Summary: Facts: The appellant, Muhammad Ibrahim Jatoi, was initially declared the winner of the NA-202 seat with 54,633 votes against the respondent, Aftab Shaban Mirani, who secured 53,381 votes. Mirani contested the results, alleging corrupt practices and the casting of bogus votes by Jatoi. The Election Tribunal accepted Mirani's petition after a NADRA report indicated discrepancies in voter verification, leading to the order for re-polling in 21 stations. Jatoi appealed this decision.---Issues for Review:--The maintainability of the election petition under Sections 54 and 55 of the Representation of People Act, 1976.--The jurisdiction and capability of NADRA to verify election material and its findings.--The validity of the Election Tribunal's decision to order re-polling based on the NADRA report.--Holding:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Election Tribunal's decision for re-polling in the 21 contested polling stations.--Reasoning:---Verification Process: The Court found the verification process by NADRA to be within its mandate and the Election Tribunal's jurisdiction to seek such verification under the Act and the NADRA Ordinance.--NADRA's Expertise: The Court recognized NADRA's expertise in verifying voter identity and found no merit in the appellant's argument against NADRA's capability and authority.--Impact on Election Result: The discrepancies found by NADRA in the votes cast at the 21 polling stations were sufficient to materially affect the election outcome, justifying the Tribunal's decision for re-polling.--Appellant's Consent: The Court noted that the appellant had initially consented to NADRA's verification, undermining his later objections to the process.---Significance: This case underscores the importance of transparency and accuracy in the electoral process, affirming the use of technological expertise by bodies like NADRA to ensure the integrity of elections. It also highlights the judiciary's role in addressing election disputes and the finality of judicial decisions when not further contested.

Summary: Background: A petition was filed challenging specific sections of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, which require women to update their CNICs (Computerized National Identity Cards) after changes in their marital status, such as marriage, divorce, or remarriage. The petitioner argued that these requirements were discriminatory against women, as men are not subject to the same obligations. The petitioner claimed that these sections violated the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution and were inconsistent with Islamic injunctions. ----Issues: 1- Are the requirements for women to update their CNICs after changes in marital status discriminatory and in violation of Islamic injunctions? 2- Do Sections 8 and 21 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, infringe upon the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, holding that: The challenged sections of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, were not discriminatory and were consistent with Islamic injunctions. The court reasoned that while Islamic law mandates equality, it does not require identical treatment in all situations. The law recognizes the different roles and responsibilities of men and women and allows for measures that protect their respective rights. The court emphasized that the requirement for women to update their CNICs serves a protective function, ensuring their rights in matters such as inheritance, financial transactions, and international travel are upheld. These measures, according to the court, are in the public interest and do not constitute unjust discrimination. The court further clarified that equality under Islamic law involves equitable treatment, which can accommodate differences between men and women based on their natural and societal roles. ----Citations/Precedents: Government of Balochistan Vs. Azizullah Memon, PLD 1993 SC 341 The case outlined principles regarding equality before the law, allowing for reasonable classifications based on differences in circumstances. The Holy Quran, Various Verses (cited by the petitioner): Verses 32:4, 124:4, 194:3, 16:97, 33:35, 3:195, 4:124, 2:228, among others, were referenced to argue for equality between men and women in Islamic law. Islamic Jurisprudence: The court discussed the principles of Ijtihad (independent reasoning) and its role in adapting Islamic law to contemporary issues, emphasizing that such adaptations must align with the spirit of Islamic teachings. The court concluded that the petition lacked legal merit and affirmed the validity of the NADRA Ordinance's provisions.

Summary: (a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000)------Ss. 18 & 23---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Constitutional petition filed prematurely before any final order---Availability of alternateremedy---Disputed questions of fact requiring probe/inquiry-Effect-Non-issuance/non renewal ofComputerized National Identity Cards (CNICs)---Power of National Database and RegistrationAuthority (NADRA) to cancel, impound or confiscate CNIC---Scope and procedure---Contention of petitioners was that when they approached the National Database and RegistrationAuthority ("NADRA") either for issuance of CNICs or for renewal of the same, certaindocuments were demanded to be placed before NADRA, which were, accordingly, produced,however, NADRA was reluctant to issue the CNICs---Validity---In case of any doubt, NADRAdid have the authority to enquire and investigate about the CNIC issued to a person---NADRAcould ask the holder of a CNIC to surrender his card (section 17 of the National Database andRegistration Authority Ordinance, 2000)---NADRA had the power to cancel, impound orconfiscate such card by making an order in writing under its seal or by an officer authorised by it in slick behalf (section 18(1) of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance,2000)---No such like order could be made, unless such person had been given a notice in writingby calling upon him to show cause as to why the order of cancellation/impounding/confiscationshould not be made---Against such an order, the remedy available to the aggrieved person wasthat of an appeal to the Federal Government provided under S.18(3) of the National Databaseand Registration Authority Ordinance 2000, within 30 days of the order---Case record of thepresent case revealed that neither had CNICs of the petitioners been impounded/cancelled orconfiscated, nor had notices under S.17 of the National Database and Registration AuthorityOrdinance, 2000 been issued to them for the said purposes---Cases of the petitioners had beensent to the concerned committees for the purpose of verification and no adverse orders had beenpassed against them so far within the purview of S.18 of the National Database and RegistrationAuthority Ordinance, 2000, thus, the present petition being premature, was not maintainable---Even otherwise, in case of any adverse order, the aggrieved person(s)/petitioners could file anappeal before the Federal Government within the purview of S.18(3) of the National Databaseand Registration Authority Ordinance 2000, thus, on this ground also the constitutional petitionwas not maintainable---Although a number of documents, annexed with the present petition,prima facie, established the fact that the petitioners were nationals of Pakistan, however, fate ofthe present petition could not be decided on the basis of such documents, authenticity of whichcould only be determined and established before a Civil Court and it required a full fledgedenquiry and scrutiny, that too, after providing full opportunity of hearing to both the parties---NADRA alleged that documents presented by the petitioners could not be construed asconclusive proof for determining status of the petitioners, because some of the documents wereprepared through foul play in connivance with the officials in the Provincial Government---Thorough probe and investigation would be needed to set such controversy at rest, which couldnot be resolved in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Constitutionalpetition was dismissed accordingly as being not maintainable.Rana Aftab Ahmed Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal PLD 2010 SC 1066 and Secretary to theGovernment of the Punjab v. Ghulam Nabi PLD 2001 SC 415 ref(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope--- Constitutional petitionfiled before the High Court---Availability of alternate remedy---Effect---Constitutionaljurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked in all matters as a matter of right, rather suchjurisdiction had certain circumventions/limitations, which the Court was required to keep inview, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction---Availability of an alternate remedy (to thepetitioner) was one such limitation which barred exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by theHigh Court.Rana Aftab Ahmed Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal PLD 2010 SC 1066 ref.(c) Constitution of Pakistan-----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope--- Constitution petition filedbefore the High Court---Maintainability--- Disputed questions of fact requiring an inquiry---Effect---High Court under constitutional jurisdiction should not involve itself into investigationof disputed questions of fact, which necessitated taking of evidence---Such an exercise couldmore appropriately be done in the ordinary civil procedure for litigation by a suit---Extraordinaryjurisdiction was intended primarily, for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where theillegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority could be established withoutany elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts---Controversial questions of facts,adjudication on which was possible only after obtaining all types of evidence in power andpossession of parties could be determined only by courts having plenary jurisdiction in the matterand on such ground constitutional petitions were not maintainable.(d) Constitution of Pakistan------Art. 199---Constitutional petition filed before the High Court--- Maintainability---Prerequisites---While invoking constitutional jurisdiction, it was mandatory for the petitioner toestablish a clear legal right which should be beyond any doubt and controversy.Barrister Adnan A. Kassi for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 871 to 889 and 896 of 2014

Summary: Pending

Summary: In SCP three constitution petitions were filed by Imran Khan, Benazir Bhutto, and Barrister Zafarullah Khan against the Election Commission of Pakistan regarding bye-elections conducted after the 18th Constitutional Amendment. The petitioners argued that these elections should have been organized under Article 219 (b) of the Constitution by the Election Commission.The Court expressed concern over the conduct of bye-elections for various members of the Senate, National Assembly, and Provincial Assemblies, stating that they were not organized by the Election Commission as required by the Constitution. The Attorney General acknowledged this lapse, stating that elections were not held by the Commission due to its non-formation after April 20, 2010.Despite issuing notices and providing opportunities for rectification, no progress was made by the Election Commission. The Court adjourned the case, expecting the government and the Election Commissioner to find a solution. When no substantial progress was reported, the Attorney General mentioned a bill introduced in the National Assembly for rectification through the 20th Constitutional Amendment.The Court expressed disappointment at the lack of progress and emphasized that elected representatives should have voluntarily refrained from functioning until the rectification was completed through a Constitutional Amendment. However, the Court decided to suspend the notifications of the concerned parliamentarians and assembly members until the rectification was achieved through a Constitutional Amendment.The Court also addressed the issue of bye-elections based on a bogus voter list, emphasizing the need for elections to be conducted with a verified and unpolluted electoral list. The National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) reported updating electoral rolls for bye-elections in specified constituencies.In conclusion, the Court appreciated NADRA's efforts and directed the Election Commission to conduct bye-elections based on the updated, unpolluted, and verified electoral list as per the provided schedule.

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution.S.17,18 NADRA Ordinance, 2000. cancellation of CNIC. principle of Audi alteram partem.

Summary: (a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 ----S. 18—Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs)—Impounding of CNICs—Scope—Authority of NADRA—Held, NADRA is vested with power under S.18 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 to impound, cancel, or confiscate CNICs obtained through misrepresentation, fraud, or concealment of material facts—Petitioners’ CNICs were digitally impounded in the “confirmed alien” category after verification revealed that their brothers, one a registered Afghan refugee holding a POR card and the other having voluntarily surrendered his CNIC during the amnesty scheme, were non-nationals—The authority’s action was lawful and within jurisdiction. (b) Citizenship—Determination of nationality—Held, the right of citizenship must first be adjudicated under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951—Only after determination that a person is a Pakistani citizen can NADRA be directed to issue or restore CNIC—Where the issue of nationality is disputed, affected persons must approach the Federal Government or the competent forum constituted under notification dated 19-04-2017 to produce pre-1979 documentary evidence in support of their claim. (c) Constitutional jurisdiction—Writ petition—Alternate remedy—Where factual controversy exists regarding nationality and CNIC issuance, and proceedings are pending before the District Level Committee constituted by the Federal Government, direct invocation of constitutional jurisdiction is not maintainable—Petitioners relegated to alternate remedy before said forum. (g) Disposition— Writ petition disposed of; petitioners directed to produce documents prior to 1979 before the Federal Government under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 for determination of their citizenship status; NADRA to act thereafter in accordance with law.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9, 25, 35 & 199 --- Fundamental rights—Right to equality and family life—Issuance of Pakistan Origin Card (POC)—Scope—Petitioner, a Pakistani national, sought direction for issuance of POC to her foreign husband (Swiss citizen of Afghan origin)—Held, issuance of POC is not an absolute right but a conditional privilege subject to prescribed eligibility and security clearance—Where competent security agency declines clearance, NADRA has no authority to override such assessment—Court cannot interfere in executive decision based on national security considerations absent mala fides or lack of jurisdiction—No violation of fundamental rights established. (b) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (VIII of 2000) ----Ss. 10 & 11—Issuance of Pakistan Origin Card—Conditions—Section 11 authorizes NADRA to issue POCs to prescribed classes of foreigners subject to fulfillment of criteria, terms, and security clearance—Authority lawfully refused POC when clearance was denied by security agency—NADRA acted within jurisdiction. (c) Pakistan Origin Card Rules, 2002 ----R. 13—Refusal of registration—Scope—Authority may refuse registration or issuance of POC if, in its opinion, such issuance is prejudicial to the sovereignty, integrity, security, or defense of Pakistan, or against public interest—Rule 13 validly invoked where security agency withheld clearance of applicant—Refusal neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. (d) Case law distinguished ----Regional Manager NADRA Hayatabad Peshawar v. Mst. Hajira (2024 SCMR 197) and Mst. Amina v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2024 Peshawar 87) Cited precedents inapplicable since those matters involved no adverse security clearance—Current refusal based solely on non-clearance by competent authority under Rule 13. (e) Constitutional jurisdiction—Judicial restraint ----Art. 199 --- Courts cannot substitute executive discretion or reappraise security assessments made by specialized agencies unless shown to be mala fide or ultra vires—No material on record proving such infirmities—Constitutional petition not maintainable. (g) Disposition — Petition dismissed; NADRA’s refusal to issue POC to petitioner’s husband upheld; no order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Arms Rules, 2022 & 2023---- ----Rr. 12 & 41—Cancellation of manual arms licences—Renewal of computerized licence—Discretion of competent authority—Held, all manual arms licences stood cancelled under the statutory framework introduced by the Pakistan Arms Rules, 2022 and reaffirmed by the 2023 Rules—Petitioner’s manual licence, later converted into a one-year computerized licence subject to verification, expired on 26-07-2021—Renewal was contingent upon fresh approval by the competent authority; no vested or perpetual right accrued in petitioner’s favour—Refusal of renewal by the Ministry of Interior/NADRA was thus lawful and within jurisdiction. (b) Constitutional jurisdiction---- ----Art. 199—Judicial review—Executive policy matters—Scope—Policy decision cancelling all manual arms licences made in exercise of statutory powers cannot be interfered with by the Court absent discrimination, mala fides, or violation of law—Petitioner neither challenged the validity of the Rules nor impugned the relevant notification—No illegality, arbitrariness, or infringement of fundamental rights shown—Writ not maintainable. (c) Licence renewal---- ----Nature of right—Arms licence, being a privilege regulated by statute and subject to renewal at the discretion of the licensing authority, does not create any perpetual or indefeasible right in the holder—Non-renewal on policy grounds cannot be termed arbitrary when grounded in notified law. (d) Constitutional relief---- ----Public interest and separation of powers—Courts refrain from substituting their judgment for that of executive authorities in policy implementation unless the policy is shown to be ultra vires or discriminatory—No such case made out. Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed on merits; refusal to renew arms licence upheld—Petitioner, however, at liberty to apply afresh for a new arms licence under prevailing law and policy.

Summary: (a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000--- ----S. 18(1) & (2)(a)---Cancellation/impounding of CNIC---Show-cause and hearing mandatory---Scope---CNICs of petitioners were digitally impounded/blocked since 2016 without issuance of written show-cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing---Held, proviso to S.18(1) mandates prior notice and audi alteram partem; non-compliance vitiates action as offending Art.10-A, Constitution---CNIC carries presumption of truth; once issued after codal formalities, accrued rights cannot be withdrawn on suspicion or flimsy grounds---Reliance placed on Fatima v. NADRA (PLD 2022 Balochistan 73) and Muhammad Aslam v. Member (Colonies) BoR (2019 CLC 1141). (b) Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951--- ----S.16 read with Citizenship Rules, 1952---Determination of citizenship status---Jurisdiction---NADRA/ intelligence agencies lack competence to adjudicate citizenship; eligibility linked to citizenship can only be determined by the Competent Authority/Federal Government under the Citizenship Act in the manner prescribed---NADRA may exercise S.18(2)(a) powers only after a prior, final determination under S.16 has attained finality; “blocking/suspension” of CNIC on citizenship grounds absent such determination is ultra vires---Reliance placed on Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor v. Govt. of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Islamabad 305) and Abdul Qadir v. Federation (2024 MLD 1774). (c) ---NADRA Ordinance, 2000--- ----S.18; concept of “blocking” CNIC---Impounding distinguished---Statute contains no mechanism for “blocking”; only cancellation/impounding/confiscation is contemplated, subject to notice and reasons; impounding entails taking the document into custody pursuant to due process---Reliance placed on Muhammad Umar v. Federation (PLD 2017 Sindh 585). (d) Passports Act, 1974--- ----S.8(2)---Cancellation/withholding of passport---Written notice and opportunity of hearing---Requirement---Blocking/withholding passports without prior notice is illegal and violative of due process; authorities must adhere to statutory procedure before imposing any embargo on travel documents---Followed Muhammad Aslam (2019 CLC 1141). (e) Constitutional and international guarantees--- ----Arts. 4 & 10-A, Constitution; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Arts. 6 & 15---Citizenship as a foundational right enabling enjoyment of all other rights; arbitrary deprivation through opaque administrative measures is impermissible; measures impairing CNIC/passport paralyze fundamental civil life and must meet strict due process standards. Disposition---Petition partly allowed---NADRA and Directorate General, Immigration & Passports directed to restore petitioners’ CNICs and passports for the time being; NADRA to initiate/route appropriate proceedings before Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act, 1951 and conclude within 30 days after providing full opportunity of hearing; petitioners to cooperate and produce requisite documents---Competent Authority not precluded from proceeding per law on credible material.