Summary: S.13 Pre-emption Act:Requirements of Talabs

Summary: The background of the case involved a suit for declaration filed by the petitioners against the respondents, along with an application for temporary injunction. The petitioners also requested the appointment of a receiver to oversee the shrine's affairs. Initially, the trial court approved the appointment of a receiver. The central issue revolved around the appointment of a receiver, a legal remedy used to protect and preserve property during legal proceedings. The judgment cites established legal principles that emphasize the need for a party seeking a receiver to demonstrate a prima facie case, the risk of property waste or mismanagement, and the necessity for immediate action. Ultimately, the judgment concluded that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case for the appointment of a receiver. They couldn't prove an imminent risk of misappropriation or waste of the shrine property. The court also notes that the petitioners lacked evidence when they initially requested the appointment of a receiver. Consequently, the civil revision petition was dismissed, and the related cases are considered moot. The writ petition was also disposed of with a directive for the respondents to act in accordance with the law and not engage in illegal harassment. No costs were awarded.

Summary: The petitioner was employed as an L.D.C. (BPS-05) in the Livestock Products Marketing & Grading Department and was transferred to the Pakistan Post Department on deputation basis. However, the petitioner's seniority was changed, and he was placed at a different number on the seniority list, causing dissatisfaction and prompting a representation against this action. The petitioner sought the court to direct the freezing of the result of employees from BS-7 to BS-9 until the final disposal of the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondents were not acting in accordance with the Civil Servants Seniority Rules, 1993, and Establishment Division instructions issued on September 17, 2013. The standing counsel for Pakistan argued that the matter concerns the condition of service and falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal, as per Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The court, after hearing the arguments, concluded that the primary grievance of the petitioner concerned seniority and its determination in the service, which falls under the terms and conditions of service for a civil servant. It cited precedents and the constitutional bar under Article 212, which restricts the jurisdiction of the High Courts in matters related to the terms and conditions of service, including seniority of civil servants.The judgment highlighted that seniority issues relate to terms and conditions of service and are not within the jurisdiction of the High Court due to the constitutional restrictions under Article 212. It dismissed the petition, indicating that the petitioner could approach the departmental authorities or invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal.

Summary: (1) Article 239 (5) of the Constitution does not oust the jurisdiction of theSupreme Court to examine an amendment made to the Constitution.(2) The Supreme Court also has the jurisdiction to examine an amendment madeto the Constitution under clause (3) of Article 184 read with clause (2) ofArticle 175 of the Constitution.(3) In interpreting the Constitution, the following rules need to be particularlyconsidered:(a) The Constitution should be read as a whole.(b) Effect should be given to every word, paragraph, clause and article ofthe Constitution and redundancy should not be imported thereto.(c) If there are two provisions of the Constitution attending to similarmatters, the particular provision excludes the general provision.(d) If there is a conflict between two provisions of the Constitution andone of them was inserted when the Constitution was abrogated,subverted, suspended or held in abeyance then the conflictingprovision which was in the Constitution prior to the said abrogation,subversion, suspension or abeyance is to be preferred if it is closer tothe provisions of the Preamble.(e) Parliamentarians, who adorn the House after the promulgation of the1973 Constitution or will do so in the future, do not have theconstituent powers of the first parliamentarians, therefore, they cannotamend the Constitution in a manner that contravenes the provisions ofthe Preamble to the Constitution, and in particular any amendment Const. P. No. 12 of 2010 etc 899that may abolish, take away or abridge any of the fundamental rightsof the people.(f) The Constitution and its Preamble are built on a trichotomy thatseparates powers between the Legislature, the Executive and theJudiciary, and each one must operate within its respective domain.Thus, whilst the Legislature is fully empowered to make laws oramend the Constitution it is the superior Courts that will ascertaintheir constitutionality and interpret them because the Constitutionitself has empowered them.18th Amendment and 19th Amendment to the Constitution:(4) (a) The provisions relating to the elections of non-Muslims (minorities) arecontrary to the provisions of the Preamble to the Constitution as theycontravene ?the principles of democracy?, do not ?safeguard thelegitimate interests of minorities? and deprive their right ofrepresentation through their ?chosen representatives?. (I concur withthe judgment of my distinguished colleague Justice Jawwad S.Khawaja in respect of this matter.)(b) The insertion made in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of clause (1)of Article 63A whereby the words, ?a Constitution (Amendment) Bill?,were added does not cont ravene the Constitution.(c) The mode and manner prescribed in Article 175A (as subsequentlyamended by the 19th Amendment) for the appointment of Judges to theSupreme Court, High Courts, and the Federal Shariat Court do notcontravene the Constitution. However, the Parliamentary Committeedoes not have the power to veto the nominee of the JudicialCommission; it may however send a written objection on a nominationfor reconsideration by the Judicial Commission, as an interpretation ofclauses (12) and (13) of Article 175A of the Constitution reveals.The 21st Amendment to the Constitution(5) (a) The 21st Amendment does not succeed in its attempt to try civiliansby the military.(b) The military, which is a part of the Executive, cannot conductcriminal trials because judicial power can only be exercised by theJudiciary.(c) Clause (3) of Article 175 no longer envisages the exercise of judicialpower by the Executive and the Proviso added thereto cannot undo Const. P. No. 12 of 2010 etc 900what has already taken place, i.e. the separation of the Judiciary fromthe Executive.(d) To bifurcate from amongst those alleged to have committed terrorismand who are to be tried by Anti-Terrorism Courts under the AntiTerrorism Act, 1997 a separate sub-category of those ?using the nameof religion or sect? is not sufficiently precise and is also not areasonable classification. The same, therefore, offends the principleof equality before the law and entitlement to equal protection beforelaw as mandated by clause (1) of Article 25.(e) The placement of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, the Pakistan AirForce Act, 1953, the Pakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961 and theProtection of Pakistan Act, 2014 in sub-part III of Part I of the FirstSchedule to the Constitution cannot be done pursuant to subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of clause (3) of Article 8.(f) Laws relating to the duties and the maintenance of discipline in theArmed Forces, the police or other forces may be excluded from theapplication of Fundamental Rights as stipulated in paragraph (a) ofclause (3) of Article 8, but the said provision cannot be extended toprovide for the trial of civilians by the military.The Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act, 2015(6) (a) The military, which is a part of the Executive, cannot conductcriminal trials of civilians because judicial power can only beexercised by the Judiciary.(b) The Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act, 2015 takes away and abridgesFundamental Rights mentioned in Chapter 1 of Part II to theConstitution therefore the same is void.(c) All convictions, sentences passed or acquittals made of civilians triedby the military pursuant to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, the PakistanAir Force Act, 1953, the Pakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961 and theProtection of Pakistan Act, 2014 are set aside and all such cases to beadjudicated afresh by the Anti-Terrorism Courts.(d) All proceedings of civilians pending before the military pursuant tothe Pakistan Army Act, 1952, the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, thePakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961 and the Protection of Pakistan Act,2014 to be transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Courts.Const. P. No. 12 of 2010 etc 901(7) There are important provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which ifimplemented would help to stem terrorism and also ensure the conviction ofterrorists. ---- Classification of Terrorists: The court engages in a comprehensive legal evaluation of the categorization of terrorists who utilize religious or sectarian affiliations. It asserts that this classification lacks a reasonable basis and deems it a violation of the equality principle enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution. Furthermore, it questions the Federal Government's discretion in selecting and excluding particular groups, characterizing this as a form of discrimination.Video Evidence: The court conducts a rigorous legal assessment of the video recordings presented during the proceedings. These recordings showcase violent acts, including pronouncements of death sentences and beheadings, carried out by an organization claiming to be an anti-state terrorist group. The court scrutinizes the legal implications of these video recordings in the context of terrorism and national security.Proscription of Terrorist Organizations: The court critically examines the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 and the power vested in the Federal Government to proscribe terrorist organizations. It highlights the legal ramifications of proscription, encompassing restrictions on propagating the views of proscribed groups and penalties for joining or providing funds to such organizations.Use of Religious Symbols: The court provides a legal analysis of the use of religious symbols on flags by violent groups. It elucidates the legal provisions that prohibit the display of symbols connected to proscribed organizations, underscoring the significance of this issue in the context of maintaining law and order.Criminal Cases Against Terrorists: The court examines the legal aspects of criminal cases or the lack thereof registered against identified terrorists. It sheds light on the legal provisions for conducting trials in absentia and the use of electronic or forensic evidence in convicting individuals involved in terrorist activities.Response to Terrorism: The document places a strong emphasis on the legal perspective regarding responses to terrorism. It asserts that individuals accused of terrorism must be subjected to due legal processes and independent judicial hearings, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal principles even in the fight against terrorism.Institutional Framework: The court delves into the constitutional role and jurisdiction of various institutions within the country, including the judiciary, legislature, and executive. It emphasizes the necessity of maintaining the separation of powers and ensuring that each institution operates within its designated sphere.

Summary: Detailed judgment from the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding constitutional amendments, particularly the Eighteenth Amendment, and challenges to its provisions such as the appointment process for judges, the change of the name of the North-West Frontier Province to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. The case discusses the concept of the basic structure of the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary, and the separation of powers among the judiciary, executive, and legislature. Various petitions were filed by bar associations, political parties, and individuals challenging the amendments, leading to this comprehensive judgment. Key legal arguments, precedents, and constitutional provisions are examined to address the challenges presented.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.