Summary: (a) Right to Education—Constitutional guarantee and enforceability through writ jurisdiction ––AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, Arts. 4(1), 4(23), 15, 44; Principles of Policy, Art. 3-A; Preamble; UDHR, Art. 26; UNCRC, Art. 28. The right to education is a constitutionally protected fundamental right under Art. 4(23) of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, obligating the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 5–16 years. Read with Art. 4(1) (security of person/right to life) and Art. 15 (equality of State subjects), this right extends to ensuring access to educational institutions at reasonable proximity. The State’s failure to provide such access, particularly in remote and vulnerable areas, constitutes denial of a fundamental right. The Court reaffirmed that “life” encompasses quality of life and includes access to education as a vital component of dignity and development. Reliance placed on Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1992 SC 1858) and Shela Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693). (b) Constitutional interpretation—Preamble and Principles of Policy as interpretive aids ––AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, Preamble; Art. 3-A. Although the Preamble and Principles of Policy are non-justiciable, they serve as interpretive aids to advance and energize fundamental rights. The concept of “better government” in the Preamble mandates the State to ensure administrative justice and equitable access to essential public services. The Court held that these provisions may be read harmoniously with enforceable rights when their realization directly impacts fundamental guarantees. (c) Fundamental rights—Progressive and purposive interpretation ––Living Constitution doctrine. Fundamental rights must be interpreted dynamically to reflect the evolving sensibilities of society. “Penumbra rights”—those implied and integral to the exercise of express rights—form part of constitutional protection. The Court invoked comparative jurisprudence from Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) and West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624 (1943)) to emphasize that rights such as education and human dignity transcend mere textual enumeration. (d) Executive responsibility—Administrative justice and control of discretion ––Doctrine of separation of powers; constitutional governance principles. While the executive possesses discretion in policy formulation, such discretion is bounded by constitutional duties and cannot be exercised to the detriment of guaranteed rights. The judgment traced the roots of administrative injustice to unbridled discretionary power, citing Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 473) and Muhammad Azhar Sadique v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 774), and reiterated that executive authority must function “in accordance with law” and remain accountable to the legislature and the people. (e) Security of person—Scope extended to access to education and public safety ––Art. 4(1), AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974. The right to “security of person” includes the right to live with dignity, to safety, and to access essential infrastructure such as education. The Court held that for citizens of conflict-prone, mountainous regions like District Neelum, ensuring safe and proximate educational access is inseparable from their constitutional right to life. The unsafe condition of a wooden bridge over River Neelum, which students must cross to attend schools in another village, illustrated an urgent deprivation of this right. (f) Judicial direction—Enforcement of right to education through affirmative action ––Scope of Art. 44, AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974. The High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 44, issued mandatory directions to the government to upgrade Government Girls Primary School Saonaar to Government Girls Middle School Saonaar, District Neelum, and to finalize the necessary administrative measures within a short span of time, ensuring fulfillment of the State’s constitutional obligations. Cited Cases: • Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858 • Shela Zia v. WAPDA, PLD 1994 SC 693 • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 • Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan, PLD 1993 SC 473 • Muhammad Azhar Sadique v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2012 SC 774 • West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) Disposition: Writ petition accepted. Respondents directed to upgrade Government Girls Primary School Saonaar to Girls Middle School Saonaar, District Neelum, and to complete requisite administrative formalities expeditiously in accordance with constitutional guarantees of the right to education and equality of State subjects. ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Ss. 154, 156(3), 157, 164 & 173 ---- Scope and legality of pre-FIR inquiry under Section 156(3) ---- Confessional statements recorded during unlawful inquiry ---- Admissibility and evidentiary value The Supreme Court held that the purported “inquiry” initiated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the registration of FIR was ultra vires the scheme of the Code. A Magistrate is not empowered under Section 156(3) to authorize an “inquiry”; such provision only permits ordering an investigation into a cognizable offence after registration under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The arrests, interrogations, and recovery of the body in the present case all occurred during an illegal “inquiry,” thereby circumventing mandatory safeguards under Sections 154–157 Cr.P.C. This violation undermined the voluntariness of the confessional statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which were made after prolonged police custody. The Court held that such confessions, recorded in the backdrop of procedural illegality and custodial pressure, could not be treated as voluntary. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 365-A, 302(b), 34 ---- Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ---- S. 7(a) ---- Kidnapping for ransom and murder of minor --- Conflicting confessional statements --- Benefit of doubt Appellants were convicted and sentenced to death for kidnapping and murder of a minor. The Court found that their confessional statements were mutually contradictory, exculpatory in parts, retracted later, and lacked corroboration. One accused attributed the crime to the other, and vice versa. In absence of independent evidence, such confessions could not sustain conviction. The DNA report was inconclusive; identification of the decomposed body was based merely on clothing. There was no proof of ransom demand, and the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses were inconsistent. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Appellants were acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) [Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984] ---- Art. 43 (now Art. 164), Art. 22 ---- Judicial confession --- Evidentiary threshold --- Principles reiterated A retracted judicial confession must be voluntary, truthful, and confidence-inspiring to be relied upon without corroboration. The Court reiterated that confessions must be read as a whole and cannot be accepted in parts. Where exculpatory elements exist and there is no independent corroboration, the confession loses its probative value. The delay in recording the confessions after prolonged custody also raised suspicion regarding their voluntariness. (d) Criminal justice system ---- Abuse of coercive powers by police ---- Misuse of ‘madd’ entry and unauthorized inquiries ---- Directions issued to ensure compliance with Cr.P.C. The Court noted with concern the practice in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of entering mere information as a ‘madd’ and then initiating inquiries under Section 156(3) without registering an FIR. It was emphasized that such unauthorized proceedings erode constitutional safeguards and result in miscarriage of justice. Directions were issued to the Prosecutor General and IGP to ensure strict adherence to the statutory framework under Cr.P.C. and to educate magistrates and police officers accordingly. Disposition: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside; appellants acquitted. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) • Mohammad Ramzan v. The State (PLJ 1979 SC 302) • Tariq Mehmood v. The State (2002 SCMR 1493) • Javed Iqbal v. The State (2023 SCMR 139) • Majeed v. The State (2010 SCMR 55) • Muhammad Parvez v. The State (2007 SCMR 670) • Indian cases: Gopal Das Sindhi, Suresh Chand Jain, Sakiri Vasu Cited Provisions: • Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A, 302(b), 34 • Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, S. 7(a) • Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Ss. 2(f), 2(k), 2(l), 154, 156(3), 157, 164, 173 • Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 22, 43 (now 164)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ----S. 13—Eviction petition—Landlord-tenant relationship—Proof of ownership and default—Petitioner/landlord sought eviction of his brother under oral tenancy—Eviction dismissed by Rent Controller and High Court relying on witness (petitioner’s mother) allegedly acting as landlady—Held, petitioner’s ownership was never disputed—Mother acted merely as agent collecting rent while petitioner resided abroad—Unrebutted testimonies of AW-1 to AW-3, due to respondent’s struck off right of cross-examination, clearly established tenancy and default—Finding of no landlord-tenant relationship by lower courts was a result of misreading evidence—Eviction rightly granted by appellate court. Cited Case: • Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236 (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ----Principles of cross-examination—Struck-off right—Effect—Respondent’s failure to cross-examine petitioner’s witnesses after right was struck off—Held, unrebutted evidence stands proved—Lower courts erred in giving weight to speculative interpretations of testimony without allowing challenge—Such uncontested deposition must be deemed established in law. (c) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 23 & 24—Right to property—Judicial delays and landlord’s rights—Held, prolonged litigation in landlord-tenant disputes undermines constitutionally protected property rights—Eviction petition filed in 2018 lingered until 2025—Summary nature of rent proceedings mandates expeditious disposal—Courts directed to ensure judicial economy to prevent erosion of ownership rights through systemic delay. **(d) Constitutional Law— ----Art. 10-A & Art. 37(d)—Expeditious justice—Need for judicial reform—Held, delay in rent adjudication reflects larger institutional inefficiencies—Court stressed need for systemic case management reforms, especially at district judiciary level—Artificial Intelligence (AI) integration proposed as a facilitative tool to enhance efficiency without compromising judicial discretion or fairness. (e) Artificial Intelligence in Judicial System ----Judicial innovation—Scope and boundaries—Court examined role of AI in case management, legal research, drafting, and decision-support—Held, AI must only serve as an assistive tool, not a substitute for human judicial reasoning—Use of platforms like Judge-GPT endorsed with caution and oversight—Judges must retain final responsibility, ensuring decisions remain human-centric and ethically sound. Cited Cases / Materials: • UNESCO Global Toolkit on AI and Rule of Law (2023) • Council of Europe Ethical Charter on AI in Judiciary (2018) • EU AI Act (2024) (f) Judicial Ethics and AI ----Judging with AI—Safeguards—Court warned against over-reliance on generative AI tools without verification—Cautioned against “automation bias,” hallucinated case citations, and opacity—Highlighted global guidelines (UK, Canada, Singapore) on ethical AI use in courts—Stressed continued need for human empathy, discretion, and legitimacy in adjudication. (g) Mediation and ADR in the Age of AI ----Human role in conflict resolution—Court recognized growing role of AI in automating legal processes but emphasized that mediation and ADR remain fundamentally human activities—Empathy, emotional intelligence, and trust-building are beyond current capabilities of AI—Recommended young lawyers focus on ADR to adapt to changing legal ecosystem. (h) Institutional Recommendations ----National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee—Directions—Court directed that guidelines be framed by the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee and the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan to regulate AI usage in judiciary—Guidelines must ensure AI remains subordinate to human adjudication and upholds public trust. ---- Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Impugned judgment of Lahore High Court set aside—Judgment of appellate court restored—Respondent No.1 directed to vacate the premises within two months—Court emphasized need for judicial reforms including controlled integration of AI and stronger institutional mechanisms for expeditious disposal of rent cases.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 79 Proof of execution of agreement to sell—Mandatory requirement—Petitioner, seeking specific performance of agreement to sell, failed to produce both attesting witnesses—Only one marginal witness of the agreement to sell dated 22.01.2013 (Exh.P-1) appeared; second attesting witness was not produced, and no compelling evidence was led to prove his unavailability—Scribe of the agreement was produced but could not qualify as an attesting witness as he had signed only in the capacity of a scriber (Wasiqa-Navees) and not as a marginal witness—Held, mandatory requirements of Art. 79 not complied with—Unattested documents or those not proved through attesting witnesses are inadmissible in evidence. Cited Cases: • Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din PLD 2011 SC 241 • Khudadad v. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah 2022 SCMR 933 (b) Specific Relief Act, 1877 ----S. 21(c), (g)—Specific performance—Uncertainty of subject matter and continuous duty Agreement to sell relating to unpartitioned land—Performance of contract contingent upon future partition of joint khata—Agreement lacked clarity in identification of suit property, making specific enforcement impossible under S.21(c) of the Act—Additionally, agreement placed continuous obligation on respondent dependent on indefinite future events (i.e., partition proceedings)—Held, agreement was not enforceable under S.21(g) as performance extended beyond three years—No decree for specific performance could be granted. Cited Cases: • Mian Muhammad Saleem v. Mst. Hameeda Begum 1987 SCMR 624 • Mst. Saeeda Akhtar v. Lal Din PLD 1981 Lahore 623 • Fida Hussain v. Jalal Khan 2002 CLC 1339 • Hameed Ullah v. Headmistress, Govt. Girls School 1997 SCMR 855 • Malik Tanveer Ali v. Sardar Ali Imam 2010 YLR 1799 (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 115—Revisional jurisdiction—Concurrent findings of fact and law Scope of interference under Section 115, CPC—Findings of fact by both courts below were concurrent and based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence—Petitioner failed to demonstrate misreading, non-reading, or any jurisdictional defect—Held, revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely to substitute findings of fact—Civil revision dismissed as being devoid of merit. Disposition: Petition dismissed. Decree for specific performance refused; relief granted by trial court regarding refund of earnest money upheld.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 302(b) Conviction for Qatl-i-Amd—Benefit of doubt—Prosecution case hinged on testimonies of related witnesses (father and cousin of deceased)—Witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence through a window after the door was bolted from inside—Site inspection and evidence of Investigating Officer contradicted prosecution version as the room had no door or cut lattices—Witness conduct deemed unnatural and contrary to human behaviour, indicating absence from the crime scene—No mention of their presence in written complaint—Medical evidence and motive found insufficient and contradictory—Held, presence of eye-witnesses at the scene not proved—Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Conviction set aside and accused acquitted. Cited Cases: • Zulfiqar Ali v. The State 2021 SCMR 1373 • Shahzad Tanveer v. The State 2012 SCMR 172 • Liaquat Ali v. The State 2008 SCMR 95 • Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 • Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 161 Delayed recording of statements—Statements of material witnesses recorded on the following day of the incident without plausible explanation—Held, delay diminished evidentiary value and raised suspicion—Statements inadmissible as reliable corroborative evidence. Cited Cases: • Abdul Khaliq v. The State 1996 SCMR 1553 • Muhammad Khan v. Maula Bakhsh 1998 SCMR 570 • Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah v. The State 1993 SCMR 550 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984)----Art. 129(g) Withholding of natural witnesses—Family members present in the house during occurrence not produced as witnesses—Held, adverse presumption to be drawn—Failure to produce the most natural witnesses implied their evidence would not have supported prosecution case. Cited Cases: • Shamshad v. The State 1999 SCMR 2844 • Lal Khan v. The State 1996 SCMR 1846 • Usman alias Kaloo v. The State 2017 SCMR 622 (d) Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)----S. 13 Recovery of pistol and scissor from the scene—No fingerprints or DNA analysis conducted—Ownership or use of weapon not linked to accused—Held, conviction under Arms Ordinance not sustainable. Cited Case: • Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 898 (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 325 [Omitted] Conviction under repealed section—No evidence on record supporting grievous injury charge—Held, section 325 omitted by Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2022—Conviction unsustainable. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 103 Recovery proceedings—Motorcycle allegedly recovered from accused—No independent witnesses from locality joined in recovery memo—Exclusive possession not proved—Motorcycle not produced in court—Held, recovery inadmissible and lacked evidentiary value. (g) Criminal trial—Prosecution’s burden of proof—Exculpatory plea by accused Accused claimed he found his wife injured and self-inflicted injuries due to shock—Investigating Officer corroborated this version—Held, burden of proof remained on prosecution; plea not required to be proved—Even if plea disbelieved, accused entitled to acquittal if prosecution fails to prove its case independently. Cited Case: • Azhar Iqbal v. The State 2013 SCMR 383 (h) Medical Evidence—Scope Medical evidence confirmed firearm injuries but did not identify assailant—Held, medical evidence corroborative in nature, not sufficient alone to prove guilt in absence of reliable ocular or circumstantial evidence. Cited Cases: • Hashim Qasim v. The State 2017 SCMR 986 • Naveed Asghar v. The State PLD 2021 SC 600 (i) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 10-A, Right to fair trial Standard of criminal justice—Accused entitled to benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not concession—Prosecution case replete with contradictions and falsehood—Benefit of doubt extended and death sentence not confirmed. Cited Case: • Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State PLD 2019 SC 64 Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 105-J of 2023 was allowed; conviction and sentence set aside. Accused Saadat Hussain acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. Murder Reference No. 07 of 2023 answered in the negative; death sentence not confirmed.

Summary: (a) Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1991 ----S. 13---Talbs---Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad---Mandatory conditions---Right of pre-emption is strictissimi juris and must be exercised in strict compliance with statutory requirements---Plaintiff claimed superior right of pre-emption over land purchased by defendants via Mutation No.1333 dated 24.04.2007---Trial Court dismissed suit for failure to establish timely and lawful performance of Talbs; Appellate Court reversed findings and decreed suit---Held, Appellate Court erred in overlooking fatal legal defects in performance of both Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad---Plaintiff failed to prove that immediate demand (Talb-i-Muwathibat) was made on gaining knowledge of sale, as cross-examination revealed awareness only after suit filing---Possession was transferred at the time of sale, constituting public notice---No urgency or jumping demand made thereafter---Delay in making first demand was fatal to claim. Cited Cases: • Kashmali Khan v. Mst. Malala (2023 SCMR 1176) • Sher Ayaz Khan alias Sheraz Khan v. Gul Najeeb Khan (2025 SCMR 380) • Arshad Iqbal v. Muhammad Hayat (2017 YLR 2358) (b) Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1991 ----S. 13(3)---Talb-i-Ishhad---Requirement to mention date and names of witnesses in plaint---Plaintiff must specifically plead and prove second demand within prescribed period with witness attestation---Held, plaint failed to disclose exact date of Talb-i-Ishhad or names of attesting witnesses---Notices claimed to be hand-written and originals not produced---Postman (PW-1) failed to confirm delivery to all defendants, including minors; no acknowledgment of refusal or endorsement on record---These omissions rendered Talb-i-Ishhad legally deficient and unproven. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Akram (2024 SCMR 692) • Ghafoor Khan v. Israr Ahmed (2011 SCMR 1545) • Mian Pir Muhammad v. Faqir Muhammad (PLD 2007 SC 302) • Mir Muhammad Khan v. Haider (PLD 2020 SC 233) • Khan Afsar v. Afsar Khan (2015 SCMR 311) • Munawar Hussain v. Afaq Ahmed (2013 SCMR 721) (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S. 115---Revision---Interference with appellate judgment reversing fact-based dismissal by Trial Court---Scope---Appellate Court failed to appreciate clear legal deficiencies in proof of Talbs---Held, revisional interference warranted where essential legal formalities of pre-emption were disregarded, leading to erroneous decree in favour of plaintiff---Impugned appellate judgment set aside, and suit for pre-emption dismissed. Disposition: Civil Revision allowed---Appellate Court’s judgment set aside---Trial Court’s dismissal of pre-emption suit restored---No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940): ----Ss. 16, 30 & 33---Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908), S. 151---Remission and setting aside of arbitration award---Scope---Variation in contract invoking additional compensation---Appellant [National Highway Authority] awarded construction contract to Respondent No.1 [M/s Husnain Cotex Limited] and later required early completion of part of the project, resulting in increased cost and revised work methodology---Sole Arbitrator held such instructions amounted to a variation under Sub-clause 51.1(f) of the Conditions of Contract, entitling the contractor to compensation under Cl. 52.1---Trial Court dismissed application filed under Ss. 16 & 151, C.P.C., seeking remission or setting aside of award---Contention that Arbitrator failed to distribute burden of proof or decided issues extraneously, found unsubstantiated---Award was based on mutual consent regarding evidence recording and relied on documents placed on record---High Court held that no error on the face of the Award or misconduct was established---Arbitrator is final authority on facts and law, and courts cannot function as appellate authority in arbitration matters unless the award is invalid under S. 30---Discretion exercised by Arbitrator cannot be interfered with merely due to difference in interpretation or reasoning. ----Cited Cases: • Shahin Shah v. Govt. of KPK, 2022 SCMR 1810 • Gerry’s Intl. v. Aeroflot, 2018 SCMR 662 • A. Qutubuddin Khan v. Chec Millwala Dredgging Co., 2014 SCMR 1268 • Federation v. JV Knocks K.G/RIST, PLD 2011 SC 506 • Mian Corporation v. Lever Brothers, PLD 2006 SC 169 • Pakistan Steel Mills v. Mustafa Sons, PLD 2003 SC 301 • JV K.G/RIST v. Federation, PLD 1996 SC 108 • NHA v. Lilley Intl., 2020 CLC 608 Islamabad • Sh. Muhammad Saleem v. Saadat Enterprises, 2009 CLD 390 LHR (b) Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940): ----S. 30---Judicial interference in arbitration proceedings---Scope---Parties bound by selected forum---Where parties voluntarily incorporate arbitration clause, Court’s interference is limited to grounds provided in S.30---High Court emphasized that objections raised after consent to Arbitrator’s procedural decisions could not be termed misconduct---Courts not to disturb factual or legal findings of Arbitrator absent jurisdictional error or fraud---Objections based on non-reading, misreading or "perverse verdict" must reflect a manifest error on face of award to justify intervention---No such grounds established in present case. (c) Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940): ----S. 16---Remission of award---Grounds---Award found to be neither indefinite nor incapable of execution---Objections were vague, not meeting threshold for remission under S.16---Court declined to remit matter for fresh arbitration as no error of jurisdiction or unresolved material issues were demonstrated. (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908): ----Art. 158---Objections to arbitration award---Limitation period---Award dated 10.04.2010---No application filed within 30 days of notice of filing award in court---No application for condonation of delay filed---Objection held time-barred---Court relied on precedents to hold that condonation requires specific justification for each day of delay---Purpose of arbitration frustrated where party refuses to honor agreed dispute resolution mechanism. ----Cited Cases: • Airports Development Agency Ltd. v. M.Y Corporation, PLD 2001 Kar 158 • Shahin Shah v. Govt. of KPK, 2022 SCMR 1810 • LDA v. Khalid Javed Co., 1983 SCMR 718 ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed---Findings of Sole Arbitrator upheld---No illegality or jurisdictional error found in the impugned Order and Decree.

Summary: Held: An FIA-registered case cannot be clubbed with a local police investigation as a cross-version due to jurisdictional differences. The Court held that the private respondents may seek remedy through a private complaint. (Writ petition was allowed and the impugned order of the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace was set aside).