Summary: Background: The petitioner, a former prime minister of Pakistan and chairman of a leading political party, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) to allow the broadcast/rebroadcast of his speeches and press talks on electronic media. PEMRA had issued a Prohibition Order on 05.03.2023, banning the coverage of the petitioner on electronic media. The petitioner appealed against the Prohibition Order, and the court suspended the operation of the order, referring the matter to a full bench to ascertain the appropriate court's jurisdiction. ----Issues: 1- Whether PEMRA's Prohibition Order was valid and enforceable. 2- Whether the petitioner was unlawfully censored on electronic media, violating the Code of Conduct for media channels. 3- Whether the petitioner’s right to media coverage, especially during the pre-election period, was being unjustly restricted. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --PEMRA's Position: PEMRA's counsel stated that no further instructions were issued to TV channels regarding the petitioner’s coverage. PEMRA made a statement that it would not hinder the broadcast of live or recorded programs concerning the petitioner or his political party. The court acknowledged the petitioner's claims that his media coverage was being censored. The Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisements) Code of Conduct, 2015, mandates that media channels present information accurately and fairly, ensuring political programs are objective and inclusive. The court emphasized the significance of providing the public with accurate information about candidates and political parties, especially during election periods. --Significance of Free and Fair Elections: The court highlighted the importance of free and fair elections, noting that citizens must have access to multiple sources of information to make informed choices. It stressed that the government and its agencies must not prevent media coverage of political parties or candidates to ensure a fair pre-election environment. The court allowed the petitioner’s application to include additional documents and a USB in the record. It was concluded that PEMRA must not prevent media coverage of the petitioner, ensuring adherence to the Code of Conduct and democratic norms. ----Citations/Precedents: Dr. Shahid Masood and others v. Federation of Pakistan etc. 2010 SCMR 1849 Reference was made to this case to support the petitioner’s urgency and the need for media coverage in the context of upcoming elections. Academic Articles: "Elections Without Democracy" by Andreas Schedler, Journal of Democracy, John Hopkins University Press, Volume 13, Number 2, April 2002. "The Rise of Election Monitoring: What Makes Elections Free and Fair?" by J. Elklit and Palle Svensson, Journal of Democracy, John Hopkins University Press, Volume 8, Number 3, July 1997.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, leaders of a political party, filed a constitutional petition challenging an order issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on 22.12.2023. The order declared the party ineligible to obtain the election symbol "BAT" due to non-compliance with intra-party election requirements. ----Issues: 1- Whether the ECP had jurisdiction to declare internal appointments of the political party as void. 2- Whether the ECP's order violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 17 and 25 of the Constitution. 3- Whether the High Court could intervene in a matter pending before the Supreme Court and another High Court. 4- Whether the fundamental right of freedom of association was infringed by the ECP's order. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Jurisdiction of ECP: The court found that the ECP had the authority under the Elections Act, 2017, to ensure compliance with intra-party election requirements and could declare a party ineligible for election symbols if non-compliant. --Violation of Fundamental Rights: The court noted that the right to contest elections under a common symbol could not be arbitrarily taken away. However, it held that the ECP's order was within its legal mandate. --Intervention by High Court: The court emphasized that the Supreme Court had already taken cognizance of the timely conduct of general elections and had issued directives. Additionally, the matter was also pending before the Peshawar High Court. Therefore, the Lahore High Court declined to intervene to avoid conflicting judgments and maintain judicial propriety. --Freedom of Association: The court observed that the petitioners had not challenged the vires of the relevant sections of the Elections Act, 2017. Without such a challenge, the relief claimed could not be granted. The petition was dismissed in limine as it was not maintainable at this stage, given the pendency of similar proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Peshawar High Court. The court relied on the doctrine of "Limine Control" to dismiss the petition. ----Citations/Precedents: Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan vs. Federation of Pakistan (2023 SCP 337) Election Commission of Pakistan vs. Barrister Umair Khan Niazi (Civil Petition No.4365 of 2023) Gul Khan vs. Saeed Ur Rehman (2023 SCP 394) Mubashir Javed vs. Province of Punjab (PLD 2022 Lahore 817) Water and Sanitation Agency, Lahore vs. Lottee Akhtar Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore (2019 SCMR 1146) Dr. Mubashir Hassan vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 80) Federation of Pakistan vs. Aitzaz Ahsan (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 61) Azee Securities (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Federation of Pakistan (2019 PTD 903) Chempak (Pvt.) Limited vs. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (2003 P L C 380)

Summary: Regarding enforced disappearances --- The Federal Government was directed to submit undertakingin writing, signed by senior most officers of the concernedministries, that henceforth no one shall be picked up other than inaccordance with the law. --- During the hearing it was brought to the attention of the court thatduring the Court?s winter vacations the families of protestingmissing persons at Islamabad were manhandled by police/lawenforcement personnel --- ''This Court takes great exception to suchhigh handedness because the right to peaceful protest is amongstthe guaranteed Fundamental Rights which must be honourd inletter and spirit.'' Supreme Court has already held that:?Every citizen and political party has the right toassemble and protest provided such assembly andprotest is peaceful and complies with the lawimposing reasonable restrictions in the interest ofpublic order. The right to assemble and protest iscircumscribed only to the extent that it infringes onthe fundamental rights of others, including theirright to free movement and to hold and enjoyproperty.? --- ''Therefore, the Commission is directed tocollate and submit: (a) the names with parentage and addresses ofthose who went missing, (b) name and relationship of the personwho reported the missing person, (c) the date they went missing,(d) those who were in government in the Federation and theconcerned province at that time, (e) whether the missing personwas recovered or not, and (f) if not recovered the efforts, if any,taken to find out the whereabouts of the missing person. Inaddition, (g) all those in respect of whom production orders wereissued but were not produced, and (h) what was the follow-up bythe Commission when its production orders were not compliedwith.''

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9, 10, 16, 17, 19 & 184(3) Preventive detention—Fundamental right to liberty—Judicial scrutiny—Scope and limits of executive authority—Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention—Principle of proportionality—Rule of law—Government's discretionary power to detain individuals under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO) must conform to constitutional principles—Fundamental right to liberty, enshrined in Art. 9 of the Constitution, is inviolable unless restricted by due process—Art. 10 provides safeguards against arbitrary detention, ensuring detainees are informed of reasons, allowed legal representation, and produced before a magistrate—Preventive detention, as an exception to these rights, must be exercised with extreme caution—Detaining authority must substantiate its subjective satisfaction with sufficient material—Court held that mere suspicion or executive convenience cannot justify curtailment of liberty—Principle of proportionality demands that any restriction on fundamental rights must be the least intrusive means to achieve the objective—Courts have inherent power of judicial review under Art. 184(3) to strike down detention orders issued in contravention of constitutional safeguards—Impugned detention orders were found to be unlawful as no substantive material was presented to justify preventive detention—Petitions allowed, and detention orders set aside. Cited Cases: Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642) In Re Suo Motu Constitutional Petition (1994 SCMR 1028) Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 388) Begum Shorish Kashmiri Case (PLD 1969 SC 14) Federation of Pakistan v. Mrs. Amatul Jalil Khawaja (PLD 2003 SC 442)​ (b) Preventive Detention ----West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960—Scope and limitations Preventive detention under Section 3 of the MPO—Judicial review—Requirement of objective satisfaction—Executive's power to detain individuals must be based on tangible and reasonable grounds—Supreme Court and High Courts have repeatedly emphasized that preventive detention cannot be used as a tool against political dissent—Historical misuse of preventive detention laws in Pakistan to suppress political opposition noted—Courts must ensure that detention orders pass the test of reasonableness and necessity—In the absence of verifiable material justifying detention, such orders are liable to be struck down—Court observed that invocation of Section 3 of the MPO against political opponents raises serious concerns regarding abuse of executive authority—Preventive detention should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances where there is clear and immediate danger to public order—Detention orders in the present case failed to meet this threshold and were declared ultra vires the Constitution. Cited Cases: Ghulam Jilani v. Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1967 SC 373) Mir Abdul Baqi Baloch v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1968 SC 313) Liaquat Ali v. Government of Sindh (PLD 1973 Karachi 78) Haroon Farooq v. Federation of Pakistan (2023 LHC 1450)​ (c) Fundamental Rights—Right to Protest ----Arts. 9, 16, 17, 19—Protest and public order Right to peaceful assembly and protest—State’s obligation to ensure balance between maintaining public order and protecting fundamental rights—Art. 16 guarantees the right to assemble peacefully—Art. 17 ensures the right to form associations and participate in political activities—Art. 19 protects freedom of speech and expression—State action restricting these rights must be proportional and the least restrictive measure available—Court relied on the Faizabad Dharna Case (PLD 2019 SC 318) to reaffirm that the right to protest is a constitutional right that cannot be arbitrarily curtailed—Any restriction must be justified by concrete evidence showing a credible threat to public order—Court found that the detaining authorities in the present case failed to demonstrate such justification—Detention orders were struck down. Cited Cases: Faizabad Dharna Case (PLD 2019 SC 318) Mian Ali Asghar v. Government of Punjab (2020 CLC 157) Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642)​ (d) Rule of Law—Judicial Review ----Arts. 4, 9, 10, 175—Judicial scrutiny of executive action Judicial review of preventive detention—Principles of natural justice—Burden of proof on detaining authority—Superior courts have repeatedly emphasized that preventive detention cannot be arbitrary or based on political considerations—Detaining authority must present substantive material justifying satisfaction for issuing detention orders—Court reiterated that rule of law requires executive decisions to be subject to judicial scrutiny—Arbitrary detention violates the constitutional guarantee of due process and access to justice under Art. 10A—Court applied strict scrutiny standard and found that the impugned detention orders did not meet constitutional and legal requirements—Orders declared null and void. Cited Cases: Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 324) Munir Hussain Bhatti v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 407) Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642)​ (e) Separation of Powers—Executive Overreach ----Arts. 90, 99—Delegation of power to executive authorities Limits on executive discretion—Scope of delegation of powers—Court observed that the delegation of detention powers under the MPO from provincial governments to district magistrates lacks constitutional validity—Excessive delegation of power to lower executive functionaries raises concerns about abuse—Court held that provincial and federal governments must establish clear guidelines to ensure that preventive detention is exercised in accordance with constitutional safeguards—Failure to do so results in executive overreach, warranting judicial intervention—Detention orders passed by district authorities were deemed unconstitutional and set aside. Cited Cases: Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739) Federation of Pakistan v. Mustafa Impex (2016 SCMR 447)​ Disposition Petitions allowed—Impugned detention orders set aside—Government directed to ensure that preventive detention laws are not used as instruments of political suppression—Court emphasized that all future detention orders under the MPO must be based on concrete and verifiable evidence—State authorities instructed to respect constitutional rights while ensuring public order.

Summary: Background:This case involves multiple civil appeals (Nos. 26-K to 38-K of 2021) against a common judgment dated 08.04.2021 by the Sindh High Court, Karachi, which dismissed various constitutional petitions related to the regularization of services. The appellants, initially appointed on a contract basis as Deputy District Attorneys and other positions, sought regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013. Despite fulfilling the criteria and being in service, their regularization was not processed, prompting them to approach the High Court. The High Court, while dismissing their petitions, also declared the 2013 Act ultra vires (beyond the powers) without the appellants challenging the Act?s validity.----Issues:Whether the appellants, being contractual employees, were entitled to regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013.Whether the Sindh High Court could declare the 2013 Act ultra vires without it being directly challenged and in the absence of any aggrieved parties challenging its validity.------Holding/Reasoning:The Supreme Court found that the Sindh High Court had overreached its jurisdiction by declaring the 2013 Act ultra vires when the appellants had not challenged the Act's validity. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court does not possess suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution similar to the Supreme Court's under Article 184(3). The judgment by the High Court affected the rights of numerous employees already regularized or under consideration for regularization without giving them an opportunity to be heard, violating Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process.The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have confined its decision to whether the appellants were entitled to regularization under the 2013 Act, rather than delving into the validity of the Act itself. The Supreme Court underscored the principle that courts should aim to uphold laws rather than striking them down, ensuring not to overstep their jurisdictional bounds.-----Citations/Precedents:Dr. Imran Khattak v. Ms. Sofia Waqar Khattak, establishing limits on judicial jurisdiction.Jahanzaib Malik v. Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, on the High Court's lack of suo motu jurisdiction.Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others v. Muhammad Habib Wahab Al-Khairi and others, regarding the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.Raja Muhammad Nadeem v. The State and another, Mian Irfan Bashir v. The Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and others, and M/s Sadiq Poultry (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, all reinforcing the High Court's lack of suo motu jurisdiction and the principle of judicial restraint.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, residents of Bhimber, filed Writ Petition No. 3139/2023 under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974. They sought a direction for the respondents to include their names on the tentative/provisional merit list for reserved seats for the session 2023-24. The petitioners claimed to have scored over 88% and 84% respectively, but were excluded from the merit list. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners are eligible for inclusion on the merit list under the reserved quota for Mangla Dam Effectees. 2- Whether the exclusion of the petitioners from the merit list violates any constitutional or statutory provisions. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court reviewed the conditions mentioned in the tentative/provisional merit list and noted that it was subject to correction in case of any errors or omissions. The petitioners claimed to be Mangla Dam Effectees and provided their Intermediate Examination Result Cards and certificates issued by the Deputy Commissioner Rehabilitation and Commissioner Mangla Dam Affairs. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in "Imran Ali Vs Public Service Commission, Azad Jammu and Kashmir" (2013 SCR 795), which directed the government to provide a mechanism for the rights of Mangla Dam Effectees who are settled in Pakistan. The court also referred to Article 22(iii) of the Interim Constitution, 1974, which defines Mangla Dam Effectees as those residing in any province of Pakistan. The petitioners were found to be residing in District Bhimber, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, not in any province of Pakistan. The court concluded that the petitioners do not qualify for the reserved quota for Mangla Dam Effectees as specified in the Constitution. Instead, they should be considered against the quota for District Bhimber. ----Citations/Precedents: Imran Ali Vs Public Service Commission, Azad Jammu and Kashmir (2013 SCR 795) Article 22(iii) of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974

Summary: (a) Constitutional Law – Free and Fair Elections – Role of the Election Commission of Pakistan Under Article 218(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is constitutionally mandated to conduct elections honestly, justly, fairly, and in accordance with law, ensuring that elections are free from undue influence, coercion, and corruption. The Court reaffirmed that the ECP has a duty to guard against corrupt practices and to provide all political parties with a level playing field to ensure a transparent electoral process. The Court emphasized that organizing free and fair elections is more important than the results themselves. (b) Political Rights – Allegations of Electoral Malpractices – Duty of ECP The petitioner, Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), alleged that his party’s candidates were being harassed, arrested, and obstructed from filing nomination papers, amounting to a violation of free and fair elections. The ECP representatives and Attorney General for Pakistan assured the Court that all such grievances would be addressed immediately and in accordance with the law. The Court directed that all electoral complaints be addressed on an urgent basis to maintain the integrity of the election process. (c) Electoral Process – Timely Redressal of Complaints – ECP’s Obligations The Court held that any political party or candidate with grievances regarding election malpractices must approach the ECP for redressal, which shall resolve such complaints expeditiously and transparently. The Court directed that the ECP address all grievances by 03:00 p.m. on the same day and ensure that timelines set in the Election Programme remain undisturbed, reinforcing that public trust in the electoral process is fundamental to democracy. (d) Constitutional Duties – Executive Authorities’ Assistance to ECP Under Article 220 of the Constitution, all executive authorities in the country are bound to assist the ECP in the discharge of its functions. The Court highlighted that the State must actively ensure that all political actors are treated equitably and that no candidate or party faces arbitrary obstruction or coercion during the election process. Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions to the ECP to redress all electoral grievances promptly and ensure the integrity of the electoral process.

Summary: ''Discussion: (1) Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (2) Section 2, 3, and 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 (3) Neither should the Court embark on the jurisdiction not vested in it by law, nor should it renounce a jurisdiction so vested in by law (4) High Court must have ensured the due compliance of its own judgment rather than making the order/judgment virtually ineffectual or otiose.'' ---- Facts: The petitioners, former employees of Zeal Pak Cement Factory Ltd., challenged their termination in the Labour Court, which ruled in their favor, reinstating them with all benefits. The Factory's management appealed, but the High Court upheld the Labour Court's decision. The Factory failed to comply with the High Court's judgment, leading the petitioners to file a contempt application, which the High Court dismissed on the grounds of "substantial compliance" without verifying the compliance.Issue: Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the contempt application based on the respondent's unverified claim of "substantial compliance" with the reinstatement order.Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, converted the petitions into an appeal, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh decision on the contempt application, emphasizing the need for full compliance with its judgment and proper verification of compliance claims.Reasoning: The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to ensure compliance with its judgment and improperly disposed of the contempt application without verifying the respondent's compliance claims. The Court noted the absence of due diligence by the High Court in confirming the implementation of its judgment and the lack of effort to verify the petitioners' claims against the respondent's compliance. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of enforcing court judgments to uphold the authority and efficacy of the judiciary.

Summary: Caretaker Government can expend funds on already determined and approved projects by Elected Government. Reliance is placed on M/s. Mazhar Hussain vs. Government of Punjab, etc (PLD 2023 Lahore 257). Interim Government is directed to publish details of previously sanctioned projects by Elected Government and of those initiated by it, within 15-days --- During the proceedings, it was revealed that the Caretaker Government was allocating development budgets to affluent areas like DHA, contrary to the claim that new development projects should be identified by the elected government. Citing a legal precedent (M/s. Mazhar Hussain v. Government of Punjab, PLD 2023 Lahore 257), it was argued that interim governments should only expend budgets on previously determined projects.The court directed the Punjab Government to submit details of projects sanctioned by the elected government and those initiated by the interim government. Highlighting citizens' fundamental right under Article 19-A of the Constitution, the court ordered the Chief Secretary Punjab to disseminate project details to the public through electronic and print media within 15 days. The case was then disposed of by Judge Shahid Jamil Khan.

Summary: ''Chargeability of lease deeds (in perpetuity)'' ---- The first set of petitions challenges the imposition of Capital Value Tax (CVT) through section 6 of the Punjab Finance Act 2012, specifically on lease instruments within the Gujranwala Cantonment area. The petitioners argue that CVT should not apply to lease transactions as they do not involve property conveyance.The court examined the relevant clauses of Section 6 of the Act 2012 and concluded that instruments of lease, even those creating rights for twenty years or more, fall under the CVT levy. The absence of a declared value does not exempt them from CVT. The court cited section 6(3) of the Act 2012 as the charging section for CVT and emphasized that the right to use the property through lease instruments squarely falls within the scope of the levy. The court cited no specific precedents but provided a legal interpretation based on the relevant statutory provisions.Regarding the second set of petitions, the court rejected the argument that lease instruments should be treated as conveyance deeds, citing Article 35 of Schedule I to the Act 1899 as the applicable provision. The court emphasized that Article 35 specifically covers lease instruments, distinguishing them from conveyance deeds under Article 23. The court referred the determination of the quantum of stamp duty for these instruments to the Chief Revenue Authority. The court did not mention specific citations or precedents in this section but relied on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.In response to the third set of petitions challenging the CVT and stamp duty, the court upheld the validity of the CVT levy based on its interpretation of the law. The court did not cite specific precedents for this decision but provided its reasoning based on the statutory provisions.