Summary: ''Article 175(2) of the Constitution stipulates that jurisdiction of courts can be conferred either by the Constitution or law. Intra-court appeal is a statutory remedy, and does not take away the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In appropriate cases the Supreme Court will not insist to first avail an intra court appeal. The National Police Foundation would in certain cases be amenable to High Court?s jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. More than a single plot cannot be allotted to an individual. Parks and green areas cannot be converted to residential use, nor can be alloted.'' --- Background:The appeals were filed against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Lahore, which non-seated Muhammad Ashraf Warraich (Returned Candidate) from Constituency PP-97, Gujranwala, and directed the Election Commission of Pakistan to hold bye-elections in 33 polling stations of the constituency.---Issues:The validity of the Election Tribunal's decision to non-seat the Returned Candidate based on irregularities in 33 polling stations.The appellant Muhammad Nasir Cheema's (Election Petitioner) request to be declared the elected member from the constituency.---Judgment:The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the Election Tribunal's decision to non-seat the Returned Candidate due to discrepancies and irregularities found in the election process of the 33 contested polling stations.---Reasoning:The Court found that the credibility, legality, and transparency of the election in the 33 challenged polling stations were compromised, with significant discrepancies in vote counts and missing votes, affecting the overall election result in the constituency.The Election Tribunal was justified in declaring the election of the Returned Candidate void based on the evidence of misconduct and irregularities by the election staff in the 33 polling stations.The request of Muhammad Nasir Cheema (Election Petitioner) to be declared the elected member was denied as the Tribunal could not conclusively determine that he had secured the highest number of valid votes.----Conclusion:The Supreme Court confirmed the Election Tribunal's decision to declare the election of the Returned Candidate void and dismissed the request of the Election Petitioner to be declared the winner, due to the inability to ascertain the true will of the electorate in the 33 contested polling stations. Both Civil Appeals No.1169 & 1192 of 2014 were dismissed, affirming the need for bye-elections in the affected polling stations.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 218(3), 219, 220 & 224 Caretaker Government—Scope of powers—Impugned notification suspending creation of a new district—Whether within the authority of the Caretaker Cabinet—Held, that the Caretaker Government was established under Article 224 of the Constitution and was bound by statutory limitations under Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017—Caretaker Government’s role is restricted to routine, non-controversial, and urgent matters necessary to assist in the conduct of free and fair elections—Suspending a notification issued by an elected government creating a new district constituted a major policy decision, which was beyond the powers of the Caretaker Government—Such action also had the potential to influence elections and was contrary to the mandate of neutrality required of a Caretaker Government—Impugned notification was ultra vires and set aside accordingly. (b) Elections Act, 2017: ----S. 230—Functions of the Caretaker Government—Interpretation—Limits on decision-making powers—Caretaker Government cannot take major policy decisions, except in urgent matters—It must avoid actions that may pre-empt the authority of an elected government or influence elections—Any action taken beyond these limits is unconstitutional—Impugned notification, by suspending the creation of a new district, did not fall within routine administrative tasks and was thus beyond the competence of the Caretaker Government. (c) Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP): ----Duties under Arts. 218(3), 219 & 220 of the Constitution—Overarching supervisory role over the Caretaker Government—Held, that ECP is constitutionally bound to ensure elections are conducted fairly and justly—ECP must proactively supervise Caretaker Government actions to prevent any transgressions of powers—It has the authority to intervene when a Caretaker Government takes decisions that exceed its lawful mandate—Court observed that increasing instances of Caretaker Government overreach necessitate stricter oversight by ECP to prevent unconstitutional actions affecting electoral integrity. ----Disposition: Petitions allowed—Impugned notification dated 15.02.2023 set aside.

Summary: The delegated legislation can be declared as illegal only where if it is established that it is repugnant to any settled and well established principle of statue or result of excessive delegation, however, it cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it is malafide or unreasonable and that there are strong presumptions that it can be misused. Reference can be made to the cases titled, Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Limited Vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat, Islamabad and others (2015 SCMR 630), Suo Motu Case No.11 of 2011 (PLD 2014 SC 389), Jameel Sweets Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (2020 PTD 752)

Summary: Background: Petitioners, who are advocates and members of the Central Bar Association, Muzaffarabad, filed this writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974. They sought a declaration that the delays in convening a session to elect a new Prime Minister were illegal and unconstitutional. The office of the Prime Minister had been vacant since April 11, 2023, following the denotification of the previous Prime Minister by the Election Commission of AJ&K. ----Issues: 1- Whether the delays in the session to elect a new Prime Minister were illegal and unconstitutional. 2- Whether the petitioners, as advocates and citizens, have the standing to challenge the delay in the election of the Prime Minister. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Article 17(2) of the Constitution: The court noted that the language of Article 17(2) is clear, requiring the Assembly to elect a new Prime Minister forthwith if the office becomes vacant while the Assembly is in session. --Standing of Petitioners: The court held that the petitioners, being advocates and members of the public, did not qualify as "aggrieved persons" in the context of the specific constitutional provisions. The petitioners did not have a direct and personal interest in the election of the Prime Minister. --Judicial Review of Assembly Proceedings: The court emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers and parliamentary privilege, which restricts judicial intervention in the internal proceedings of the Assembly. The validity of Assembly proceedings cannot be questioned in any court unless there is a clear violation of constitutional provisions. --Pro Bono Publico and Public Interest Litigation: The court recognized the importance of public interest litigation but clarified that such litigation must be based on genuine public interest and not on abstract or hypothetical grievances. The petitioners must demonstrate a direct and personal stake in the outcome. --Dismissal of the Petition: The court concluded that the petitioners had not satisfied the requirements for invoking the court's constitutional jurisdiction. The internal matters of the Assembly, including the election of the Prime Minister, should be resolved within the legislative framework and not through judicial intervention. ----Citations/Precedents: Fazal Mahmood Baig vs. The University of AJ&K and 11 others [2017 SCR 1380] Raja Iqbal Rashid Minhas vs. AJ&K Council and 3 others [2001 SCR 530] Ghiasul Haq v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir [PLD 1980 SC (AJ&K) 5] Azad Government v. Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan [2020 SCR 591] Jammu & Kashmir Tehrik Ammal Party v. Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir [PLD 1985 AJ&K 95] State v. Zia-ur-Rehman [PLD 1973 SC 49] Jackson v. Attorney General [(2005) UKHL 56] Mrs. Shahida Zahir Abbasi vs. President of Pakistan [PLD 1996 SC 632] Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan [PLD 1970 SC 98] District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2015 SC 401] Dr. Mobashir Hassan vs. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2010 SC 265] The writ petition was dismissed in limine as not maintainable. The court reiterated the principles of separation of powers and the limited scope of judicial review over the internal proceedings of the Assembly.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, seeking relief against the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Mirpur and the Civil Judge/Magistrate 1st Class Court No.II, Mirpur. An FIR was lodged against the respondents (accused) under Sections 489-F, 419/420 APC. The police submitted a challan to the trial court on April 16, 2011. While the case was at the stage of recording evidence, the accused filed an application under Section 249-A of Cr.P.C., which was allowed, resulting in their acquittal on July 27, 2016. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur, on October 10, 2016, which was dismissed on September 11, 2017. ----Issues: 1- Whether a revision petition was competent before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur, against the acquittal order of the Civil Judge/Magistrate 1st Class Court No.II, Mirpur. 2- Whether the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur, committed any illegality in dismissing the revision petition. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the revision petition filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur, was incompetent because an appeal, not a revision, was the appropriate legal remedy. Under Section 439 (5) of the Cr.P.C., where an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. The petitioner should have filed an appeal against the acquittal order instead of a revision petition. The Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur, correctly dismissed the revision petition as incompetent, adhering to the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the legal precedents. No violation of rules or departure from the law was pointed out by the petitioner's counsel during the course of arguments, and therefore, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked. ----Citations/Precedents: Relevant Provision: Section 439 (5) of the Cr.P.C. Case Law References: The judgment does not specifically cite other case laws but refers to the dictum laid down by superior courts regarding the competence of revision petitions and appeals.

Summary: Facts:Officials from a local police station conducted a raid on a residence, detaining two individuals under a public order ordinance without a prior detention order from the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner, related to one of the detained individuals, filed a legal petition which was dismissed due to the detention being sanctioned under public order laws. Several legal challenges were filed, contesting the legality of the detentions and seeking improved detention conditions and medical examination for one of the detained individuals.----Issue:The legality of the arrest and detention of the individuals without a valid detention order.The entitlement of one detained individual to improved detention conditions and medical examination.----Holding:The court found the arrest and subsequent detention of the individuals without a valid order to be unlawful and void.The detention orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner were deemed arbitrary, an excessive use of lawful authority, and thus unlawful.One of the detained individuals was deemed to have been arrested in criminal cases registered against them, and the investigating officer was directed to produce them before the competent magistrate.The Deputy Commissioner was directed to classify the status and class entitlement of detainees in all future detention orders.A personal item taken into possession during the raid was ordered to be returned to the representative of one of the detained individuals immediately.The conduct of the Deputy Commissioner and the Incharge Police Station was deprecated for the arbitrary exercise of authority.A criminal original petition was disposed of, with provisions for revival if one of the detained individuals was not produced before the court as directed.----Rationale:The court determined that the arrest and subsequent detention under the public order ordinance without a valid order from the Deputy Commissioner violated lawful procedures. The judgment emphasized the need for state power to be exercised within legal boundaries, particularly in matters affecting individual freedoms.

Summary: Background A writ petition was filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974. The petitioners sought relief by requesting the court to set aside an impugned order/judgment and a notification, and to reschedule the bye-election of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly in LA-15 Bagh-II until pending writ petitions and the legal status of political parties were resolved. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners qualify as "persons aggrieved" entitled to file the writ petition. 2- Whether the ongoing cases regarding the registration of political parties should halt the bye-election. 3- Whether the party ticket issued by an allegedly unauthorized person affects the bye-election. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the petitioners were not "persons aggrieved" as they had no direct concern with the disputed election, thus lacking locus standi to file the writ petition. The court emphasized that judicial redress is available only to those who have suffered a legal grievance or injury. The petitioners' points regarding the pending registration cases and the party ticket issued were also dismissed. The court concluded that the writ petition would be a futile exercise and dismissed it in limine. ----Citations/Precedents: Raja Tahir Majeed Khan and 7 others Vs. Azad Govt. and 06 others [2014 SCR 272] Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights through Secretary, Rawalpindi & another Vs. Secretary Azad Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly Muzaffarabad and 4 others [1994 CLC 1108] Fazal Mehmood Baig, Advocate Vs. The University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and others [2017 SCR 1380] Javed Ibrahim Paracha Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others [PLJ 2004 SC 824] Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Akram Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others [1998 SCMR 2073] Ghiasul Haq and others Vs. Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir etc. [PLD 1980 SC AJ&K 5] Farooq Ahmed Butt Vs Azad Govt. through Board of Revenue Azad Kashmir and 8 others [2022 MLD 480] Waqar Alam V. District Coordination Officer/Chairman and 3 others [2005 YLR 1742] Hussain Bakhsh case [PLD 1970 SC 1] Anjuman Araian Bhera Vs. Abdul Rashid and 5 others [PLD 1973 Lahore 500]

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a student from Shaheen Children Academy & College of Sciences, District Karak, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The petition was filed because the Board had designated Government Higher Secondary School Jandari Karak as the examination center for his forthcoming exams, instead of his own college, despite an application from the petitioner's father citing safety concerns due to a personal dispute in the Jandari area. ----Issues: 1- Change of Examination Center: Whether the petitioner's request to change the examination center due to personal safety concerns should be granted. 2- Regulatory Compliance: Whether the Board's decision to designate Government Higher Secondary School Jandari Karak as the examination center was in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome ---Change of Examination Center: The court noted that the petitioner's request was not merely for changing the examination center but effectively for constituting his college as a new examination center, which is governed by different rules. The relevant rules provide discretion to the Controller of Examinations, with the approval of the Chairman, to allow changes of examination centers in exceptional cases. However, the petitioner's application did not follow the prescribed procedure, and the petition was filed on plain paper instead of the required form. The court emphasized that the internal governance and decisions of educational institutions should not be interfered with unless they infringe on fundamental rights. The decision of the Board to designate Government Higher Secondary School Jandari Karak as the examination center was made to ensure transparency in conducting exams. ---Regulatory Compliance: The court reviewed the relevant rules, which included provisions for changing examination centers under certain conditions, such as transfer, change of business location, or health issues. The petitioner's case did not meet these criteria. The court highlighted that the suitability of a place for constituting an examination center is a matter for the Board to decide, and the court would not substitute its judgment for that of the Board. The petitioner's application also did not comply with the fee requirement and other procedural necessities outlined in the rules. The court dismissed the petition in limine, stating that the petition lacked merit and did not demonstrate any mala fides on the part of the respondents. The petitioner's request to change the examination center to his own college was not supported by the rules and procedures governing such changes. The court upheld the Board's decision to designate Government Higher Secondary School Jandari Karak as the examination center. -----Citations/Precedents: Khyber Medical University and others vs. Aimal Khan and others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 92) This precedent emphasizes the importance of non-interference by courts in the internal governance of educational institutions, highlighting that academic freedom and institutional autonomy should be protected unless there is a violation of fundamental rights or law.

Summary: It is now firmly established that an ouster clause, however, widely worded and whether it occurs in a constitution or in an ordinary Statute, does not save an act or order without jurisdiction (which expression compendiously describes and includes acts and orders coram-non-judice and malafide)The interpretation of bar of jurisdiction under Article 245(3) of the Constitution came up before the Apex Court, Sindh High Court and Lahore High Court in the cases of Sh. Liaquat Hussain and others vs. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others (PLD 1999 Supreme Court 504), Niaz Ahmed Khan vs. Province ofSind and others (PLD 1977 Karachi 604) and Darwesh M. Arbey, Advocate vs. Federation of Pakistan through the LawSecretary and 2 others (PLD 1980 Lahore 206). It would beimportant to note that in all these cases, it was not a simple matter of interpretation of Article 245 of the constitution but in all the three cases, the Armed Forces were directed by the Federal Government to act in aid of civil power when there were extra ordinary circumstances; for example, at the time of insertion of the clause, there was an emergency in the country as contemplated under Articles 232 and 233 of the Constitution. In the said dispensation, Articles 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 fell under eclipse as far as the exercise of executive authority by the executive limb of the State and the power of legislation to legislate law for the particular purpose. In Niaz Ahmed Khans case Mr. Justice Abdul Kadir Shaikh, the Chief Justice of Sindh High Court explained the parameter of powers by the Armed Forces under Article 245 and observed that an embargo has been placed by the Constitution under Article 245 by word subject to law, this excludes any scope of an invasion by the Armed Forces which may amount to transgression of law and therefore, no act on the part of the Armed Forces would be justified in the garb of aid to civil power unless it is shown to be under the law.From the survey of the aforesaid case-law, we would deduce the following guidelines while invoking constitutional jurisdiction even in the matter when there is absolute bar either statutory or constitutional to assume jurisdiction.(i)That, inter alia, independence of judiciary is one of the basic structure and salient feature of the Constitution; thus, it is vested with jurisdiction to examine even the vires of any constitutional amendment so as to determine whether any of the salient feature of the Constitution has been repealed, abrogated or substantively altered as a consequence thereof. District Bar Association, Rawalpindi vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 401).(ii)In cases where there is bar of jurisdiction of the High Court, either provided under the Constitution or through any Statute, the High Court still has the jurisdiction to examine the act of any authority, officer or government under its inherent power of judicial review so as to see whether the impugned action is in accordance with law whether jurisdiction exercised is not in excess of jurisdiction vested in an authority and whether there is no element of malafide.The pre-requisite condition i.e. satisfaction before issuing a detention order by the Government or a person exercising the delegated powers stressed that the satisfaction should not be whimsical but the same should be based on some evidence on record justifying the detention order.

Summary: Background The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, seeking relief against the misuse of government vehicles by officials. The petitioner highlighted that the misuse of these vehicles violated the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government Vehicles (Use and Maintenance) Rules, 1977, and was a financial burden on the state, which relies on the Government of Pakistan for financial support. ----Issues: 1- Whether the government officials were misusing government vehicles in violation of the relevant rules. 2- Whether the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government Vehicles Rules, 1977, should be amended or strictly enforced to prevent misuse. 3- Whether the government should implement additional measures to ensure proper use and accountability of government vehicles. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the misuse of government vehicles by officials was indeed taking place and that the relevant rules were not being adhered to. The court directed the respondents to take several actions to address the misuse of government vehicles: Stop the misuse of government vehicles and take strict measures against violators. Allot government vehicles to officials only under the rules. Restrain from purchasing costly vehicles for personal enjoyment, wasting the state’s money. Amend Section 8(3) of the 1977 Rules, which allows officials to use government vehicles for private purposes on payment of one rupee per mile. Install trackers in government vehicles. Change the color of government vehicles to be unique, similar to army vehicles. Ensure that all government vehicles are parked in government garages after duty hours. Only allow government-appointed drivers to drive government vehicles. Instruct the traffic police and every police station to register FIRs against officers misusing government vehicles. Take action against officers misusing government vehicles under the AJ&K Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977. The court set aside the corrigendum dated 12.01.2023, issued during the pendency of the writ petition. The court also directed the official respondents to issue a policy notification based on the minutes and recommendations of the committee meeting dated 27.03.2023. Additionally, the court ordered the collection of all vehicles still in use by officers of federal services who have been transferred back to their parental organizations. ----Citations/Precedents: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government Vehicles (Use and Maintenance) Rules, 1977 AJ&K Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977