Summary: Background:This set of civil miscellaneous applications (CMAs) arose in the context of a high-profile legal proceeding against General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf and others. The applications were submitted by various legal entities and individuals, including the former President of the Lahore High Court Bar Association, the Pakistan Bar Council, the Sindh High Court Bar Association, and an advocate of the Supreme Court. These applications challenge the jurisdiction and decisions of the Lahore High Court regarding a trial involving General (Retd.) Musharraf that was conducted by a Special Court in Islamabad. The Lahore High Court's ruling was perceived to overstep its jurisdiction, leading to appeals to the Supreme Court for rectification.---Issues:Whether the Lahore High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the trial of General (Retd.) Musharraf.Whether the Lahore High Court had constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue the judgment it did.The validity and legality of the Lahore High Court?s judgment concerning the constitutional and statutory frameworks.The appropriateness of the Lahore High Court assuming jurisdiction that allegedly vested exclusively in the Supreme Court.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court identified substantial legal questions concerning the jurisdiction and decisions of the Lahore High Court. The Court allowed the applications, directing that the petitions be numbered and notices be issued to the respondents, excluding respondent No. 1, General (Retd.) Musharraf, who had since passed away. The legal heirs of General (Retd.) Musharraf were allowed to join the cases. The records and office files from the Lahore High Court were requisitioned for review in a hearing scheduled for 21 November 2023.----Citations/Precedents:Lahore High Court Bar Association v. General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf, 2019 SCMR 1029.Pervez Musharraf v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2020 Lahore 285.Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976, particularly section 12 detailing the jurisdiction of special courts.

Summary: The Chief Justice, or a Judge of the Supreme Court, when sitting alone in Chamber, can only pass orders as envisaged in the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. ---- The Court examined the actions taken by the former Chief Justice, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, in response to serious allegations made by Mrs. Zahida Javaid Aslam against Mr. Moeez Ahmed Khan. The Chief Justice had summoned both parties for a hearing in his Chamber, and additional actions were taken by law enforcement agencies.During the hearing, concerns were raised about whether the Chief Justice, in Chamber, had the authority under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to summon parties. Senior counsel, including the Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan, argued that the Chief Justice's powers in Chamber are limited by the Rules and do not extend to summoning parties, directing case registration, or ordering investigations.The Court determined that the Chief Justice or any Judge in Chamber cannot pass orders beyond what is provided in the Rules. The proceedings initiated by the former Chief Justice were deemed not legal, and of no legal effect. The Human Rights Cell can only consider complaints meeting the criteria of Article 184(3) and must submit them to the Chief Justice for consideration in open Court. However, with the promulgation of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, even the Chief Justice's power in this regard has been limited.The judgment emphasized that the Human Rights Cell, established in 2005, lacks a legal foundation, and its proceedings, orders, and letters issued in the name of the Court may create a wrongful impression of being judicial. The Court declared any actions taken by the Chief Justice or the Director General in the name of the Cell, including summonses, orders, directions, and letters, as illegal and ultra vires the Constitution. The Registrar was directed to restrain the Cell from undertaking any activities without legal backing.Justice Athar Minallah, in his separate opinion, concurred with the conclusion but added that the Human Rights Cell, lacking legal jurisdiction, should be restrained from conducting any activities or issuing summons, orders, directions, and letters without legal backing.

Summary: Background:This case involves a Human Rights application (No. 8157-P of 2023) filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which was heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The applicant, Mr. Moeez Ahmed Khan, alleged serious abuses of power by certain members of the Armed Forces and the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), including illegal raids, detentions, and forced property transfers, affecting both his personal and business assets.??Issues:Whether the Supreme Court can directly intervene under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in a case presenting issues such as alleged human rights violations by high-ranking military officers.Whether the applicant has any other adequate legal remedies available to address his grievances.??Holding/Reasoning/Outcom:eThe Supreme Court noted the serious nature of the allegations, which potentially undermined the reputation of the Federal Government, the Armed Forces, and other entities. However, the Court identified that:Article 184(3) of the Constitution is intended for matters of public importance and the enforcement of fundamental rights, and must be exercised with caution, especially when alternative remedies are available.The applicant was advised to first seek redress through other available forums, including filing a complaint with the Ministry of Defence, criminal prosecution, or civil action for damages.The learned Additional Attorney-General assured the Court that the Ministry of Defence would duly consider the complaint if submitted, alleviating concerns regarding potential bias due to the high rank of the accused officers.The application was disposed of, with the Court instructing the applicant to pursue his grievances through the mentioned channels, ensuring that his rights would be respected and his concerns addressed according to law.??Citations/Precedents:Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - Allows the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction in matters of public importance with reference to the enforcement of fundamental rights.Article 185 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - Pertains to appellate jurisdiction over decisions from High Courts.

Summary: Background:This civil appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, dated 08.10.2013, which had allowed Writ Petition No. 187-A/2012 filed by the private respondents. The dispute centered around the renaming of village Tambah Maha to Maira Swati Abad by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, along with the subsequent change in the name of Government Middle School Tambah.---Issues:Whether the process followed by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in changing the name of the village and the school complied with legal requirements.Whether the failure to invite objections and suggestions from the inhabitants of the village before changing its name constituted a violation of their rights.Whether the delay in challenging the notification and subsequent order should be entertained by the court.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Peshawar High Court, affirming that the notification changing the name of the village and the subsequent order were null and void. The Court emphasized that the process followed by the government did not comply with legal requirements, as it failed to invite objections and suggestions from the inhabitants of the village, as mandated by the relevant rules. Additionally, the Court noted that the delay in challenging the notification should not be entertained, considering the violation of the rights of the public at large. Therefore, the civil appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the High Court was maintained.---Citations/Precedents:Gazette Notification No.AOV/LCB/1-44/85 dated 10.08.1994Para 7.69 of the Land Record ManualKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Councils Naming and Renaming of Public Places Rules, 1994

Summary: Background: Two Constitution Petitions were filed: one by the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan through its Secretary and three members (Const. P. No. 32/23), and another by an advocate (Const. P. No. 36/23). These petitions sought early general elections following the dissolution of the National Assembly and provincial assemblies. The delay in elections was due to the late completion of the 7th Population and Housing Census, 2023. Additionally, Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and an advocate regarding the same issue. ----Issues: 1- Whether the general elections can be held within ninety days of the dissolution of the assemblies as required by the Constitution. 2- Whether the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the President can announce a new date for the general elections beyond the ninety-day period due to the delayed census and delimitation process. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Constitutional Timeline: The court acknowledged that the ninety-day period for holding general elections, as stipulated in Article 224(2) of the Constitution, could not be met due to the delay in the 7th Census and subsequent delimitation process. ---Role of ECP and President: The court encouraged the ECP and the President to determine a new election date within their constitutional domains. The President and the ECP, after a meeting, agreed to announce 8th February 2024 as the date for the general elections. ---Constitutional Adherence: The court emphasized the importance of adherence to the Constitution by all constitutional office holders and bodies, stating that democracy must be upheld, and elections should be held as soon as feasible. The petitions and appeals were resolved with the announcement of 8th February 2024 as the date for the general elections. The court facilitated the coordination between the President and the ECP to ensure the elections were scheduled promptly, underscoring the constitutional requirement to uphold democratic processes. The judgment was ordered to be translated into Urdu to ensure wider accessibility and understanding.

Summary: Absence or gap in law cannot be an excuse for not enforcing Fundamental Rights. This Court has unabridged powers under Article 199(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to direct for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The case, heard on 31.10.2023, involved issues related to the lack of action by the Provincial Government in controlling and regulating the prices of essential commodities. The government had stopped enforcing price control following a decision by a Division Bench, which declared the Price Control Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, as ultra vires of the Federal Legislature.The court, represented by Justice Shahid Jamil Khan, addressed the constitutional duty of the government to provide essential commodities at controlled and affordable rates, emphasizing the enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 9, 14, and 38 of the Constitution. The judgment cited a Supreme Court precedent regarding the enormous increase in the price of flour, directing both the Provincial and Federal Governments to ensure price control of essential commodities.The court asserted its primary function in enforcing fundamental rights and protecting the Constitution, citing Article 199(2), which grants unabridged power to the High Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The judgment highlighted the Supreme Court's endorsement of the view that the High Court can issue directives to enforce fundamental rights against public authorities and private parties.In response to the government's decision to challenge the judgment declaring the Price Control Act as ultra vires, the court directed the respondents to continue following the directions for price control of essential commodities, even in the absence of relevant law. The case was scheduled for a re-listing on 16.11.2023, and the order was applicable to all connected petitions.

Summary: (a) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Section 19, 23)—Joint Investigation Team (JIT)—Formation and Legality—Scope of Judicial Review ----Under Section 19(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA), the government is empowered to constitute a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) for investigating offenses under the Act—The phrase "if the Government deems necessary" implies a discretionary administrative act, which must, however, align with principles of fairness and legality—JITs are an accepted mechanism in complex criminal investigations, especially where cross-agency coordination and specialized expertise are required—Judicial review of the formation of a JIT is limited to cases where mala fide intent or colorable exercise of authority is apparent—The Court observed that the formation of the JIT in the present case was legally sound and procedurally valid, dismissing allegations of bias against specific JIT members. (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Article 199)—Writ Jurisdiction—Maintainability in Criminal Investigations—Alternative Remedies ----A writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging an investigation or JIT proceedings is maintainable only if the petitioner demonstrates that the formation or operation of the JIT is patently illegal, mala fide, or without jurisdiction—Ordinarily, the High Court refrains from interfering in ongoing investigations, especially when an alternative remedy under Section 23 of ATA (transfer of cases from Anti-Terrorism Court) is available—The doctrine of ripeness dictates that courts should avoid adjudicating theoretical or abstract disputes—However, where fundamental rights are alleged to be violated or the statutory process is abused, judicial intervention may be warranted. (c) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Section 7)—Applicability—Mens Rea and Actus Reus Requirements ----The Supreme Court in Ghulam Hussain v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61) established that an act can be classified as terrorism only when both mens rea (intent or purpose) and actus reus (criminal act) requirements are fulfilled—The court observed that mere gravity of an offense or public unrest resulting from it does not automatically qualify it as terrorism—The JIT is tasked with determining, based on evidence, whether the conditions of Section 7 of ATA are met—At the investigation stage, courts must allow investigating agencies to perform their duties without undue interference. (d) Administrative Authority and Oversight—Provincial Cabinet Approval ----Under Rule 25 of the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, any decision involving significant administrative or legal action must have Cabinet approval—The Court reviewed the official records and found that the formation of the JIT was duly approved by the Caretaker Cabinet and the Standing Committee on Law and Order—Minor ambiguities in language or drafting of the notification did not affect its validity. (e) Prosecutor General Punjab—Role, Powers, and Independence ----The Prosecutor General Punjab, under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions, and Powers) Act, 2006, enjoys administrative and operational independence in managing prosecution services—While the Prosecutor General must act in coordination with the Provincial Government, he is not obligated to follow government instructions in prosecutorial decision-making—The Threshold Test, used to decide whether sufficient evidence exists to justify prosecution, should only be applied after meaningful progress in investigation and availability of key evidence, especially in complex terrorism cases. (f) Judicial Interference in Investigation—Limits and Guidelines ----The High Court reiterated the principle established in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed (AIR 1945 PC 18) and subsequent Pakistani case law that courts should not interfere in ongoing investigations unless there is clear evidence of mala fide intent, jurisdictional error, or abuse of process—The investigation must be allowed to conclude, and the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) retains the authority to determine the applicability of Section 7 of the ATA based on evidence. ------Disposition: Writ petitions dismissed. Formation of JIT upheld as legal and valid. Federal Government directed to frame rules regulating JITs under Section 35 of ATA within two months. The role of the Prosecutor General clarified as independent in prosecutorial decisions, with emphasis on adherence to the Code of Conduct for prosecutors.

Summary: Background: The petitioner claimed to be a bona fide purchaser in possession of a property in Lahore Cantt. He sought to remove restrictions placed on the property by the Military Estate Officer and to have his name entered in the official records as the lawful owner. The property was originally owned by a respondent who was acquitted of charges of corruption and corrupt practices by the Accountability Court, a decision upheld by the High Court of Balochistan. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had appealed against this acquittal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. ----Issues: 1- Whether the sale of the property during the pendency of NAB's appeal was in violation of Section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. 2- Whether the petitioner could be granted relief given that the NAB had filed a petition before the Supreme Court against the acquittal of the original owner. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Section 23 Violation: The court held that Section 23, which prohibited transfer of property during the pendency of NAB proceedings, applied only while the trial was ongoing. Once the trial concluded with an acquittal, the restriction ceased. Acquittal and Appeal: The court emphasized that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence. Without a leave granting or restraining order from the Supreme Court, the acquittal stands, and the original owner’s right to transfer the property is valid. Relief to Petitioner: The court directed the removal of restrictions on the property and ordered the Military Estate Officer to enter the petitioner's name in the official records, provided no restraining order from the Supreme Court is produced. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the removal of restrictions and entry of the petitioner's name in the official records within thirty days unless a restraining order from the Supreme Court is presented. ----Citations/Precedents: Khan Asfandyar Wali and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others (PLD 2001 SC 607) Muhammad Iqbal Khan Noori and others v. National Accountability Bureau and others (PLD 2021 SC 916) Mirza Shaukat Baig and others Vs. Shahid Jamil and others (PLD 2005 SC 530) Mst. Anwar Begum Vs. Akhtar Hussain alias Kaka and 2 others (2017 SCMR 1710) Muhammad Shafi alias Kuddoo Vs. The State and others (2019 SCMR 1045)

Summary: Ultra Vires Declaration: The Court declared that clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (in both of its sub-clauses (i) and (ii)) and subsection (4) of Section 59 of the same Act are ultra vires the Constitution and of no legal effect. This means that these provisions were found to be in violation of the Constitution and, therefore, were deemed legally invalid.Civilian Trials: The Court ruled that the trials of civilians and accused persons, specifically around 103 individuals mentioned in the list provided by the Attorney General, and others similarly situated regarding the events of 9th and 10th May 2023, should be conducted by Criminal Courts of competent jurisdiction established under ordinary and special laws. This decision underscores the fundamental principle that civilians should be tried in civilian courts, not military tribunals.No Legal Effect of Military Proceedings: The Court explicitly stated that any actions or proceedings under the Pakistan Army Act, including trials by Court Martial, in respect of the aforementioned persons are and would be of no legal effect. This means that military proceedings or trials under the Army Act against civilians or accused individuals in this context were rendered legally null and void.Partial Dissent: One member of the Bench, Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi, reserved judgment as to one part of the declaration but joined the other members of the Bench regarding the other aspects. This indicates that there may have been some differences in opinion among the judges on certain elements of the case.In summary, the Supreme Court's legal analysis in this judgment focused on the constitutionality of specific provisions within the Pakistan Army Act, the rights of civilians to be tried in civilian courts, and the legal consequences of military proceedings against civilians in the specified context. The judgment sets a legal precedent for the treatment of civilians in legal matters related to the armed forces in Pakistan.

Summary: Facts:Several appeals, collectively designated as CM Appeal Nos. 80, 108, 117, 124, 130, 131 & 145 of 2023, were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The office initially raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petitions filed by the Appellants. It was noted that according to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, such appeals are to be assigned to Honourable Judges of the Court in Chambers for appropriate orders. However, the office mistakenly fixed these CM Appeals directly before the Court. Consequently, the appeals were returned to the office for proper handling in accordance with the applicable rules.---Issues:--Whether the petitions were properly presented before the Court according to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.--Whether the objections regarding the maintainability of the petitions are valid.---Decision:After considering the arguments presented, the Court issued a short order on October 23, 2023. The order declared specific clauses of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 as ultra vires to the Constitution and void. Furthermore, it determined that trials of civilians and accused persons relating to events on May 9th and 10th, 2023, would be conducted by Criminal Courts of competent jurisdiction, rendering any proceedings under the Army Act ineffective.--- Conclusion:In summary, the Supreme Court's decision in CM Appeal Nos. 80, 108, 117, 124, 130, 131 & 145 of 2023 underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and upholding constitutional principles in legal proceedings.