Summary: Facts:Beaconhouse School System challenged the refusal by the District Registering Authority (DRA), Okara, and the Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, to issue a School Registration Certificate/E-License for its Boys & Girls branches in Okara, which affected its affiliation with the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education (BISE) Sahiwal and its students' ability to participate in board examinations.--- Issue:Whether the refusal to issue a School Registration Certificate/E-License to Beaconhouse School System, Okara, was lawful, particularly in the context of the Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014, and the absence of rules required under the Act.---- Holding:The Lahore High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the DRA, Okara, to ensure the registration of Beaconhouse School System, provided other conditions of the Act were met. The Court also directed the Punjab Government to frame the necessary rules under the Act.--- Reasoning:Absence of Rules: The Court noted the absence of rules mandated under section 24(2) of the Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014, particularly those related to the determination of disadvantaged children and maintenance of records by schools.-- Fundamental Right to Education: The Court emphasized the fundamental right to free and compulsory education for children between the ages of 5 to 16 years, as enshrined in Article 25-A of the Constitution, following the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment.-- Government's Obligation: The Court highlighted the government's failure to fulfill its legislative obligation to frame the necessary rules, even after a decade since the enactment of the Act, and its impact on the right to education of disadvantaged children.-- Compliance with the Act: The Court pointed out that compliance with section 13(b) of the Act, concerning the responsibilities of private schools to provide free education to a certain percentage of disadvantaged children, cannot be verified without the prescribed rules.--- Legal Principles:The fundamental right to education under Article 25-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.The obligations of private schools under the Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014, particularly section 13 concerning the provision of free education to disadvantaged children.The government's duty to frame rules under section 24(2) of the Act for its effective implementation.--- Significance:This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing the fundamental right to education and holding the government accountable for its legislative obligations. It highlights the necessity of clear legal frameworks to ensure the provision of free and compulsory education to all children, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of timely rule-making by the government to prevent arbitrary and unjust administrative actions.

Summary: Issue:The main legal issue revolved around the non-issuance of the School Registration Certificate/E-License to the petitioner and the non-framing and notification of rules under the Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014, specifically under section 24(2) related to the obligations of private schools under section 13(b) of the Act.---Arguments:Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the obligations under section 13(b) of the Act could not be enforced due to the absence of rules required under section 24(2), which had not been framed and notified by the Government. The DRA and Commissioner's actions were thus without lawful authority.Respondents: The DRA countered that despite the absence of specific rules, compliance was achieved by other notable schools in Okara District, and similar compliance from the petitioner would lead to the extension of its school registration. The Legal Advisor of BISE, Sahiwal, stated that upon extension of registration by DRA, the Board would enroll the petitioner?s students for the upcoming examinations.---Holding:The court held that the impugned orders were to be set aside due to the absence of prescribed criteria and procedural rules under section 24(2) of the Act for determining disadvantaged children and maintaining records. The court directed the DRA to ensure the registration of the petitioner's school, provided other conditions were met, and mandated the BISE, Sahiwal, to register the students of the petitioner for the SSC Examination 2024. Furthermore, the Government of Punjab was directed to frame and notify the requisite rules within 30 days to enforce section 13 of the Act properly.---Reasoning:The court emphasized the importance of access to free and compulsory education as a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan, further reinforced by the Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014. The absence of rules under section 24(2) of the Act created ambiguity and uncertainty, preventing the enforcement of obligations under section 13. The court underscored the necessity of legal precision and the avoidance of arbitrary authority exercises due to vague legal obligations.---Order:The court accepted the petition, set aside the impugned orders, directed the DRA and BISE, Sahiwal, to fulfill their obligations towards the petitioner, and mandated the Government of Punjab to frame the necessary rules within 30 days. No order as to costs was made, and compliance was ensured through immediate communication of the order to the relevant respondents.

Summary: Background:The petition for leave to appeal challenges the decision of the Lahore High Court's Division Bench in an Intra Court Appeal No.128925/2018, which itself was against an order from 4 December 2017 by a single Judge in Writ Petition No.292/2017. The ICA was not entertained on grounds of improper filing by an unauthorized person. The petitioners argued that the Secretary Population Department, being directly affected by the WP order, was competent to file the ICA.---Legal Issues:Whether the ICA was filed by a competent person.--The maintainability of a subsequent writ petition (WP No.292/2017) on a matter previously decided (WP No.13784/2010).--The applicability of the Punjab Service Tribunal's jurisdiction over the respondents after their employment regularisation.---Arguments:The petitioners argued that the ICA's filing was acknowledged by the Province's representation in court, and any discrepancies should have been allowed correction.The respondents had previously succeeded in WP No.13784/2010 for service regularisation but filed another WP (No.292/2017) without seeking implementation of the earlier order through appropriate means, which was argued as impermissible.The petitioners contended that the subsequent WP was not maintainable as it sought relief on a matter already adjudicated and did not present a new cause of action.----Decision:The Supreme Court held that the ICA was maintainable and that the principles from Province of Punjab v Murree Brewery Company Limited applied. However, it deemed the subsequent WP (No.292/2017) not maintainable, referencing the rule against splitting claims (Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908). Consequently, the judgments of the Lahore High Court in both the ICA and the WP were set aside, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and WP No. 292/2017 filed by the respondents was dismissed.----Rationale:The Court found that the second WP was not maintainable as it did not present a new cause of action and effectively sought to relitigate an issue already decided, violating principles against splitting claims and relitigating decided matters.---Judgment: The appeal was allowed, and the WP filed by the respondents was dismissed.

Summary: Merged orders 2024 ---- These cases emerged from complaints filed by a group of journalists, including the then President of the Press Association of the Supreme Court, Mr. Amjad Nazir Bhatti. The complaints highlighted a disturbing trend of journalists being attacked and abducted, with allegations that these serious offenses were not being adequately investigated by the authorities.The bench noted that the matter had not been listed for a hearing for a considerable period. Upon reviewing the current status, Chief Justice Isa recognized that Mian Aqeel Afzal had succeeded Mr. Bhatti as President of the Association and expressed his intention to pursue the matter further. Similarly, ex-President Mr. Abdul Qayyum Siddiqui and another signatory, Mr. Amir Mir, represented by Mr. Jehangir Khan Jadoon, also affirmed their desire to continue with the case. However, Mr. Asad Ali Toor, one of the original complainants, chose not to pursue the matter further, despite confirming the accuracy of the attack on him but lamenting the lack of a thorough investigation into his FIR.The Court was particularly concerned about the allegations that journalists, including Asad Ali Toor, Matiullah Jan, Imran Shafqat, and Amir Mir, were targets of abduction and assault, with inadequate investigative follow-up. There were alarming claims that the assailants in Mr. Toor's case had identified themselves as members of an intelligence agency, suggesting possible state involvement or complicity in these incidents.In response to these grave allegations, the Court directed the Attorney-General to submit detailed, separate reports on the status of police investigations for each incident, specifically inquiring whether any charges had been framed. This directive aims to ensure accountability and transparency in the investigation process, with a two-week deadline set for the submission of these reports.Adding another layer of concern, the Court addressed complaints about the Federal Investigating Agency (FIA) issuing notices to journalists on grounds that allegedly involved maligning the judiciary. This action had sparked fears among journalists of potential arrests for attending FIA offices. The Attorney-General provided assurances that honest criticism of judicial decisions would not be criminalized and promised no coercive actions would be undertaken against journalists in such contexts.The Court also reflected on the broader implications of these incidents for press freedom in Pakistan, invoking a precedent that underscored the vital role of journalists in a democratic society PLD 2019 SC 318. The judgment cited the founder of Pakistan, emphasizing the need for journalists to be responsible, independent, and fearless in their critique of government and policy.The involvement of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) was solicited to provide assistance in this matter concerning fundamental rights, highlighting the legal community's role in safeguarding press freedom and the rule of law.The hearing is set to continue on January 30, 2024, marking a critical juncture in Pakistan's ongoing struggle to protect journalists and uphold the principles of freedom of expression and the rule of law in the face of challenges that threaten these foundational democratic values.

Summary: Law does not prevent a proclaimed offender from contesting elections ----- Supreme Court of Pakistan reaffirmed the pivotal role of elections in a democratic society as a manifestation of the collective will of the nation. The court underscored the fundamental nature of the right to vote freely for one's chosen candidate, citing the landmark precedent of Reynolds v Sims (1964) 377 U.S. 533 as an embodiment of the essence of democracy.Furthermore, the court emphasized the constitutional importance of the right to form or be a member of a political party, as enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Constitution. This right not only includes the liberty to contest elections but also the right to vote for preferred candidates, a fundamental element of democratic governance. This stance was corroborated by precedents such as Nasir Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2014 SC 72 and Arshad Mehmood v. Delimitation Authority PLD 2014 Lah 221.The judgment also underscored the necessity of clearly defined and uniformly applied qualifications and disqualifications for electoral candidates to maintain the integrity of the democratic process, echoing the sentiment expressed in the case of Parvez Elahi v. E.C.P. 2024 SCP 41.In the specific case under consideration, the petitioner's nomination paper for the National Assembly seat was rejected by the Returning Officer on the grounds that the petitioner was a "proclaimed offender." However, during the legal proceedings, it became evident that there was no official order or proclamation issued under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, designating the petitioner as a proclaimed offender. Consequently, the court ruled that, in the absence of such legal proceedings, the petitioner could not be regarded as a proclaimed offender, in accordance with the precedent set in Khan Mir v. Amal Sherin 1989 SCMR 1987.The court also observed that neither the Constitution nor the Elections Act 2017 contained any explicit provisions disqualifying proclaimed offenders from participating in elections, as reinforced by the precedent in Umar Aslam v. E.C.P. 2024 SCP 40. Consequently, the Returning Officers, Appellate Tribunals, or Courts could not unilaterally impose such disqualifications without legal foundation.In its final judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioner's appeal, overturning the Lahore High Court's orders, and upheld the acceptance of the petitioner's nomination paper for the National Assembly seat. Additionally, the court directed the Election Commission of Pakistan to promptly facilitate the necessary steps for the petitioner to participate in the upcoming election. This judgment serves as a resounding affirmation of democratic principles and the adherence to legal procedures in electoral processes, emphasizing the importance of well-defined qualifications and disqualifications for candidates to preserve the integrity of the democratic system.

Summary: Issues:Whether Section 215 of the Election Act, 2017 is ultra-vires of the Constitution of Pakistan. ---- Whether the ECP can question the internal appointments or intra-party elections of PTI and declare them void. ---- Holdings:The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 215 of the Election Act, 2017 is not ultra-vires of the Constitution and that the ECP has the authority to enforce compliance with the Act's provisions regarding intra-party elections.---- Legal Reasoning:The court reasoned that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on the freedom of association in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, public order, or morality. The Election Act, 2017, particularly Section 215, provides a mechanism to ensure political parties comply with legal requirements for intra-party elections. The court found that the ECP's actions were within its constitutional and statutory authority to enforce compliance with these provisions. The court also noted that the petitioner's challenge was not maintainable, as the matter had already been decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, whose decisions are binding on all other courts under Article 189 of the Constitution.Significant Citations:Workers? Party Pakistan vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 681)Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs. President of Pakistan (PLD 1993 Supreme Court 473)Miss Benazir Bhutto vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 Supreme Court 416)Supreme Court judgment in C.P.No.42 of 2024

Summary: Merged judgements for Order CP 184, 185 & 186, acceptance of nomination papers of Sanam Javaidd through short order, allowing her to contest Elections from PP-150, NA-120, NA-119.

Summary: ''Since there is no provision either in the Constitution or in the Elections Act that makes a proclaimed offender disqualified from contesting the election, the courts cannot on their own create such additional disqualification, without any backing of the law.'' ---- The facts of the case indicated that the Returning Officer (RO) had initially rejected the petitioner's nomination paper on 30.12.2023 based on the same proclaimed offender status. However, the Appellate Tribunal later overturned this decision and accepted the petitioner's nomination paper. Subsequently, the objector-respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was granted on 12.01.2024, resulting in the rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper.Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the same bench of the Lahore High Court had issued a contradictory decision in another election case (W.P. 2383/2024) titled Tajammal Abbas v. Returning Officer. In that case, the High Court had discarded the proclaimed offender ground and allowed the nomination paper of the candidate, stating that fugitive status did not eliminate one's right to contest elections. This inconsistency prompted the Supreme Court to consider the matter further.Both the respondent's counsel and the counsel for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) were unable to identify any provision of law, either in the Elections Act, 2017 or the Constitution, that disqualified a proclaimed offender from participating in elections. Consequently, the Supreme Court emphasized that the courts could not create such disqualifications without legal backing.Moreover, it was noted that the petitioner had secured protective bail in the criminal case (FIR No. 231/23), surrendering to the court and thereby negating his proclaimed offender status. The Supreme Court also highlighted that Article 62 (1) (d), (e), (f), and (g) had been declared non-self-executory and serving only as guidelines for voters in the case of Hamza Rasheed Khan v. Election Appellate Tribunal & Others (Civil Appeal No. 982 of 2018). Therefore, even being a proclaimed offender did not trigger disqualification under these provisions.As a result, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and accepted the petitioner's nomination paper for the National Assembly seat from NA-87, Khushab. The Election Commission of Pakistan was directed to ensure that all necessary electoral procedures were promptly completed so that the petitioner could contest the election as scheduled for the mentioned seat.

Summary: Rejection of nomination papers on trivial grounds must be avoided, at the heart of a thriving democracy lies the fundamental process of elections, an embodiment of the democratic principle that power should be vested in the hands of the people and at its core, democracy is all about participation. ---- The court's judgment initiates by emphasizing the pivotal role of elections in a democratic society, echoing the precedents set in landmark cases such as Javed Jabbar v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2003 SC 955], Pakistan Muslim League (Q) v. Chief Executive of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan [PLD 2002 SC 994], and Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan [PLD 1993 SC 473]. It underscores that elections serve as the cornerstone of a functioning democracy, encapsulating the principle that ultimate authority should rest with the citizenry. The court underscores the centrality of participation in democratic governance and the crucial role elections play in enabling citizens to express their preferences for leaders and policies.The judgment further articulates that the legitimacy of a democratic government is intrinsically tied to its ability to faithfully represent the will of the people, as established in Wesberry v. Sanders [376 U.S. 1 (1964)]. The representation of the people's will can only be accomplished through widespread and inclusive participation by both candidates and voters in the electoral process. The court emphasizes that policies promoting enfranchisement are indispensable in ensuring that every eligible citizen, irrespective of their background, is afforded an equal opportunity to vote, thereby upholding the democratic tenet of equal representation.The court proceeds to highlight the pernicious threat posed by disenfranchisement resulting from the improper rejection of nomination papers. Drawing from precedents and established democratic principles, the judgment underscores that disenfranchisement poses a grave risk to the fairness and integrity of the electoral process. In a democracy that values fairness, active measures must be taken to safeguard against disenfranchisement and ensure that every voice in the political arena is heard and valued. Inclusive electoral processes, the court posits, are not only pivotal for political stability but also for broader objectives such as social cohesion, peace, and prosperity.The court ultimately anchors its analysis on the 'right to vote freely for the candidate of one?s choice,' quoting the influential Wesberry v. Sanders decision. It underscores that any undue restrictions on this cherished right strike at the heart of representative government, as enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan.Regarding the specific case at hand, the court reviews Pervez Elahi's nomination paper for a seat in the Punjab Provincial Assembly from PP-32, Gujrat-VI. The Returning Officer had rejected the nomination paper, citing two main grounds: (i) the petitioner's failure to maintain an exclusive bank account for each seat he intended to contest, as mandated by Section 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017, and (ii) the omission of a recently acquired asset, a 10-marla land in Phalia, Mandi Bahauddin, Punjab, from the assets statement required by Section 60(2)(d) of the Act.The court meticulously examines these grounds, invoking its interpretation of legal provisions and precedents to reach its conclusion. On the first ground, the court clarifies that the exclusivity of the required bank account pertains to the "purpose of election expenses" and not the number of seats a candidate contests, echoing the principle laid out in the Constitution's Article 17(2) and supported by Section 232 of the Elections Act, 2017. This interpretation aligns with the intent of the law, which seeks to ensure compliance with prescribed election expense limits, as indicated by Section 132(3) of the Act.Regarding the second ground, concerning the alleged misdeclaration of the asset, the court relies on Section 62(9) of the Act and underscores that the petitioner had correctly listed assets as of June 30, 2023, in line with statutory requirements. The purported acquisition of the land in November 2023 was found to be irrelevant to the validity of the nomination paper. The court observes that the Lahore High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reintroducing this ground and emphasizes the Act's pro-inclusiveness stance by discouraging the rejection of nomination papers on non-substantial defects.In its final verdict, the Supreme Court converts the petition into an appeal and grants it, setting aside the impugned orders. Consequently, Pervez Elahi's nomination paper for the Punjab Provincial Assembly seat, PP-32, Gujrat-VI, is accepted, ensuring his participation in the upcoming election. The judgment, rooted in democratic principles and legal precedents, reaffirms the paramount importance of democratic processes, safeguarding the right to contest elections while upholding the integrity of the democratic system.

Summary: ''In order to amend, consolidate and unify laws relating to the conduct of elections and matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto, the Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017) was enacted. Chapter V of the "Act, 2017" lays down the procedure for the conduct of elections to the Assemblies. Section 59 is directly related to the matter in issue as it deals with the establishment of Polling Stations for the purpose of election. There is no cavil to the proposition that conducting of elections and establishment of polling stations is primarily a subject falling within the domain of Election Commission. Needless to mention that establishment of a polling station at a suitable place is one of the steps to ensure fair and transparent voting process. Where once it evinces from the record that there is some grave violation of law in the said process, this Court is vested with the jurisdiction to redress and cure such patent illegalities in exercise of its powers under judicial review. This petition is allowed, as a result order dated 15th January, 2024 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside being illegal and unlawful. As a sequel, respondent No.2 is directed to restore the polling station at Govt. Boys Primary School, Allah Dad Khelan wala.'' ----