It emphasized the role of media and state functionaries in maintaining law and order and ensuring citizens' rights are upheld.