"PETITIONER" · 총 29건
필터 보기현재 지수
50.3
0 = 부정 우세
50 = 중립
100 = 긍정 우세
최근 7일 기준 76,293건을 분석한 결과, 뉴스 심리지수는 50.2(균형)입니다. 긍정 3,927건(5.1%)·중립 70,451건(92.3%)·부정 1,915건(2.5%)이며, 중립 비중이 뚜렷하게 높습니다. 성향 지수는 종합 15.3(중도 균형)입니다.
Petitioner Joseph Enock Aura claims a fair hearing was denied in Rigathi Gachagua's impeachment case. Aura raises serious constitutional concerns.
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has set aside the government’s decision to deny foreign postings to several selected Trade and Investment Officers, ruling that executive authorities cannot deprive individuals of accrued rights on the basis of undisclosed intelligence reports that are neither shared with the affected persons nor produced before the court. In a detailed 26-page judgement, Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas declared unlawful the Ministry of Commerce’s decision to withhold the appointments of successful candidates solely on the basis of adverse assessments attributed to the Intelligence Bureau (IB). The petitioners were represented by advocates Kashif Ali Malik, Barrister M. Saad Buttar, and Syed Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi, who argued that the government could not reverse a completed merit-based selection process through secret vetting reports that were never disclosed to the candidates. They maintained that the petitioners had acquired vested rights after obtaining approval from the competent authority and completing all mandatory requirements for foreign postings. Selected candidates had completed tests, interviews, training, pre-departure formalities The dispute arose from the recruitment process for Trade and Investment Officers for Pakistan’s trade missions abroad, initiated in December 2024. According to the record, the candidates successfully cleared written examinations, psychometric assessments, and interviews. They received approval from the prime minister, completed mandatory training, and fulfilled all pre-departure formalities. Despite completing every stage of the process, several officers were denied final appointment letters after being declared “not suitable for posting abroad” by a special vetting agency. The court observed that the commerce ministry itself was unaware of the reasons behind the adverse recommendations and had acted merely on a bare conclusion communicated by the IB. Published in Dawn, June 6th, 2026
The petitioner, in his plea, sought deployment of "immediate preventive, regulatory, and crowd-control measures" at the IGI Airport, metro stations, and highway entry points
'So dito, sa prayer lang po natin dito, ina-ask ko lang po 'yong Supreme Court kung valid ba 'yong quorum o hindi,' petitioner John Barry Tayam says
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Thursday emphasised that appointments to important public offices must demonstrably conform to constitutional standards of fairness, transparency, institutional integrity and merit-based governance. “Public authority cannot be exercised on undisclosed considerations, nor can structured procedures be reduced to empty formalities,” observed Justice Rozi Khan Barrech in a judgement he authored. Justice Barrech was a member of a three-judge FCC bench, headed by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, while hearing an appeal filed by Sifatullah Khan against a March 5, 2026, Peshawar High Court (PHC) order setting aside his appointment as chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE), Bannu, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The FCC observed that the legitimacy of public administration depended not merely on the existence of power, but on the disciplined and transparent exercise of that power in accordance with the law. Court upholds PHC ruling setting aside appointment of BISE Bannu chairman It upheld the PHC order, stating that it did not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity warranting interference by the FCC. The petitioner had challenged the PHC verdict that not only set aside his May 13, 2025, appointment notification but also directed the controlling authority to entrust the duties of chairman to another suitable person within three months. When the post of BISE Bannu chairman fell vacant, applications were invited from eligible candidates. Through a notification dated Feb 2, 2021, the controlling authority constituted a search and scrutiny committee to interview shortlisted candidates for the post. Under its terms of reference (ToRs), the committee was mandated to evaluate and interview shortlisted candidates and recommend a panel of three officers for each post for approval by the KP chief minister. The committee conducted interviews on Sept 26, 2024. Later, the committee recommended three names, but dropped that of the petitioner. The recommendations were forwarded through various secretaries and later placed before the KP chief minister for approval. The controversy arose when a revised summary was prepared, placing the petitioner’s name at serial number four. He was subsequently appointed on deputation for three years through a notification dated Sept 13, 2025, ignoring the committee’s recommendations entirely. ‘Doctrine of pleasure’ In his judgement, Justice Barrech observed that the “doctrine of pleasure, or the existence of administrative discretion, cannot be invoked to legitimise a process which, on its face, departs from the very mechanism devised by the executive itself”. The FCC observed that administrative decisions affecting public appointments must disclose the basis for any departure from the prescribed procedure. It added that silence on the record in this regard was fatal to the validity of such action. “The doctrine of pleasure, in its constitutional and administrative sense, does not confer an unfettered licence upon the executive to act in disregard of self-imposed procedural discipline,” the judgement held. It added that while the executive might, subject to law, appoint and remove public functionaries, the exercise of such power remained subject to the rule of law and the constitutional obligation to act fairly and rationally. Published in Dawn, June 5th, 2026
Hearing of Rigathi Gachagua's impeachment case postponed, as petitioner Enock Aura questions the judiciary's transparency and legality amidst political tensions.
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Thursday ruled that directions to the high courts for expeditious decisions in pending matters by superior courts should be issued sparingly and couched in appropriate words. The judgement comes against the backdrop of a recent petition by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) before the Supreme Court challenging its May 12, 2026 direction to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) for deciding in two weeks the sentence suspension pleas of human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case. The NCCIA had also requested the SC to recall and withdraw that order to help preserve the “sanctity and independence of the judiciary, maintaining equality among citizens and avoiding discrimination”. According to a three-page order by Justice Aamer Farooq, issued in deciding a dispute between the Gujranwala Electric Power Company (Gepco) and Master Tiles and Ceramics Industries Ltd, it was held that high courts have their independent roster and case management schemes along with a policy for fixation of cases. It said that any order or direction, which superimposes case fixation, amounts to intrusion in the judicial and administrative independence of high court. The petitioner, Gepco, had challenged the July 10, 2025 order of the IHC before FCC, contending that the Attorney General Office was not competent to give consent on behalf of the petitioner in the proceedings before IHC, as the power company was an independent entity to be represented in the court of law by the counsel of its own choice. On the other hand, Master Tiles and Ceramics, the respondents, had argued that it was not their fault that the consent was given by the Attorney General Office; however, it submitted that if the FCC was inclined to remit the matter back to the IHC, an appropriate direction for expeditious disposal of the case should also be made. Justice Farooq, who headed the two-judge FCC bench along with Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, however, set aside the IHC order with directions that the writ petitions filed by Master Tiles will be deemed to be pending before the IHC. It is expected that the case shall be taken up at the earliest, keeping in view the urgency involved in the matter, the FCC said. In the judgement, Justice Farooq held that the scheme of judicature as provided in the Constitution suggested that there were five independent high courts in the country created under the Constitution. “The high court, so created, is an independent constitutional court and is not subordinate to either the SC or FCC; however, in the scheme of arrangement, district judiciary and such other courts are subordinate to the respective high court as per Article 203 of the Constitution,” it said. All decisions of the high court are challengeable before the SC or the FCC, which does not make the referred court subordinate in any manner, he observed. Justice Farooq emphasised that adding any order or direction, which superimposes such policy or case fixation, amounts to intrusion in the judicial and administrative independence of such courts. Undoubtedly, at times, exigency or emergency of the lis demands that on remission, the matter be heard by the respective high court at an early date, but such observations must be couched in appropriate words and should not be in a way to affect independence of the high court, observed Justice Farooq. Even otherwise, generally directions issued are administrative in nature rather than judicial, where even a high court issues directions to the trial courts/subordinate courts, the same are administrative in nature and do not warrant any consequence but are recommendatory, asking the courts to take up the matter in priority keeping in view the urgent nature of the case/lis, Justice Farooq explained. Justice Farooq observed that the FCC agreed that the assistant attorney general, in the facts and circumstances, was not competent to give consent on behalf of the petitioner company regarding disposal of the writ petition pending before the IHC. The order stated that requests for the issuance of directions to the high courts for early disposal of cases were being made with considerable frequency, and such orders were passed by the superior courts issuing directions for early decisions.
ISLAMABAD: Days before the announcement of the budget, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has affirmed that poultry feed manufacturers and poultry farmers were not liable to pay additional tax under Section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. A two-judge FCC bench, headed by Justice Aamer Farooq and also including Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, set aside a Dec 24, 2025, Lahore High Court (LHC) judgement and ruled that imposing a 4 per cent tax on supplies made to non-registered entities would be unjust and against the sales tax regime. The bench had taken up a set of appeals moved by Shahzor Feeds (Pvt) Ltd, Lahore Feeds Ltd and S.S. Feed Mills Pvt Ltd. The petitioners were aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner (Inland) Revenue, LTU, Lahore, issued on Sept 11, 2024, whereby it was held that manufacturers of poultry feed supplying products to farmers were liable to pay an additional tax under section 3(1A) of the 1990 Sales Tax Act since recipients of the supply were not registered. Court overturns LHC ruling that manufacturers must pay 4pc tax on sales to unregistered entities For redress of the grievance, the petitioners approached the Lahore High Court, which dismissed their appeal. Advocate Saad Mumtaz Hashmi, who represented the petitioners at the FCC, contended that his clients fell into two categories: (i) manufacturer of poultry feed and (ii) poultry farmers. Saad Hashmi contended the latter category was exempted from payment of tax under ITO by virtue of section 13, read with Serial Nos 40 and 48 in Table-II of the Sixth Schedule to the act. It is an admitted position, the FCC said, that poultry industry has not been exempted from payment of additional tax by the federal government, though the court was informed that different notifications have been issued by the government from time to time. Since a plain reading of Section 3(1A) of ITO was leading to an anomaly, the judgement said, the court decided to look into the mischief that was sought to be cured by the legislature to encourage and promote registration with the sales tax authority to become active taxpayers. The law does not require the exempted person from registration of the sales tax. Therefore, the petitioners who are poultry farmers, are not required to be registered, but to make poultry feed manufacturers liable to payment of further tax (which eventually would be passed to poultry farmers), would not only be unjust but also against the system of payment of sales tax under the Act. Synchronising the provisions including sections 3(1A), 13, 14 and 2(41) of ITO, it would only be fair to come to the conclusion that in the present case, poultry farmers are exempted from payment of sale tax on account of exemption under the law. They are not required to be registered, the judgement said. “Since the requirement of non-registration is mandated by law (section 14 of the Act), no penal consequences would fall upon either of the categories of petitioners before us by way of payment of additional tax.” Precedent In somewhat similar circumstances, the FCC recalled, the LHC had ruled in favour of taxpayers in 2021. The LHC determined that Muhammad Arif Ice Factory was not liable to pay a further tax under section 3(1A) since they were ice manufacturers. Later the Supreme Court had upheld the judgement, the FCC bench said. “In view of above position of law, the judgement impugned before us is not sustainable as it does not reflect the correct interpretation of law and the High Court erred in upholding the order passed by the tax authorities,” the FCC observed. The FCC allowed the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the tax authorities. Published in Dawn, June 3rd, 2026
The Supreme Court has formed a five-member high-powered committee to redefine the 'Aravali hills and ranges', dropping the controversial 100m height criterion. This committee will assess the ecological impact of regulated mining and identify areas excluded from protection, aiming to prevent further degradation of the ancient mountain ranges.
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that a father cannot escape his continuing legal, moral and religious obligation to maintain his minor child through a private settlement, holding that a minor’s right to maintenance cannot be permanently waived or extinguished. Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani dismissed a petition filed by Akhtar Hussain Awan against concurrent judgements of family and appellate courts. Those earlier judgements allowed a maintenance claim filed by a minor, Naseer Akhtar Awan, through his mother, Sadia Awan. The petitioner argued that an earlier maintenance suit was settled through a 2007 compromise, under which Rs60,000 was paid and parties agreed not to raise future claims. He contended a subsequent 2019 suit was barred by limitation and the principles of res judicata, a legal doctrine preventing a matter from being judged twice. Justice Kayani cites Islamic teachings to invalidate any private contracts waiving child maintenance Rejecting the contention, Justice Kayani ruled that agreements preventing minors from enforcing future maintenance rights are void. He noted that while accrued claims can be settled, a minor’s ongoing right to maintenance cannot be waived during dependency. The judge ruled that the maintenance of a minor child constitutes a recurring cause of action and is not barred by res judicata. The court maintained that providing food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare and other necessities is a father’s ongoing responsibility. “Under the law, every father is under a legal as well as moral obligation to maintain his wife and minor children in all respects,” Justice Kayani observed in the ruling. “Such obligation is neither optional nor contingent upon the will of the father, rather it is a continuing responsibility imposed by law as well as by the injunctions of Islam.” Citing the Holy Quran and traditions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), he said that a father cannot avoid this divine duty through private deals harmful to a minor’s welfare. Additionally, the judge held that Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, does not apply to claims for past maintenance of a minor child or a wife during an existing marriage. Justice Kayani dismissed the petition and ordered the judgment be sent to the Law and Justice Commission and Ministry of Law to consider reforms in limitation laws for maintenance cases, aligning them with Islamic principles. Published in Dawn, June 2nd, 2026
"Such practices are repugnant to the rule of law, and ICE is warned that further obfuscation and misuse of sealing and redaction before the undersigned will lead to sanctions against the agency."
ISLAMABAD: The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on Monday challenged before the Supreme Court its May 12 order that required the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide in two weeks the sentence suspension pleas of lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case. Meanwhile, despite the SC’s May 26 deadline having passed already, the IHC today, on the request of the prosecution, adjourned the hearing of Imaan and Hadi’s pleas seeking suspension of their sentences. The husband-wife duo were sentenced in the case on January 24, with subsequent petitions being filed against their conviction in early February. On May 12, more than three months after the pleas were filed, the SC gave the IHC two weeks to decide on the lawyer couple’s petitions. On Monday, the NCCIA requested the SC to recall and withdraw that order to help preserve the “sanctity and independence of the judiciary, maintaining equality among citizens and avoiding discriminatory treatment towards the couple merely on account of being members of the Bar”. The petition claimed that no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances have been pointed out by the couple in their earlier plea that warranted an intervention by the SC in a pending matter before the IHC. In December 2025, Imaan and her husband had moved the SC to set aside IHC’s decision that denied interim relief in the controversial social media post case. They had argued that the high court had “erroneously and illegally refused” to exercise the discretion to grant ad-interim relief to them to stay the criminal trial, as recording of evidence before the trial court in their absence was not only a violation of Section 353 CrPC, but also their due process and fair trial rights under Article 10A of the Constitution. Now, the NCCIA has contended that the couple had invoked the jurisdiction of the SC under Article 185(3) of the Constitution under the pretext of an “order” in which IHC had issued notices to the respondents with an observation that the contentions raised need consideration. “The issuance of ‘notice’ does not fall in the ambit of Article 185(3) as the appeal can only lie to the Supreme Court from a ‘judgment’, ‘decree’, ‘order’ or ‘sentence of a high court. Hence their appeal was not maintainable,” the petition argued. NCCIA underscored SC’s consistent and long-standing practice of not interfering in matters pending before high courts on the initial/interlocutory stage, except in extraordinary or highly exceptional circumstances. But the couple had approached the SC with the grievance that their applications for early hearing were not fixed or heard. Normally, the superior courts avoid intervention in such matters unless there is a situation where grave illegality is committed, or to foster justice or the matter is of an urgent nature, the petition argued. Every court has its own mechanism for dispensation of justice and also has an independent system to entertain and fix the cases according to the “urgency” pointed out by the applicant. But here, the NCCIA contended, the couple seemed not interested in the fixation of their criminal appeals; rather, they were insistent on getting a decision on their application filed under Section 426 of the CrPC. For that purpose, they filed two applications for early hearing, a fact which was evident from their petition filed before the SC. The couple, the petition claimed, had pleaded violation of Section 353 of the CrPC by the trial court and were playing victim and innocent before the SC by allegedly making their own story to politicise the issue and pressurise the courts, when the proceedings of the trial court belie their assertions. The NCCIA argued that the main grievance of the couple before the SC was that they had been denied a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution, as their two applications for early hearing of applications for suspension of sentence were not fixed. But the SC’s binding order to the IHC seemed to give “special treatment” to Imaan and Hadi for being members of the Bar, the petition feared. The same treatment was accorded to them by the trial court when they remained hostile and derogatory, as the trial court showed “restraint” from passing any adverse order against them, the NCCIA asserted. It further said that before passing any direction to the IHC, the SC should have called for a report of pending appeals and applications for the suspension of the sentences before the high court so that principles of fairness, equality and impartiality were maintained and to avoid an impression of extraordinary treatment to the petitioners. The NCCIA highlighted that the lawyers had also filed petitions against the IHC chief justice alleging harassment, and Imaan’s mother, after the SC hearing, had categorically said that by issuing the May 12 order, the SC had “accepted” the IHC’s bias against her daughter. “Her statement is clearly creating doubts on the independence of judiciary,” the petition said. IHC hearing Earlier in the day, IHC’s Justice Muhammad Azam Khan took up Imaan and Hadi’s pleas today, but the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of two of the three special prosecution team members. The prosecutor who attended the hearing informed the court that one of his team members was travelling from Lahore while another was engaged in proceedings before the IHC chief justice. At that, Justice Khan remarked that he was specifically at the court for the hearing of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas despite being nominated for mediation training. Addressing the prosecutor, he asked whether the prosecution was aware of the Supreme Court’s directions in the case. Regarding that, one of the counsels for the petitioners, Advocate Riasat Ali Azad, noted that the deadline set by the Supreme Court had already expired. Justice Khan observed that the petitions had been filed in light of the SC’s May 12 order. Another counsel for the petitioners, Faisal Siddiqui, argued that one of the prosecutors should appear before the court after completing his commitments in the IHC CJ’s court. Justice Khan noted that he had already heard cases in the morning and had even missed his mediation training session scheduled for 8:30am to attend the proceedings of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas. The prosecutor requested the court to adjourn the hearing till Thursday or next Monday. After consulting the petitioners’ counsels regarding their availability, Justice Khan fixed the hearing for Thursday, June 4. At that, Siddiqui requested that the prosecution be restrained from seeking any further adjournments. In response, Justice Khan remarked that repeated reminders were unnecessary as all parties were bound to comply with the SC order. The case Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. While the arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case just a day after the development. The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the NCCIA Islamabad assistant director (investigating officer) before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca). The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts. In January, the sessions court sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca. Subsequently, they challenged their conviction by filing separate criminal appeals in the IHC on February 7. On April 30, the duo had moved another appeal in the SC, seeking an early hearing of their pleas against their conviction. Moved under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the application requested the grant of leave to appeal against the Feb 19 IHC order. Through that order, the IHC had admitted the appeal against the trial court’s Jan 24 decision of handing down a 17-year sentence to the couple. And while it had issued notices to the respondents on the application for the suspension of sentence, it had not suspended the sentence. The petition contended that the appeals be accepted and the sentence awarded to the petitioners through the impugned trial court’s judgment be suspended till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC. On May 12, the SC asked the IHC to decide within two weeks the pleas seeking the suspension of their sentences. Until the IHC decides upon the petitions, the matter will remain pending before the apex court, a three-judge SC bench, consisting of Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shafi Siddiqui, observed. Then, on May 20, the IHC issued notices to officials of the NCCIA on applications requesting an expedited hearing of the sentence suspension petitions. It was a day after Justice Khan raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of the SC order and directed the defence counsel to submit the certified order through the court office in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Following the submission of the certified copy, the case was fixed for June 1. But the hearing again had to be adjourned today due to the prosecutors’ absence.
Delhi HC ordered authorities, search engine operators and legal database platforms to de-index and disable their "name-based search functionality" in respect of judgments, orders and news articles cited by the petitioners
The bench expressed disinclination to grant the relief sought by a petitioner and deferred consideration of the matter until July, effectively clearing the way for the June 21 re-test
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday adjourned the hearing of sentence suspension petitions filed by human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case as the Supreme Court directive to decide the pleas by May 26 remained unfulfilled. The Supreme Court directive was issued on May 12, more than three months after the husband-wife duo were sentenced in the case. They had subsequently filed petitions against their conviction in early February. IHC’s Justice Muhammad Azam Khan took up those pleas today, but the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of two of the three special prosecution team members. The prosecutor who attended the hearing informed the court that one of his team members was travelling from Lahore while another was engaged in proceedings before the IHC chief justice. At that, Justice Khan remarked that he was specifically at the court for the hearing of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas despite being nominated for mediation training. Addressing the prosecutor, he asked whether the prosecution was aware of the Supreme Court’s directions in the case. Regarding that, one of the counsels for the petitioners, Advocate Riasat Ali Azad,noted that the deadline set by the Supreme Court had already expired. Justice Khan observed that the petitions had been filed in light of the Supreme Court’s order, which required the IHC to decide the sentence suspension applications within two weeks from May 12. Another counsel for the petitioners, Faisal Siddiqui, argued that one of the prosecutors should appear before the court after completing his commitments in the IHC CJ’s court. Justice Khan noted that he had already heard cases in the morning and had even missed his mediation training session scheduled for 8:30am to attend the proceedings of of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas. The prosecutor requested the court to adjourn the hearing till Thursday or next Monday. After consulting the petitioners’ counsels regarding their availability, Justice Khan fixed the hearing for Thursday, June 4. At that, Siddiqui requested that the prosecution be restrained from seeking any further adjournments. In response, Justice Khan remarked that repeated reminders were unnecessary as all parties were bound to comply with the Supreme Court order. The case Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. While the arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case just a day after the development. The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the NCCIA Islamabad assistant director (investigating officer) before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca). The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts. In January, the sessions court sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca. Subsequently, they challenged their conviction by filing separate criminal appeals in the IHC on February 7. On April 30, the duo had moved another appeal in the SC, seeking an early hearing of their pleas against their conviction. Moved under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the application requested the grant of leave to appeal against the Feb 19 IHC order. Through that order, the IHC had admitted the appeal against the trial court’s Jan 24 decision of handing down a 17-year sentence to the couple. And while it had issued notices to the respondents on the application for the suspension of sentence, it had not suspended the sentence. The petition contended that the appeals be accepted and the sentence awarded to the petitioners through the impugned trial court’s judgement be suspended till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC. On May 12, the Supreme Court asked the IHC to decide within two weeks the pleas seeking the suspension of their sentences. Until the IHC decides upon the petitions, the matter will remain pending before the apex court, a three-judge SC bench, consisting of Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shafi Siddiqui, observed. Then, on May 20, the IHC issued notices to officials of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on applications requesting an expedited hearing of the sentence suspension petitions. It was a day after Justice Khan raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of the Supreme Court order and directed the defence counsel to submit the certified order through the court office in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Following the submission of the certified copy, the case was fixed for June 1. But, the hearing again had to be adjourned today due to the prosectors’ absence.
• Dismisses husband’s appeal against lower courts’ decisions • Rules technical objections over ordinary stamp paper cannot defeat proven matrimonial rights LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has upheld concurrent judgements of two lower courts granting a divorced woman possession of a house as dower (haq mehr), ruling that a separately executed dower agreement was valid and enforceable even though the property was not mentioned in the nikahnama (marriage certificate). Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi of the LHC dismissed a petition filed by Muhammad Khan, who had challenged decisions of a family court and an appellate court in Chiniot in favour of his former wife, Anwar Bibi. The woman claimed that on the day of their marriage in 2017, the petitioner executed an agreement promising her a constructed five-marla house in Canada Colony, Chiniot, as dower and also undertook to pay Rs300,000 in the event of divorce. After the marriage ended in 2021, she sought recovery of the house, its market value, maintenance for the iddat period and the contractual amount. However, the husband denied executing the agreement, alleging that it was fabricated and asserting that the property belonged to his first wife. He argued that the agreement was written on ordinary stamp paper instead of an e-stamp paper and that the nikahnama mentioned dower of only Rs5,000. Rejecting these arguments, Justice Sethi held that family courts have exclusive jurisdiction over dower disputes and observed that the agreement clearly fixed the house as haq mehr. The judge noted that both attesting witnesses to the agreement testified in support of its execution and remained unshaken during cross-examination. He further observed that the petitioner opposed forensic examination of his signatures and thumb impression on the document, a conduct that justified drawing an adverse inference against him. “The refusal of the petitioner to permit forensic examination substantially erodes the credibility of his plea of fabrication and lends support to the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below,” Justice Sethi held. The judge ruled that under settled principles of Muslim law, dower may be fixed before, at the time of, or even after marriage, and may also be enhanced through a separate agreement. He said the nikahnama was not the exclusive record of dower arrangements and that a separate written instrument could validly coexist with it. The judge also rejected the husband’s contention that the agreement was invalid because it had been executed on ordinary stamp paper, holding that technical objections regarding the form of documentation could not defeat substantive matrimonial rights once the transaction had been independently proved. Justice Sethi observed that the argument that the woman did not assert her claim during the subsistence of marriage was legally untenable. “In the social realities of our society, many women refrain from demanding dower during continuance of marriage for emotional, domestic and societal reasons. Such restraint cannot legally be construed against them,” the judge maintained, adding that the right to recover dower survives dissolution of marriage and remains enforceable in accordance with law. Finding no illegality, misreading of evidence or jurisdictional defect in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the LHC judge dismissed the petition and maintained the decree awarding the house to the former wife as dower. Published in Dawn, May 31th, 2026
PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has ruled that a case of ‘kidnapping for ransom’ was triable by the anti-terrorism court because of its inclusion in the Schedule of the anti-terrorism law. A bench consisting of Justice Mudassir Ameer and Justice Aurangzeb rejected pleas of four of the accused in the high-profile Dr Warda Mushtaq murder case from Abbottabad, seeking deletion of Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997, from the FIR of the occurrence and transferring of the case to an ordinary court. It upheld an order of the ATC Hazara region of April 13, 2026, whereby the present petitioners had moved an application for transferring their case to a regular court. The petitioners included a central character in the case, Ms Rida Waheed Jadoon, her husband Waheed Ahmad and two others Nadeem and Pervez. Rejects accused’s plea to transfer Dr Warda murder case to regular court The bench, in its 16-page detailed judgement, decided the question: “Whether the learned Anti-Terrorism Court, Hazara Division, Abbottabad possesses lawful jurisdiction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to try the petitioners for the offence under Section 365-A (kidnapping for ransom), P.P.C., notwithstanding the contention that the ingredients constituting ‘terrorism’ within the meaning of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 are not attracted to the facts of the case?” On December 4, 2025, Dr Warda was allegedly taken from the hospital by her friend, Rida Waheed, to her house on the pretext of returning the 67 tolas of gold jewelry she had taken from her. However, the medic’s body was later recovered from the Leli Banuta forest on December 8. The FIR of the incident was initially registered on Dec 5, 2025, at Abbottabad’s Cantt Police Station, by the father of the deceased, under different provisions of the PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) and Section 7 of the ATA. After the confirmation of the doctor’s death, Section 302 (intentional murder) PPC was also included in the FIR. The complainant’s counsel, Atif Ali Khan Jadoon, and additional advocate general Sardar Basharat opposed the petitions, contending that the ATC had the jurisdiction to try the accused in the instant case. The bench observed that it was an admitted position that initially, Section 7(1)(a) of the ATA was incorporated in the FIR but later, the charge under Section 365-A PPC was framed against the accused by the trial court. “It is equally undisputed that offence under Section 365-A, PPC falls within Entry No. 4 of the Third schedule appended to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,” it observed. The bench discussed in detail several provisions of the ATA and ruled: “A bare reading of the above provisions unmistakably demonstrates that the Anti-Terrorism Court derives jurisdiction not only in respect of offences which strictly fall within the definition of ‘terrorism’ under Section 6 of the Act but also in respect of ‘scheduled offences’ specifically incorporated in the Third Schedule to the Act. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court is not confined merely to offences punishable under Section 7 of the Act; rather, it extends independently to all scheduled offences by virtue of Section 12 of the Act.” The court added that it was by now a settled principle of law that an ordinary case of kidnapping for ransom committed for personal motive, monetary gain or private vendetta might not amount to ‘terrorism’ unless accompanied by the requisite design or purpose envisaged under Section 6(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. It, however, declared that such an offence nonetheless remained triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court because of its inclusion in the Third Schedule to the Act. In the judgement authored by Justice Aurangzeb, the bench ruled that in such cases, the Anti-Terrorism Court might ultimately convict an accused under Section 365-A of the PPC simpliciter and not under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, unless the prosecution independently established the necessary ingredients constituting an act of terrorism. It added that the ATC, Hazara Division, at Abbottabad had rightly assumed jurisdiction in the matter and had committed no illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Referring to the preamble of the ATA, the bench pointed out that it unequivocally declared that the Act was promulgated not only for the prevention of terrorism and sectarian violence but also for the speedy trial of heinous offences. “Kidnapping for ransom is undeniably one of the gravest offences affecting public safety, human liberty and societal order. It was precisely because of the alarming increase and heinous nature of such offence that the Legislature consciously brought Section 365-A of PPC within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court by incorporating the same in Entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule,” it observed. Published in Dawn, May 30th, 2026
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has fixed June 1 for hearing the sentence suspension applications filed by human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the social media posts case. As per a one-page written order issued by IHC’s Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, following last week’s hearing, a certified copy of the Supreme Court’s May 12 order had been submitted. It should be noted that the SC had directed the IHC on May 12 to decide within two weeks on Imaan and Hadi’s pleas seeking the suspension of their sentence. On May 20, the IHC had issued notices to officials of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on applications requesting an expedited hearing of the sentence suspension petitions. Earlier this month, the judge had raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of the SC order and directed the defence counsel to submit the certified order through the court office in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Following the submission of the certified copy, the case was fixed for June 1, while the IHC’s registrar office also issued the cause list for next week’s hearing. The case Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. While the arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case just a day after the development. The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the NCCIA Islamabad assistant director (investigating officer) before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca). The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts. In January, the sessions court sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca. In December 2025, the couple moved the SC to overturn the IHC’s decision refusing interim relief in the case. The appeal was filed against a December 1 IHC order that denied ad-interim relief of staying the trial without a just legal cause. In her appeal, Imaan argued that the high court had “erroneously and illegally refused” to exercise the discretion to grant ad-interim relief to the petitioners to stay the criminal trial, as recording of evidence before the trial court in their absence was not only a violation of Section 353 CrPC, but also their due process and fair trial rights under Article 10A of the Constitution. On May 11, their counsel submitted additional documents to the SC in relevance to the appeal, consisting of the charge sheets of different dates against the petitioners, their statements before the trial court and the orders issued by the court. The petitioners pleaded before the SC to allow bringing these documents on record in the interest of justice since they were “essential and relevant for adjudication of the present case”. They explained that the said documents were not available at the time of filing the appeal, since the paper books were not prepared by the office of the IHC; the trial record was obtained after filing the appeals. On April 30, the duo had moved another appeal in the SC, seeking an early hearing of their pleas against their conviction. Moved under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the application requested the grant of leave to appeal against the Feb 19 IHC order. Through that order, the IHC had admitted the appeal against the trial court’s Jan 24 decision of handing down a 17-year sentence to the couple. And while it had issued notices to the respondents on the application for the suspension of sentence, it had not suspended the sentence. The petition contended that the appeals be accepted and the sentence awarded to the petitioners through the impugned trial court’s judgement be suspended till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC.
The shares of Ranbir Kapoor-backed Prime Focus gained over 2% to their day's high of Rs 247.40 on the BSE on Friday after the post-production and visual effects company reported a consolidated net profit of Rs 82 crore for the fourth quarter of FY26, as against a net loss of nearly Rs 231 crore in the same quarter of FY25.Sequentially, the net profit grew more than 16% from the Rs 71 crore reported in the third quarter of FY26. Profit before tax and exceptional items, however, declined nearly 29% YoY to Rs 88 crore in Q4 FY26 from Rs 123 crore in Q4 FY25.Revenue from operations, meanwhile, jumped more than 42% year-on-year (YoY) to Rs 1,375 crore during the January-March quarter of FY26, from Rs 967 crore in the corresponding quarter of the previous financial year.Prime Focus saw its total expenses rise nearly 26% YoY to Rs 1,262 crore during the quarter under review, while total income increased around 20% YoY to Rs 1,350 crore. The company’s earnings per share (EPS) rose to Rs 1.14 in Q4 FY26 from a negative Rs 7.70 in the year-ago period, after exceptional items.Insolvency plea against Prime FocusThis comes after the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) earlier in May orally pronounced admission of an insolvency petition against Prime Focus filed by Reliance Alpha Services under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The petition relates to an alleged financial debt of Rs 353.79 crore, including interest.Prime Focus disputed the claim, saying no amount was ever disbursed under the 2019 loan agreement cited in the petition and argued that the petitioner therefore does not qualify as a “financial creditor” under the IBC. The company said that it has already approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) seeking urgent relief, including a stay on the operation of the order.Later NCLAT ordered a stay on the order, which was challenged in the Supreme Court. The company announced on Wednesday that the apex court has dismissed the appeal against the stay.Founded by Namit Malhotra in 1997, Prime Focus has grown into a global leader in visual effects and post-production. Its subsidiary, Double Negative (DNEG), has won multiple Academy Awards for work on films such as TENET, Dune: Part One, and Dune: Part Two, bringing its Oscar tally to eight.The group is also producing Ramayana, a two-part adaptation directed by Nitesh Tiwari and backed by Namit Malhotra. The film, starring Ranbir Kapoor, Yash and Sai Pallavi, is being positioned as one of the most ambitious and expensive Indian film projects to date.Prime Focus share pricePrime Focus shares have delivered 116% returns over one year. The stock has however fallen around 24% in one month and 1% in one week to close at Rs 239.85 apiece on NSE on Wednesday. In the longer term, the shares of the company have gained 162% in three years and 287% in five years.The company has a market capitalisation of more than Rs 18,639 crore. The stock has been in focus in recent months after reports of actor Ranbir Kapoor investing between Rs 15–20 crore in Prime Focus Studio through a preferential issue of shares.The company had earlier approved the issuance of over 46 crore shares, with Kapoor among the proposed allottees aiming to acquire about 12.5 lakh shares, although independent verification of the final allotment has not yet been confirmed.(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)
What were the four main issues raised by the petitioners against the SIR exercise?