Supreme Court of Pakistan Annual Report 2003

THIS PAGE BLANK Supreme Court of Pakistan Annual Report 2003 c 2004 National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee This Annual Report is published by the Secretariat of the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan.

This report can be viewed at the Supreme Court website http://www.scp.com.pk as well as at the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan webste http://www.ljcp.com.pk. Comments and suggestions may be sent to the Secretariat of the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Supreme Court Building, Islamabad. Tel: 051-9220483, 051-9214797 Fax: 051-9214416 email: [email protected]. Contents

1 FOREWORD BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN 1

2 THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 5 2.1 Introduction ...... 5 2.1.1 The Supreme Court of Pakistan ...... 5 2.1.2 Construction of Phase II of Supreme Court Building at Islamabad ...... 6 2.1.3 Registry Building, Peshawar ...... 6 2.1.4 Automation Plan ...... 6 2.2 Jurisdiction of the Court ...... 7 2.2.1 Original Jurisdiction ...... 7 2.2.2 Appellate Jurisdiction ...... 7 2.2.3 Advisory Jurisdiction ...... 8 2.2.4 Review Jurisdiction ...... 8 2.2.5 Appellate Jurisdiction against Judgements of Federal Shariat Court ..... 8 2.2.6 Power to Transfer Cases ...... 8 2.2.7 Decision of the Supreme Court binding on other Courts ...... 8 2.2.8 Issue and Execution of Process of the Supreme Court ...... 9 2.2.9 Rule Making Powers ...... 9 2.3 Role and Functions of the Chief Justice ...... 9 2.4 Seat of the Court and Branch Registries ...... 13 2.4.1 The Principal Seat ...... 13 2.4.2 The Branch Registry at Lahore ...... 13 2.4.3 The Branch Registry at Karachi ...... 13 2.4.4 The Branch Registry at Peshawar ...... 14 2.4.5 The Branch Registry at Quetta ...... 14 2.5 Supreme Court Composition 2003 ...... 15 2.5.1 The Chief Justices ...... 15 2.5.2 The Judges of the Court ...... 15 2.5.3 Ad-Hoc Members, Shariat Appellate Bench ...... 15 2.5.4 Attorney General for Pakistan ...... 15 2.5.5 Registrar ...... 15 2.6 Bio-Data of Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Chief Justice of Pakistan ..... 18 2.7 Bio Data of Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan (Retired on 31st December, 2003) ...... 22 2.8 Judges of the Supreme Court ...... 25

3 IMPORTANT CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE YEAR 2003 33 3.1 Javed Jabbar and 14 others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2003 SC 955) 33 3.2 Muhammad Jahangir Badar v. the State and others (PLD 2003 SC 525) ...... 33 3.3 Mian Ahmad Saeed and others v. Election Tribunal For Kasur at Okara and 7 others (2003 SCMR 1611) ...... 34

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: i 3.4 Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Company LTD, Karachi v. Gulam Abbas and Others (PLD 2003 SC724) ...... 35 3.5 Syed Ali Nawaz Shah and 2 others v. the State and others (PLD 2003 SC 837) ... 36 3.6 Sher Baz Khan and others v. Mst Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana and others (PLD 2003 SC 849) ...... 36 3.7 Muhammad Abbas and another v. the State (PLD 2003 SC 863) ...... 37 3.8 State through Deputy Prosecutor General camp oﬃce , Karachi v. Ramesh M. Udeshi, Ex-Secretary, Board of Revenue (Land Utilisation) Sindh and others (PLD 2003 SC 891) ...... 37 3.9 Commissioner of Income Tax, Peshawar v. M/s Gul Cooking Oil and Vegetable Ghee (Pvt.) Ltd. (PLD 2003 SC 614) ...... 38 3.10 Ashiq Ali and others v. Mst. Zamir Fatima and others (PLD 2004 SC 10) ...... 39 3.11 Capital Development Authority through Chairman and another v. Zahid Iqbal and another(PLD 2004 SC 99) ...... 39 3.12 Haﬁz Abdul Waheed v. Mrs. Asma Jehangir and another (PLD 2004 SC 219) .... 40

4 JUDICIAL ACTIVITY AND STATISTICS 43 4.1 Court Performance During the Year 2003 ...... 43 4.2 Statement of Court Sessions During the Year 2003 ...... 44 4.2.1 Principal Seat Islamabad ...... 44 4.2.2 Branch Registry, Lahore ...... 46 4.2.3 Branch Registry, Karachi ...... 47 4.2.4 Branch Registry, Peshawar ...... 47 4.2.5 Branch Registry, Quetta ...... 47 4.3 Statistics on the Institution and Disposition of Cases During the Year 2003 ..... 48 4.3.1 Statement Showing Institution, Disposal and Pendency of cases at Islamabad (from 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003) ...... 48 4.3.2 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Lahore (1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003) ...... 49 4.3.3 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Karachi (1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003) ...... 50 4.3.4 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Peshawar (1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003) ...... 51 4.3.5 Statement regarding Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Quetta (From 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003) ...... 52 4.3.6 Consolidated Statements for the Principal Seat and Branch Registries (From 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003) ...... 53

5 STATISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS 59 5.1 The Ratio of Pending Cases to Disposal ...... 59 5.2 Median Time Analysis and the Supreme Court ...... 60 5.3 Average Cost Per Case—Comparison with Last Year ...... 61 5.4 Some Visible Trends ...... 62 5.4.1 Insitution, Disposal and Pendency (1994 to 2003) ...... 62 5.4.2 Trend of Pending Cases Over the Last Ten Years ...... 63 5.4.3 Trend of Institution of Cases Over the Last Ten Years ...... 64 ii Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 5.4.4 Trend of Disposal of Cases Over the Last Ten Years ...... 65 5.4.5 Comparative Graph of Cases Filed, Decided and Pending ...... 66 5.4.6 Analysis of the Pending Balance ...... 67 5.5 Data for the Last Five Decades: Increase in Institution of Cases as Compared to Increase in the Number of Judges ...... 70

6 SOCIAL OBJECTIVES AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF JUDGES 77 6.1 Judges of Supreme Court Nominated to Various Committees, Tribunals, University Syndicates and other Bodies ...... 77 6.2 Interaction With International Judicial Institutions ...... 79 6.3 The Supreme Court and the Media ...... 83

7 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE HIGH COURTS 91

8 THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COUNCIL 95

9 THE COURT REGISTRY 99 9.1 Functions ...... 99 9.2 Goals ...... 99 9.3 Services ...... 100 9.4 Organisational Chart of the Court Staﬀ ...... 101 9.5 Staﬀ Welfare Fund ...... 102

10 FINANCES OF THE SUPREME COURT 105 10.1 Expenditure During the Last Financial Year 2002–2003 ...... 105 10.2 Budgetary Allocation for the Year 2003–2004 ...... 106 10.3 The Share of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Federal Budget ...... 111

11 LEGAL RESEARCH AT THE SUPREME COURT 115 11.1 The Supreme Court of Pakistan Library ...... 115 11.2 Information Technology at the Supreme Court and Web Presence ...... 116 11.2.1 Court Automation Plan ...... 116 11.2.2 The Growing Website of the Court ...... 118

12 THE COURT BUILDING 121 12.0.3 Building Architecture ...... 121 12.0.4 Main Central Block ...... 121 12.0.5 Judges Chambers Block ...... 121 12.0.6 Administration Blocks ...... 121

13 JUDICIAL HIERARCHY OF PAKISTAN 125 13.1 Chart Showing Sanctioned Strength of Judges ...... 125 13.2 Strength of Judges and Administrative Staﬀ of Superior Judiciary ...... 125

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: iii 14 INFORMATION ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 129 14.1 Advocates on the Rolls of the Supreme Court ...... 129 14.2 Current Strength of Law Oﬃcers of the Federation and Provinces ...... 129

15 FORMER CHIEF JUSTICES, JUDGES AND REGISTRARS 133 15.1 Former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Pakistan ...... 133 15.2 Former Judges of the Supreme Court ...... 134 15.3 Former Registrars of Federal Court and Supreme Court of Pakistan ...... 138

iv Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 1 FOREWORD

(In the name of Allah, Most Beneﬁcent, Most Merciful)

It is my pleasure to present to the nation the 2003 Annual Report of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. During the year, Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad served as the Chief Justice of Pakistan. He retired on 31st December, 2003 and since then, it has been my honour to serve as the Chief Justice of Pakistan. Over the past year, as in the previous years, the Judiciary has faced many challenges. Our emphasis has been on the move to building on our progress in technology, achieving effective integrated case management systems, addressing delays in court case processing, and finding fair and effective ways to provide legal services to the citizens of Pakistan. The Judiciary is proud of its accomplishments in these areas and seeks to continue improving internal court operations and the access to justice for all. The major mission of the Judiciary remains the same, that is, to provide an independent, accessible, responsive forum for the just resolution of disputes in order to preserve the rule of law and to protect all rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan. Examining the data in this report, I am reminded of the saying that the best way to predict the future is to create it. This is what the Judiciary is planning to do with the help of supporting institutions. One such institution that has been designed specifically for the purpose of planning for the future is the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee (NJPMC). The NJPMC functions like an ongoing judicial conference through which all the Chief Justices meet regularly to devise strategic plans for the future and formulate judicial policy. In making such plans and policies, one of the sources on which the NJPMC relies are annual reports. Annual reports of the Superior and Subordinate Courts are one of the vital tools for measuring performance and proposing judicial policy. Taken together with internal measures of performance, the data generated by these reports is a sure and reliable means for taking decisions for the future. The process has been started and as the system develops and acquires more sophistication, the fruits will become visible to all. Accordingly, it has been my endeavour, right from the day I assumed the office of Chief Justice, to speed up the process of reporting and to make the reports available for timely action. The accuracy and analytical insight of all annual reports in the future will depend on the technology employed. Not only this, it is my belief that technology will be the driving force behind the administration of the courts in the near future. We must, therefore, be eager to explore new ways of using technology to improve the administration of justice. While it is necessary to proceed cautiously, we must not hesitate to venture forth when the opportunity for technological improvement presents itself. I speak in particular about the Automation Plan that is being implemented by the NJPMC in the courts all over Pakistan. We must all work together to ensure that this plan is successful. International experience has shown that technology has promoted a higher quality of justice by reducing costs and delays while improving convenience, accessibility, and ease of use of the courts for all citizens. It has enhanced the ability of the courts to determine facts and reach fair decisions. Improvements generated by technology have complimented the tested and proven

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 1 methods of administering justice. At the Supreme Court of Pakistan, as this report shows, improvements are being introduced each year and new technology is being embraced for providing enhanced services to all. The Judiciary strives to operate at peak efficiency within the resources available. The performance of the Supreme Court, according to the statistical analysis presented in this report, is showing signs of improvement. While recognising that the pending balance of cases continues to rise even though institution of new cases has declined slightly over the last two years and disposal has increased somewhat in the current year, the report points out that the increase in the pending balance this year was less than what it was last year. This was mainly due to an increase in the number of cases disposed of this year. What is significant is that more appeals have been disposed of this year, and the pending balance of appeals actually decreased by 16 cases. In addition to this, the Court functioned more efficiently as the cost per case has gone down from Rs. 12966 for the year 2002 to Rs. 10796 for the reporting year, which is a decrease of 17 percent. Overall, the number of cases filed in the reporting year was 12990. In response to this, 10329 cases were decided. The pending balance of 17370, therefore, increased to 20031 cases. Although the proportionate increase in the pending balance was less than what it was last year, the huge pending balance calls for urgent steps and a comprehensive strategy to deal with it. The measures adopted must be both short-term and long-term so that the load of the increasing backlog on the docket can be effectively and permanently reduced. It is heartening to note that the number of appeals disposed of this year was 1936 as compared to 1669 for last year. As usual, the Supreme Court continued to accord importance to cases of national importance. Such cases have at times to be given priority at the cost of other routine cases. An entire section of this report has been devoted to some of the important cases decided by the Supreme Court during the year 2003. The cases reflect the complex activity of the Court. To confront the caseload, the Supreme Court constituted larger benches of 7 Judges and 5 Judges. At the Principal Seat, the sittings of the Court lasted for 36 weeks. At Lahore, it was 24 weeks 2 days, at Karachi 6 weeks 3 days, at Peshawar 6 weeks and Quetta the sittings were for 2 weeks and 2 days. I thank my learned brother Judges for contributing their best under demanding circumstances, and would like to congratulate the Registrar and the Court staff for the efficient and prompt services rendered for the effective performance of the Court. This report has been published with the support of the Law and Justice Commission, and I would like to extend my thanks to the Secretariat of the LJCP for the help provided to the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee in this respect.

(Nazim Hussain Siddiqui) Chief Justice of Pakistan

2 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 3 THIS PAGE BLANK

4 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 2 THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 The Supreme Court of Pakistan The Supreme Court is the court of ultimate jurisdiction in the land. It is the final arbiter of the law and the Constitution. Its orders/decisions are binding on all other courts in the country. All executive and judicial authorities are bound to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Establishing a system of trichotomy of power, the Constitution assigns the Supreme Court a unique responsibility of maintaining harmony and balance between the three pillars of the State; namely, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The purpose is to ensure that the state organs perform their respective functions under the stipulated limits and constraints. As guardian of the Constitution, the Court is required to “preserve, protect and defend” this document. Its multiple roles include resolving conflicts and disputes, be they among governments (Federal/provincial) or between government and individual or individuals inter se. The Court is also a custodian and upholder of citizens’ rights, liberties and freedoms. Seen in this context, the Court indeed occupies a pivotal status and a crucial position in constitutional dispensation facilitating the unification and integration of the nation, its regions, institutions and communities. The Supreme Court of Pakistan includes the Chief Justice and 16 Judges. The permanent seat is at Islamabad, but the Court also sits, from time to time, at the provincial headquarters; namely, Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar and Quetta. The Constitution stipulates the qualifications of Judges of the Supreme Court. Such qualifications are: to be a citizen of Pakistan and having 5 years experience as Judge of a High Court or 15 years experience as a practising advocate of a High Court. The Chief Justice of Pakistan is appointed by the President and the other Judges are also appointed by the President, but after consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The most senior Judge, in the absence of “solid and strong reasons,” to be recorded by the President, is appointed as the Chief Justice of Pakistan. As regards the other Judges, the recommendations of the Chief Justice, except for “sound reasons,” to be recorded by the President, are binding on the President. A Judge holds office until attaining the age of 65 years, unless he/she resigns earlier or is removed from office, in accordance with the Constitution. No Judge may be removed from office except on grounds specified by the Constitution; namely, “physical or mental incapacity,” or “misconduct,” to be determined by the Supreme Judicial Council. The Supreme Judicial Council includes the Chief Justice of Pakistan, 2 most senior Judges of the Supreme Court and 2 most senior Chief Justices of High Courts. On a reference received from the President, or on its own motion, the Supreme Judicial Council investigates the matter and presents its findings to the President. If the Council decides that the Judge is incapable of performing the duties of office, or is guilty of misconduct, and therefore should be removed from office, the President may order the removal of such judge. A judge may not be removed from office except on the specified grounds and subject to the prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court exercises original, appellate and review jurisdiction. It possesses exclusive original jurisdiction for settlement of inter-governmental (federal/provincial) disputes. Under this jurisdiction, the Court pronounces declaratory judgements. The Supreme Court can also exercise original jurisdiction, with respect to the enforcement of fundamental rights, if the case involves a question of public importance. The Court also exercises advisory jurisdiction under which the President may obtain its opinion on a question of law. Under its appellate jurisdiction, the Court

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 5 entertains appeals against orders and decisions of High Courts and other special tribunals and courts. The Constitution also provides for the “independence of judiciary” and its “separation from the executive.” Consequently, there prevails in the country, full institutional and decisional judicial independence. The Supreme Court and High Courts also possess a degree of financial autonomy inasmuch as the concerned Chief justice is authorised to reappropriate funds within the budgetary allocation. These superior courts are also empowered to make their own rules of practice/procedure, hire/fire their staff and determine their terms and conditions of service. Under the rules, the Chief Justice, as the head of the Institution, may nominate Judges for hearing cases and exercise other administrative powers and functions. The Court, with the approval of the President, may also make rules providing for appointment of its staff and determining their terms and conditions of service. Such rules empower the Chief Justice to exercise the same powers, in respect of officers and servants of the Court, as the President may exercise in respect of the Federal Government employees.

2.1.2 Construction of Phase II of Supreme Court Building at Islamabad The Capital Development Authority has been asked to start work on the phase II of the Supreme Court Building at Islamabad. The work is likely to start in the middle of year 2004 after completing the codal formalities. It shall provide additional accommodation to the Supreme Court Bar, Attorney General for Pakistan and Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan. The project will be completed in two years time from the date of start of work.

2.1.3 Registry Building, Peshawar The construction of Branch Registry Building at Peshawar in Old Radio Pakistan building, adjacent to the building of Peshawar High Court is in progress. The building is likely to be completed and inaugurated before the end of the year 2004.

2.1.4 Automation Plan Work on automation of various branches of the Court is in progress. Display boards showing the status of cases being heard in the court rooms have been installed and are successfully operating in the following places:

a) Outside each Court Room. b) Public Entrance Hall.

c) Bar Room. d) Bar’s Library.

e) The information is also visible on the computer network in the Court Building.

Work on software is in progress so that the information about case proceedings in court rooms may be made available on the web site. In that event, the people sitting at Karachi, Lahore, or Peshawar will be able to observe the progress of the cases in Court Rooms. The cases ﬁxed in

6 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 the proposed and final cause lists are now generated electronically to facilitate the Advocates-on- Record concerned to have a list of their own cases. New case entries are being made at the filing station and all Judicial Branches are exclusively updating their respective cases on their own desks. Full query of case tracking is available to all the officers. The automation of data on Advocates and Advocates-on-Record of Supreme Court is in progress. Automation of Administration Sections’ records for officers/employees of the Court has been implemented and data processing is in progress.

2.2 Jurisdiction of the Court The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide matters in its original, appellate, review and advisory jurisdictions.

2.2.1 Original Jurisdiction 1. The Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction in any dispute between any two or more Governments, where “Governments” means the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments. 2. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, the Supreme Court pronounces declaratory judgements. 3. Where the Supreme Court considers that a question of public importance, with reference to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution, is involved, it has the power to make an order of the nature mentioned in Article 184.

2.2.2 Appellate Jurisdiction 1. Subject to Article 185, the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from judgements, decrees, ﬁnal orders or sentences of a High Court. 2. An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgement, decree, ﬁnal order or sentence of a High Court—

(a) if the High Court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or to transportation for life or imprisonment for life; or, on revision, has enhanced a sentence to a sentence as aforesaid; or (b) if the High Court has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to it and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him as aforesaid; or (c) if the High Court has imposed any punishment on any person for contempt of the High Court; or (d) if the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the court of first instance was, and also in dispute in appeal is, not less than fifty thousand rupees or such other sum as may be specified in that behalf by Act of [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] and the judgement, decree or final order appealed from has varied or set aside the judgement, decree or final order of the court immediately below; or (e) if the judgement, decree or final order involves directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of the like amount or value and the judgement, decree or final order appealed from has varied or set aside the judgement, decree or final order of the court immediately below; or

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 7 (f) if the High Court certiﬁes that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. 3. An appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgement, decree, order or sentence of a High Court in a case to which clause (2) does not apply shall lie only if the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal (Art. 185). Under Article 212 (3): An appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgement, decree, order or sentence of an Administrative Court or Tribunal shall lie only if the Supreme Court, being satisﬁed that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance, grants leave to appeal.

2.2.3 Advisory Jurisdiction 1. If, at any time, the President considers that it is desirable to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law which he considers of public importance, he may refer the question to the Supreme Court for consideration. 2. The Supreme Court shall consider a question so referred and report its opinion on the question to the President (Art. 186).

2.2.4 Review Jurisdiction The Supreme Court shall have power, subject to the provision of any Act of [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] and of any rule made by the Supreme Court, to review any judgement pronounced or any order made by it (Art. 188).

2.2.5 Appellate Jurisdiction against Judgements of Federal Shariat Court Article 203-F of the Constitution confers on the Supreme Court, appellate jurisdiction against ﬁnal decisions of the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203D, i.e., determining whether or not any law or provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. Such Appeal is heard by the Shariat Appellant Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of three Muslim Judges of the Supreme Court and not more than two Ulema appointed by the President to attend sittings of the Bench as ad hoc Members.

2.2.6 Power to Transfer Cases The Supreme Court may, if it considers it expedient to do so in the interest of justice, transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High Court (Art. 186A).

2.2.7 Decision of the Supreme Court binding on other Courts Any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other courts in Pakistan (Art. 189).

8 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 2.2.8 Issue and Execution of Process of the Supreme Court Subject to clause (2) of Article 175, the Supreme Court has the power to issue directions, orders or decrees for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it, including an order for securing the attendance of any person or the discovery or production of any document. Any such direction, order or decree is enforceable throughout Pakistan, and if a question arises as to which High Court shall give eﬀect to a direction, order or decree of the Supreme Court, the decision of the Supreme Court on the question is ﬁnal (Art. 187).

2.2.9 Rule Making Powers Article 191 says that subject to the Constitution and law, the Supreme Court may make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 have been framed.

2.3 Role and Functions of the Chief Justice The Chief Justice of Pakistan is appointed by the President under Article 177 of the Constitution. He provides leadership to the Court. Among other functions and responsibilities, the Chief Justice of Pakistan:

• Is consulted by the President for appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court as well as Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts. In the absence of sound reasons to the contrary, to be recorded by the President, his opinion as to the ﬁtness of a person for judgeship is accepted.

• Appoints:

– with the approval of the President, ad hoc Judges of the Supreme Court from among the retired Judges of the Supreme Court, who retired less than three years prior to such ad hoc appointment; and – with the approval of the President and consent of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, ad hoc Judges of the Supreme Court from among the serving Judges of the High Courts who are qualiﬁed for appointment as Judges of the Supreme Court. – Federal Review Board consisting of a Chairman and two other persons, each of whom is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, for reviewing orders made under a law providing for preventive detention. – an arbitrator to determine any question arising as to whether any conditions imposed on any Provincial Government are lawfully imposed, or whether any refusal by the Fed- eral Government to entrust functions is unreasonable with respect to broadcasting and telecasting.

• Administers oath:

– to the President of Pakistan; – to the Auditor General of Pakistan; – to the Judges of the Supreme Court; and

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 9 – to the Chief Election Commissioner.

• Nominates: – a Judge of the Supreme Court to act as Chief Election Commissioner, during the absence of the Chief Election Commissioner; and – Judges of the Supreme Court to various bodies of the Bar, e.g., Disciplinary Committees and Syndicates/Governing Bodies of universities. • Is ex-officio Chairman of: – Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan; – National Judicial Policy Making Committee; – the Supreme Judicial Council; – the Federal Judicial Academy; and – Al-Mizan Foundation. • Exercises: – administrative powers to appoint/remove officers/staff of the Court and upgrade/downgrade posts. – financial powers to sanction expenditure and re-appropriate funds within the budgetary allocation of the Court. • Prepares the Court Roster and constitutes benches of the Court to hear cases. • Heads benches constituted for hearing of important cases. • Presides over Full Court Meetings and leads in taking important policy decisions. • Supervises and directs the Court administration and acts as intermediary between the Court and the judicial system. • Initiates internal Court operation policies. • Supervises caseflow management. • Assigns Judges to specialised work and responsibilities to assist and aid the Chief Justice in formulating policies of court management. • Deals with cases of leave of the Judges. • Prescribes working hours of the Court and business in chambers and Court holidays. • Conducts judicial conferences and studies to plan for improvement of the system of administration of justice. • Oversees pre-service and in-service training courses of the judges of the subordinate courts in the Federal Judicial Academy.

10 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003

2.4 Seat of the Court and Branch Registries

The Constitution of Pakistan provides that the 4. Civil petitions for leave to appeal under Ar- Principal Seat of the Court shall be at Islamabad ticle 212(3) of the Constitution arising out and the Court may, from time to time, sit in such of judgements of the Federal Service Tri- other places as the Chief Justice of Pakistan, with bunal as well as all the Provincial Service the approval of the President, may appoint (Art. Tribunals. 183). Today, the Court with its Principal Seat at Islamabad, has Branch Registries at all the four provincial headquarters. The Branch Registries at 2.4.2 The Branch Registry at Lahore Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta have been When the Main Registry was moved to Rawalpindi established for the convenience of the public and in 1974, a Branch Registry was established at for providing justice at the doorstep. Lahore in a borrowed wing of the Lahore High The Main Registry of the Court remained at Court. Later, the Old State Bank Building located Lahore in a borrowed wing of the Lahore High at Nabha Road was acquired and renovated to Court for a period extending a little over 25 years, house the Branch Registry. The new building has from October, 1949 to November, 1974, after which three courtrooms, Chief Justice Chamber, six other the Main Registry was moved to Rawalpindi. At Chambers, library, conference room, Bar room and Rawalpindi, the Main Registry was housed in what Registry Oﬃces. A Rest House for lodging Judges was then called “East Pakistan House.” The Main during Court sessions has also been acquired, which Registry was moved to the Supreme Court Building is situated on Aikman Road GOR-I, Lahore. at Islamabad in 1993. All petitions instituted in the Branch Registry are heard at Lahore, subject to any special order 2.4.1 The Principal Seat by the Court. Petitions, appeals and miscellaneous At the Principal Seat, Islamabad, the following applications are instituted in the Branch Registry matters are dealt with: arising out of judgements and decisions of:— Original Jurisdiction 1. Lahore High Court excluding those of the Rawalpindi Bench; 1. Constitution Petitions under Article 184(3) 2. The Federal Shariat Court Lahore; of the Constitution for enforcement of Fun- damental Rights. 3. The Federal Service Tribunal Lahore; and 2. Constitution Petitions under Article 186(A). 4. The Punjab Service Tribunal. All appeals by leave of the Court, or direct ap- Appellate Jurisdiction peals, presented in the Registry, are transferred to the Main Registry for registration, printing of 1. Civil and criminal petitions under Article record and hearing. 185(3) of the Constitution. 2. Civil and criminal appeals under Article 2.4.3 The Branch Registry at Karachi 185(2) (d)(e) and (f) of the Constitution, against the judgements and orders of: This Registry was established on 14th October, 1957 in a borrowed wing of the High Court of (a) All the High Courts; Sindh. The Registry remained housed, for some (b) The Rawalpindi Bench, Lahore High time, in Karachi Development Authority (KDA) Court. Rest House, Stadium Road opposite, PTV Centre 3. Appeals and petitions under Article 203(F) and later the old State Bank building situated at of the Constitution arising out of judgements M.R. Kayani Road, was acquired and renovated to of the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan. house the Registry. The Registry shifted to its new

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 13 location on 20th February, 1997. The new build- All petitions instituted at the Branch Registry ing has 2 courtrooms, Chief Justice Chamber and are heard at Peshawar, subject to any special order 5 other Chambers, besides a library, conference by the Court. All appeals, by leave of the Court, room, Bar room and Registry Offices. Rest House are transferred to the main Registry for registra- for lodging Judges during Court sessions has also tion, printing of record and hearing. been acquired, which is situated in Bath Island, The following work is undertaken at the Branch Clifton, Karachi. Registry:— All petitions instituted in the Branch Registry Petitions and miscellaneous applications are in- are heard at Karachi, subject to any special order stituted at the Branch Registry when they arise out by the Court. All petitions in which leave to ap- of judgements and decisions of: peal is granted are transferred to the Main Registry for registration as appeal. Similarly, direct appeals 1. Peshawar High Court; filed in the Registry are also forwarded to the Main 2. Federal Shariat Court, Peshawar; Registry. The work done in the Branch Registry is as follows:— 3. Federal Service Tribunal, Peshawar; and Petitions, appeals and miscellaneous applica- 4. N.W.F.P Service Tribunal. tion are instituted in the Branch Registry arising out of judgements and decisions of: 2.4.5 The Branch Registry at Quetta 1. Sindh High Court; The Registry was established on 19th November, 2. Federal Shariat Court Karachi; 1978 in a borrowed wing of the High Court of 3. Federal Service Tribunal Karachi; and Balochistan, and is still functioning there. Efforts 4. Sindh Service Tribunal. are, however, being made to acquire a permanent As a special case, it has been provided that the site for the Registry. A Rest House for lodging cases which may be instituted and heard at the Judges during Court sessions has also been ac- Branch Registry at Quetta may also be instituted quired, which is situated on Shahra-i-Zarghoon, and heard at the Branch Registry at Karachi due Quetta. to the shortage of Advocates-on-Record at Quetta. All petitions instituted in the Branch Registry are heard at Quetta, subject to any special order. 2.4.4 The Branch Registry at Peshawar All petitions in which leave to appeal is granted are transferred to the Main Registry for registration as The Registry at Peshawar was established on 28th appeals. The work done in the Branch Registry at October, 1960 in a borrowed wing of the Peshawar Quetta is as follows:— High Court and is still housed in the same build- Petitions, appeals and miscellaneous applica- ing. A site (old Radio Pakistan building) located tions are instituted in the Branch Registry arising on Khyber Road has been acquired for the Registry out of judgements and decisions of: and necessary renovation/repair work is underway. The foundation stone of the Peshawar Branch Reg- 1. Balochistan High Court; istry building was laid on 17th November 2001. A 2. Federal Shariat Court, Quetta; Rest House for lodging Judges during Court sessions has also been acquired, which is situated on 3. Federal Service Tribunal, Quetta; and Khyber Road, Peshawar. 4. Balochistan Service Tribunal.

14 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 2.5 Supreme Court Composition 2003 2.5.1 The Chief Justices

Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad Retired on 31.12.2003 Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui Appointed on 31.12.2003

2.5.2 The Judges of the Court

Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh Retired on 31.12.2003 Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui Appointed Chief Justice of Pakistan on 31.12.2003 Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq Retired on 31.12.2003 Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal Mr. Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar Mr. Justice Tanvir Ahmed Khan Mr. Justice Sardar Muhamamd Raza Khan Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi Appointed Principal Secre- tary, Ministry of Law, Jus- tice and Human Rights w.e.f 21.06.2003 Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar Mr. Justice Falak Sher Mr. Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari Retired on 31.12.2003 (Ad-hoc-Judge)

2.5.3 Ad-Hoc Members, Shariat Appellate Bench

Mr. Justice Allama Dr. Khalid Mahmud Mr. Justice Dr. Rashid Ahmed Jullundhari

2.5.4 Attorney General for Pakistan

Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan

2.5.5 Registrar

Mr. Muhammad Amin Farooqi

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 15 Chief Justice of Pakistan and Judges of the Supreme Court

L to R (sitting): Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Mr. Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad (Chief Justice of Pakistan, retired on 31.12.2003), Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui (Chief Justice of Pakitan w.e.f. 31.12.2003), Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal L to R (standing): Mr. Justice Falak Sher, Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal, Mr. Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza, Mr. Justice Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar Chief Justice of Pakistan 2.6 Bio-Data of Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Chief Justice of Pakistan Name: Mr. Justic Nazim Hussain Siddiqui Father’s Name: Late Mukarram Hussain Siddiqui Date of birth: 30th June, 1940 Educational Qualiﬁcation: B.A., LL.B. From University of Hyderabad; LL.M. From University of Karachi

PRACTICE AS A LAWYER: Practised at Hyderabad for 4/5 years.

SERVED AS:

i) Civil Judge;

ii) Senior Civil Judge;

iii) Additional District & Sessions Judge;

iv) District & Sessions Judge at Sukkar and Dadu;

v) Registrar, High Court of Sindh (twice);

vi) Customs Judge (thrice);

vii) Special Judge, Anti-Corruption;

viii) Special Judge, Banking Court;

ix) Chairman, Commercial Court and Drug Court;

x) Member, Appellate Insurance Tribunal;

xi) Presiding Oﬃcer, Labour Court;

xii) Member, Supreme Appellate Court/Tribunal;

xiii) Chairman, Institute of Business Administration (I.B.A.) Karachi;

xiv) Member, Board of Governors of Aga Khan University, Karachi;

xv) Member, Board of Governors of Indus Valley School, Karachi;

xvi) Chairman, Central Zakat Council of Pakistan, Islamabad; and xvii) Member, Selection Board of the Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

18 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 • Elevated as Judge, High Court of Sindh on 24th March 1992. • Appointed as Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh on 22nd April 1999. • Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan on 4th February, 2000. • Appointed as Chief Justice of Pakistan on 31st December 2003

EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN OF:

i) Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad.

ii) Federal Judicial Academy, Islamabad.

iii) National Judicial Policy Making Committee.

FOREIGN VISITS/INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES:

• Visited France twice in connection with meetings of the Aga Khan University at Paris.

• Represented Pakistan in the First UK-Pakistan Judicial Conference on Child and Family Laws held at London from 15th to 17th January, 2003.

• Participated in the second UK-Pakistan Judicial Conference on Child and Family Laws held at Islamabad from 21st to 24th September, 2003.

• Hosted and chaired the 7th SAARC Chief Justices Conferences held at Karachi on 21st Febru- ary, 2004.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 19 THIS PAGE BLANK

20 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Chief Justice of Pakistan (Retired on 31.12.2003) 2.7 Bio Data of Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan (Retired on 31st December, 2003) Name: Mr. Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad Father’s Name: Late Sh. Manzoor Ahmad Date of birth: 9th March, 1938 Educational Qualiﬁcation: B.A., LL.B. Date of enrolment as pleader: 16th August, 1960 Date of enrolment as an Advocate of High Court: 25th September, 1962 Date of enrolment as an Advocate of Supreme Court: February 1968

• Practised at the Bar for 14 years and worked as Legal Advisor to the Standard Chartered Bank, Family Planning Department, Government of West Pakistan, University of the Punjab, Taken-over industries, like Ravi Rayon, Ittehad Chemicals and WAPDA;

• Brought on the State list in 1963 to represent the Province of West Pakistan in the High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan: conducted many cases on the constitutional, criminal as well as civil sides;

• Worked as a Part-time Lecturer in the Punjab University Law College, Lahore from 1969 to 1974;

• Appointed as Assistant Advocate General Punjab on 24th January, 1974;

• Worked exclusively in the Supreme Court of Pakistan from November, 1974 to May 1980 and represented not only the Province of Punjab, but also other provinces and the Federal Government, while conducting cases of Constitutional importance;

• Appointed as Advocate General Punjab on 27th of May, 1980, i.e., the Principal Law Oﬃcer of the Government of Punjab: worked in this capacity up to 2nd of March, 1984;

• Ex-oﬃcio Chairman, Punjab Bar Council from 1980 to 1984;

• Appointed as a Judge of the Lahore High Court on 3rd of March, 1984;

• Member of the Punjab University Law College Committee since 1980;

• Appointed as Chairman, Board of Governors of the Quaid-e-Azam Law College;

• As a Judge of the Lahore High Court appointed as Chairman of Tribunal to hold an enquiry into the Badshahi Mosque incident at Lahore;

• Chairman of the Enrolment Committee of the Punjab Bar Council for enrolment of Advocates;

• Member of the Committee constituted by the Government of Punjab to run the aﬀairs of Islamia College, Civil Lines, Lahore;

• Member of the Executive Council of Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad;

22 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 • Member of the Syndicate Agriculture University, Faisalabad;

• Member of the Board of Governors, Government College, Lahore;

• Member of the Syndicate of Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad;

• Member of the Judicial Commission appointed to probe into the cause of the air crash of C-130 aircraft at Bahawalpur wherein General Zia-ul-Haq and others were killed;

• Appointed as Member of the Election Commission of Pakistan from 1993 to 1996;

• Held the oﬃce of Federal Secretary, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad;

• Elevated as ad-hoc Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1995;

• Attended the Commonwealth Law Oﬃcers Conference at Malta in 1994;

• Attended the International Conference on the Criminal Law held in Rio de Generio, Brazil in 1995;

• Appointed as Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court from June, 1997 to November, 1997;

• Elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in November, 1997;

• Attended Training Programme organised by the Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada in December 2001;

• Nominated as Chairman of Federal Review Board in June 2000;

• Participated in the World Bank Conference on Legal and Judicial Reforms at Washington D.C., U.S.A. in June 2000;

• Participated in the Fourth Worldwide Common Law Judiciary Conference held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from May 5-9, 2001;

• Participated in the Conference on Judicial Independence (the Act of Settlement Conference) held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from May 9-11, 2001;

• Participated in the delegation from the Pakistan Judiciary on a study tour of London, Wash- ington, Philadelphia and San Francisco etc. in connection with the Legal Reforms Project for Strengthening of Institutional Capacity for Judicial and Legal Reforms organised by the Asian Development Bank from 27 April to 3 June, 2001;Participated in the delegation from the Pakistan Judiciary to the Peoples’ Republic of China from 2-10 September, 2001 to study the Judicial System of China;

• Attended the Global Judges Symposium on Sustainable Development and Rule of Law held at Johannesburg, South Africa from 18th to 20th August, 2002. During this visit, he also attended Envirolaw International Conference 2002 at Durban, South Africa.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 23 • Participated in the 9th SAARC Law and 6th Chief Justices Conference held at Jaipur, Ra- jhastan, India from September 20 to September 22, 2002 to discuss Judicial Review and the Environment.

• Attended South Asian Judicial Colloquium on Access to Justice held at New Delhi, India, from 1st to 3rd November, 2002.

• Ex-oﬃcio Patron, Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;

• Headed a seven member Judicial Delegation to participate in UK-Pakistan Judicial Conference on Child and Family Laws held at London form 15-17th January, 2003, wherein a Protocol was signed.

• Attended the International Symposium on Judicial Independence held at ADB Headquarters in Manila, Philippines on 6 & 7 August, 2003.

• Attended the 21ST Biennial Congress on the Law of the World held at Sydney and Adelaide, Australia, from 17-23 August, 2003.

• Participated/Headed Follow-up talks on the Protocol signed between the UK-Pakistan Judi- ciaries on 17-1-2003, known as Second UK-Pakistan Judicial Conference held at Islamabad, on 22 & 23 September, 2003, in which six Judges from UK participated and certain guidelines were singed.

• Appointed as the Chief Justice of Pakistan with eﬀect from 1st February, 2002 and retired on 31.12.2003.

24 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 2.8 Judges of the Supreme Court

Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh Passed LL.B from Punjab University in 1962; enrolled as Advocate, High Court in 1964; served as Deputy Attor- ney General from 28th October 1981 to 10th March 1987. Elevated as Judge, Lahore High Court in 1987 and of the Supreme Court in 1997. (Retired on 31.12.2003).

Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Passed LL.B. from Law College, Hyderabad University in 1973; enrolled as Advocate in 1974, and Advocate of the High Court in 1976 and of the Supreme Court in 1985. Elected Member, Bar Council in 1983. Appointed Advocate-General for Balochistan in 1989. Elevated as Additional Judge, High Court of Balochistan in 1990 and conﬁrmed in 1993. Ap- pointed as Chief Justice, High Court of Balochistan in 1999. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court 4th February, 2000; Chair- man, Enrolment Committee of Pakistan Bar Council and Chairman, Provincial Review Board for the Province of Balochistan. Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq Passed LL.B from University Law College, Lahore in 1960; enrolled as Advocate in 1961; elected Secretary, District Bar Association, Abbottabad in 1962. Qualiﬁed Provincial Civil Service (Judicial) Examination in 1967 and served as Civil Judge, Senior Civil Judge, and Additional District and Sessions Judge; promoted as District and Sessions Judge in 1977. At- tended the 1st Advanced Course in Shariah at the Institute of Shariah and Legal Profession, Islamabad and the Islamic Uni- versity, Madina, Saudi Arabia; Served as Registrar, Peshawar High Court from January 1988 to September 1989. Elevated as Judge, Peshawar High Court in 1991. Attended course on Alternate Dispute Resolution in San Francisco (USA) in 1998. Appointed as Chief Justice, Peshawar High Court in May 1999. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan on 4th Febru- ary, 2000. (Retired on 31.12.2003).

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 25 Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas Passed M.A. (Islamic Studies) in 1966, LL.B. in 1965 and LL.M. in 1981 from the University of Karachi, authored thesis on “Law of Contempt of Court” and secured 2nd position in the examination. Appointed Civil Judge and Magistrate 1st Class in 1967; promoted as District and Sessions Judge in 1979; served as Judge, Sindh Labour Court, Karachi from 1980 to 1983; Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sukkur from 1983 to 1988; District and Sessions Judge, Khairpur, Karachi East and Sukkur from 1988 to 1991; served as Member, Inspection Team, High Court of Sindh from 1991 to 1992 and Registrar, from 1992 to 1994; elevated as Judge, High Court of Sindh in 1994; served as Election Tribunal, Member/Chairman Service Tri- bunal for Subordinate Judiciary in Sindh. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 4th February 2000. Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal Passed M.A. (Economics) in 1963; LL.B. from Law College, University of Peshawar in 1965; enrolled as a Pleader in 1965, Advocate High Court in 1968 and Advocate Supreme Court in 1976. Elected Secretary, High Court Bar Asso- ciation, Peshawar in 1975 and as Vice President of the same Association in 1979. Visiting Lecturer at Provincial Civil Service Academy, NWFP, Peshawar in 1972; Law Oﬃcer, Assistant Advocate-General, Additional Advocate- General and Deputy Attorney-General from 1980 to 1991. Appointed as Additional Judge, Peshawar High Court in 1991 and conﬁrmed in 1993. Served as Chairman, NWFP Bar Council Tribunal, Labour Appellate Tribunal and Mem- ber, Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Review Board, Election Tribunal and Syndicate, University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar. Appointed as Chief Justice, Pe- shawar High Court on 6th January, 2000. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 28th April 2000.

Mr. Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah Passed LL.B. from Sindh University in 1965; enrolled as Ad- vocate in 1967 and as Advocate of the High Court in 1974. Elected Member, District Council and remained as such from 1979 to 1983 and again from 1987 to 1991. Served as Member, Syndicate Sindh Agricultural University. Elected as Member, Provincial Assembly of Sindh for the period 1988 to 1990 and again from 1990 to 1993. Elevated as Judge, High Court of Sindh in 1994. Appointed Chief Jus- tice, High Court of Sindh on 4th February, 2000. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 28th April, 2000. 26 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Passed his M.A. (Political Science) in 1969 and LL.B from Punjab University in 1968; Master of International Law (Australia); qualiﬁed in Islamic Fiqh and Shariah Course from International Islamic University, Islamabad. Appointed as Member, National Industrial Relations Commission in 1988. Elevated as Additional Judge, High Court of Balochistan in 1993 and conﬁrmed in 1995. Ap- pointed as Chief Justice, High Court of Balochistan on 4th February, 2000. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 28th April, 2000.

Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza Passed LL.B. from University of Sindh in 1961; enrolled as an Advocate in 1961; joined the Provincial Judicial Service in 1973 as Senior Civil Judge and Assistant Ses- sions Judge; promoted as District and Sessions Judge in 1983. Elevated as Judge, High Court of Sindh in 1995; nominated as Member, Election Commission of Pakistan in 1996. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 28th April 2000.

Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar Passed LL.B. from Law College, Punjab University in 1969; enrolled as Advocate in 1970 and practised law for 25 years. Elected as President, District Bar Association, Khairpur. Completed the 3rd Lawyer’s Course in Shariah from the International Islamic University, Islamabad in 1991. Appointed as Judge, High Court of Sindh in April 1995; elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 28th April, 2000.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 27 Mr. Justice Tanvir Ahmed Khan Passed LL.B. in 1965 and LL.M. in 1967 from University College London (University of London); called to the Bar from Hon’ble Society of Lincoln’s Inn. Remained as Sec- retary Pakistan Society, University of London from 1964 to 1969. Participated in the World Peace Through Law Conference in Holland in 1969. Enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court in 1970 and of the Supreme Court in 1977; Visiting Lecturer in the University Law College, La- hore from 1972 to 1977. Elevated as Judge, Lahore High Court in 1988 and Supreme Court on 27th September, 2000. Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan Born in District Abbotabad in the year 1945; obtained M.A. in Economics from the Punjab University, while studying at the Forman Christian College, Lahore; passed his LL.B. in 1967; joined the PCS (Judicial Branch) in 1968; promoted as Senior Civil Judge in 1976, as Additional District and Sessions Judge in 1979 and was then District and Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan; left for the USA 1965 to study the Amer- ican legal system; visited Tokyo, Japan in 1999 to attend a course on “Corruption Among Public Oﬃcials”; elevated to the Bench on 14th December, 1993 as Additional Judge, Pe- shawar High Court and conﬁrmed as Judge Peshawar High Court in June, 1995; elevated as Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court for which he took the oath on 28th April, 2000; elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and took the oath on 10th January, 2002.

Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday Born in Lahore on 13th January, 1945; studied at Gordon College, Rawalpindi where he was President of the Minerva Club and Editor of the “Gordonian”; participated actively in debates winning many prizes; was Secretary of the Pun- jab University Law Society and also Editor of Al-MIZAN ; joined the legal profession as an Advocate in 1969 and in 1976; was appointed Assistant Advocate General for the province of Punjab; elevated to the Bench of the Lahore High Court in October, 1988 and as Judge Supreme Court of Pakistan on 10th January, 2002.

28 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi Born in Murree in the year 1943; graduated from the Punjab University and passed his LL.B. in 1969; obtained diploma in labour laws in 1973; joined the legal profession in 1973 and became an Advocate of the Supreme Court in 1981; was appointed Assistant Advocate General in 1985; taught diﬀerent law subjects in many respected institutions from 1987 to 1991; was elevated as Judge of the Lahore High Court in 1992; was Chariman of the Tribunal constituted under Anti-Terrorist Act, 1977; was elevated as Judge Supreme Court of Pakistan on 10-01- 2002 and appointed Principal Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights w.e.f. 21.06.2003.

Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar Born in Lahore in the year 1945; after obtaining his LL.B. degree he joined the Bar and practised for 21 years; was Deputy Attorney General (Senior) from 24-07-1990 to 23- 07-1990; was elevated as Judge Lahore High Court on 10- 12-1996; served as Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights from 01-01-2000 to 09-01-2002; during his career, he has visited many countries—People’s Republic of China, U.K., Canada, U.S.A., Singapore and Manila—on study tours; on 10-01-2002, he was elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Mr. Justice Falak Sher Born in September, 1943; he graduated from the Punjab Uni- versity (Government College, Lahore) in 1964 and passed his LL.B. in 1966; is a Barrister-at-Law from the Gray’s Inn and was called to the Bar in England in 1972; joined the legal profession in 1966 becoming an Advocate of the High Court in 1969 and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1975; was appointed Legal Adviser to the British Ministry of Health and Social Security, but gave up the oﬃce to pursue legal practice; taught at the Punjab University Law College for over a decade and has also been a guest speaker at the Administra- tive Staﬀ College, Lahore; was elevated as Judge of the Lahore High Court on 11th March, 1987 and as Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court on 14-07-2000; on 6th September, 2002, he was elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 29 Mr. Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari Born at Eimanabad, District Gujranwala on 18th August, 1941; graduated from Government College, Lahore in 1961 and obtained his LL.B. degree from Punjab University Law Col- lege in 1963; enrolled as Advocate West Pakistan High Court in 1965 and as Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1971, during this period, he held diﬀerent oﬃces within the Bar Asso- ciation and was appointed Assistant Advocate General, Punjab in 1979; has taught law courses and acted as examiner for various law subjects; was appointed as Additional Judge of Lahore High Court in 1994 and as Judge of the Lahore High Court in 1996; was elevated as Ad-hoc Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 7th September, 2002. (Retired on 31.12.2003). Mr. Justice Allama Dr. Khalid Mahmud Born on 17th October, 1925; graduated from the Punjab Uni- versity in 1942 and obtained Masters degrees from the same University in Arabic, Islamic Studies and Persian in the years 1946, 1951 and 1953 respectively; obtained a Masters degree in Theology in 1969 from the University of Birmingham and went on to complete his doctoral degree (Ph.D.) from the same University in the same discipline; has been head of the Arabic and Persian departments in institutions in Pakistan as well as in the United Kingdom; has a number of books to his credit, among these are: Athaar al-Tanzeel, Athaar al-Hadeeth, Athaar al-Tashree and Athaar al-Ihsan; was elevated to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the year 2002. Mr. Justice Dr. Rashid Ahmad Jullundhri Belongs to Lahore; graduated from Jaami‘a Abbasiyya, Univer- sity of Bahawalpur and obtained his Masters degree in Arabic from al-Azhar University, Cairo; obtained his doctoral degree (Ph.D.) in 1968 from the University of Cambridge, England; has held the position of Professor at the Allama Iqbal Open University and the University of Balochistan, Quetta and the position of Director at the Institute of Islamic Research, Islam- abad and the Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore; from 1983 to 1985, he was Senior Fulbright Fellow at the Universities of Chicago and Harvard in the United States of America. He has a number of papers and books to his credit, among these is his dissertation on Qur’anic Exegesis and Classical Tafsir;was elevated to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the year 2002.

30 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Important Cases Decided by the Supreme Court During the Year 2003

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 31 Chief Justice of Pakistan in his Chamber 3 IMPORTANT CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE YEAR 2003

3.1 Javed Jabbar and 14 others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2003 SC 955) In these 14 Constitutional petitions filed under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan a common question of law having public importance was raised. The question before the Court was whether Article 8AA added to the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002, whereby all candidates defeated in the general elections for the National and the Provincial Assemblies were debarred from being candidates for election to the Senate, was discriminatory, unjust malafide, arbitrary, violative of fundamental rights and had retrospectively penalised individuals for an action, i.e., defeat in elections, which was not a disqualification at the time when the election to the National and the Provincial Assemblies had taken place. After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioners, and the Attorney General for Pakistan, the Court concluded that the impugned Article 8AA of the Order is discriminatory and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan as well as unjust, as it was promulgated after completion of the process of general elections, and has left the petitioners high and dry. Participation in an election is a positive act which advances the cause of democracy and flows from the fundamental right of a person to contest an election, which is en- shrined in the Constitution and acknowledged in the statutes on the subject. It is indeed unfair to sideline a candidate defeated in the general elections through a belatedly prescribed disqualification which is discriminatory in nature, militates against the spirit of democracy and tends to frustrate the process of election to the Senate. The amending Order was promulgated after the completion of the process of general elections and those who intend to contest elections to the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies were not aware that in the event of defeat they would be disqualified to participate in the Senate election. Had the disqualification in question been incorporated in the Order at the outset, the candidates desirous of contesting the Senate election would not have contested election to the National Assembly and provincial Assemblies and thus could have opted for a different course of action. The timing of the impugned legislation is crucial in the facts and circumstances of the present case and is fatal to the case of the Federation. Resultantly, the impugned legislation, although competently enacted and immune from challenge on the ground of malafides, cannot be allowed to remain on the statute book as it is violative of the provision of Art. 25 of the Constitution and has been introduced belatedly. [This case was decided by the Bench of Sh. Riaz Ahmad,CJ, Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Iftikhar Muhammad Ch. and Qazi Muhammad Farooq JJ, and judgement was written by Sh. Riaz Ahmad CJ]

3.2 Muhammad Jahangir Badar v. the State and others (PLD 2003 SC 525) The Petitioner ﬁled a writ petition before the Lahore High Court Lahore for his release on bail in a reference pending against him in the Accountability Court under the provisions of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 for the charges of corruption and corrupt practice under S.9 read with S.10 of the NAB Ordinance. The Petitioner was arrested on 21.08.2001 on the allegation that he being a former Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources had been indulging in corruption and corrupt

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 33 practice. The High Court dismissed his writ petition and did not release him on bail on the grounds that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner by the Prosecution may not be without substance and further that the prosecution was not solely responsible for the delay caused in the prosecution of the case. The Petitioner, not satisﬁed with the judgement of the High Court, approached this Court by way of Petition for leave to appeal for his release on the bail pending prosecution. This Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the State machinery has a right to arrest culprits and put them to trial, however it has no authority to keep them in custody for an indeﬁnite period without trial. The accused has a fundamental right that the case against him be concluded as early as possible, particularly in those cases where law has a prescribed period for the completion of trial. Inordinate delay can be considered a ground for bailing out an accused person depending on the nature and circumstances on account of which delay has been caused. In the instant case, prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the case cannot be overruled. The trial of the case has already commenced and statements of two witnesses have been recorded and a good number of documents have also come on record. Therefore, following the dictum of this Court in the case of Ashok v. the State (1997 SCMR 436) the trial court is directed to complete the trial within 30 days by holding proceedings of the case on a day to day basis and if the trial is not concluded even then, the accused shall be liable to be released on bail by the trial court subject to the provision of a surety bond by him in the sum of Rs.2.00 million and P.R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. [This case was decided by the Bench of Iftikhar Muhammad Ch., Rana Bhagwandas, andMianMuhammadAjmal,JJ,andJudgementwas written by Iftikhar Muhammad Ch., J.]

3.3 Mian Ahmad Saeed and others v. Election Tribunal For Kasur at Okara and 7 others (2003 SCMR 1611) In this case Sardar Muhammad Shoeb Respondent and Appellant contested election, as joint candidates in one panel, for the seat of Nazim and Naib Nazim of a Tehsil Council and being successful were notified as returned candidates. The Other Candidates/Respondents filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal wherein they alleged that Sardar Muhammad Shoeb one of the Respon- dents and a returned Nazim was not qualified to contest the election because he was not matriculate and the certificate produced by him to that effect during the scrutiny of his nomination papers was a forged document. The Election Tribunal allowed the petition and held that matriculation certificate produced by Sardar Muhammad Shoeb was a forged document and his nomination as Nazim was invalid. Resultantly, the Election Tribunal declared the election of both the candidates in the panel as void and directed the holding of fresh election of the panel. Against this decision of the Election Tribunal, returned candidates Sardar Muhammad Shoeb, Respondent and Appellant, filed separate writ petitions before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Other Respondents also filed writ petitions against the judgement of the Tribunal whereby it did not declare them as returned candidates. The writ Petition filed by Sardar Muhammad Shoeb, returned Nazim was dismissed while other writ petitions filed by Appellant and other were disposed of by a single judgement. All the parties before High Court in these petitions filed separate petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The leave was refused to Sardar Muhammad Shoeb returned Nazim and his petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. In other petitions, leave was granted by this Court to consider the question whether if Nazim is declared to be disqualified in an election petition, election of the Naib Nazim could also be declared as void being a substantial question of law of public importance and that whether in a case where in an election petition the election of the returned candidates

34 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 is declared void on account of being disqualified, his opponents in the election should have been declared as returned candidates by the Election Tribunal. This Court, after reviewing the concept of joint candidacy, held that joint candidates for the seat of Nazim and Naib Nazism must share the fate of the election with each other in the matters of disqualification, invalid nomination and the result of election in the form of success or defeat. In the system of joint candidacy, the candidates file their nomination papers individually, but the validity or invalidity of their nomination is essentially determined jointly and in the event of rejection of nominations of any one for any disqualification, the nomination of the other candidate shall automatically stand rejected and in the light of the same rule of joint responsibility their election can be declared void as a whole on the ground that on the nomination day their nomination was invalid. The disqualification attached with the candidate on the nomination day would not disappear after the election, therefore the defect of invalid nomination being not subsequently curable, the view that the Election Tribunal would not be competent to declare the election of joint candidate void as a whole on the ground that on the basis of which their nomination as whole could be rejected would be based on misconception of law and being contrary to the legislative intent, would nullify the concept of joint candidacy. As a result of this discussion the appeal of the returned Naib Nazim/Appellant was rejected and declaration as to invalidity of his election by the Election Tribunal and High Court was kept intact. However, the Order of the High Court declaring the panel of next candidates securing highest votes as elected was declared not maintainable and was set aside. [This judgement was written by the Bench of Sh. Riaz Ahmad, CJ, Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ, and judgement was written by Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J]

3.4 Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Company LTD, Karachi v. Gulam Abbas and Others (PLD 2003 SC724) In this case, the Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, Karachi, the Appellant, through an advertisement appointed a large number of Respondents as trainee engineers and trainee management. All of them served the Appellant Company on their respective positions for 4/5 years to the entire satisfaction of their superiors. Abruptly, the Appellant Company terminated the services of all the Respondents. Feeling aggrieved by this action of the Appellant Company, the Respondents approached the Federal Services Tribunal for redress of their grievances. The Services Tribunal accepted the appeals of all the Respondents and directed the Appellant Company to absorb them on their respective posts. Not satisfied with the order of the Services Tribunal, the Appellant Company filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Leave was granted to the Appellant Company to consider inter alia whether the Federal Services Tribunal while exercising powers conferred upon it under S.5 of the Services Tribunal Act, 1973, viz. to confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against, could direct the Petitioner Company for regularisation/absorption of the respondents. After hearing the parties, this Court held that the Federal Services Tribunal had vast jurisdiction to redress the grievances of the person before it and it could direct the Employer Company for absorption of the employees of the Company who were litigating with it and dismissed the appeal. [This case was decided by the Bench of Iftikhar Muhammad Ch., Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Rana Bhagwandas, Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ, and judgement was written by Iftikhar Muhammad Ch. ,J.]

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 35 3.5 Syed Ali Nawaz Shah and 2 others v. the State and others (PLD 2003 SC 837) In this case, Appellants along with 53 others were facing a reference before an Accountability Court at Karachi for the charges of corruption and corrupt practice under S.9 read with S.10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The allegation against the accused was that they misap- propriated/embezzled funds to the tune of Rs. 3,81,81,923 in the construction of Sim Nala on the project of Left Bank Outfall Drain Wapda in 1995. During the pendency of the reference in the Accountability Court, the appellants moved the High Court of Sindh for grant of bail. The High Court granted bail to the appellants on the condition of depositing an amount of Rs. 3,81,81,923 in the name of Chairman National Accountability Bureau. On the conclusion of trial, learned Ac- countability Court found them guilty of the charge on the ground that Appellants having returned the amount in dispute to NAB have admitted their involvement in the offence and held that appellants under S.15 of the Ordinance stand disqualified for a period of ten years from seeking or being elected, chosen or appointed or nominated as member or representative of any public body or any statutory authority or local authority or in service of Pakistan. Against the verdict of the Trial Court, the Appellants filed an appeal before Sind High Court Karachi. A Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by decision of the two courts below, Appellants approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan by filing a regular appeal. The Appellants contended before the Supreme Court that they had not deposited the amount with the NAB under any bargain deal in terms of S.25 of the Ordinance rather they deposited the amount under the direction of High Court to secure their release on bail and as such they are not liable for the penal consequences of S.25 of the Ordinance. This Court after hearing the parties held that appellants did not enter into an express agreement with the prosecution for the disposal of the case against them in terms of S.25 of the Ordinance and the essentials of plea bargain of offer and acceptance being missing, the transaction cannot be given the status of plea bargain in terms of S.25 of the Ordinance. Appeal was allowed along with the connected petitions and cases were remanded to the Trial Court for decision of their cases on merit. [The bench deciding this appeal consisted of Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Hamid Ali Mirza and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ, and judgement was written by Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J.]

3.6 Sher Baz Khan and others v. Mst Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana and others (PLD 2003 SC 849) In this case, Respondent No. 1’s land was sold under an alleged general power of attorney granted by her father when respondent No.1 was minor. On attaining majority she filed suits in which she challenged the sale transactions as being illegal, unauthorised, without consideration and inoperative against her ownership and possessory rights in the suit land inter alia on the ground that the disputed transactions had taken place when respondent was minor, the transactions were fraudulent and that no sale was made for her welfare. The Appellants/Defendants resisted the suits by alleging that disputed sale transactions were valid in law and the vendees had purchased the land for valuable consideration from authorised persons, i.e., the father of respondent No. 1 who was her natural guardian as well as from his duly appointed general attorney. The Trial Court decreed the suits as prayed for, which was affirmed by the High Court in the regular first appeals. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in appeals also affirmed the decrees granted by lower forums by holding that sale

36 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 transactions by the father as natural guardian of minor can be questioned by minor on attainment of majority on the ground that the transactions had not been made for her welfare. [This case was decided by the Bench of Munir A. Sheikh, Rana Bhagwandas and Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ, and author judge was Munir A. Sheikh, J]

3.7 Muhammad Abbas and another v. the State (PLD 2003 SC 863) This was a case of gang rape with Prosecutrix Mst. Asmat Tahra of district Sheikhupura by Munir Masih and Muhammad Abbas accused/Appellant. The Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No.3 Lahore tried the accused persons for the oﬀence of gang rape under S.11 of the oﬀence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. In her statement, the Prosecutrix alleged that both the accused abducted her forcibly from her house and subjected her to Zina bil Jabar turn by turn. The Trial Court instead of convicting the accused under S.11 of the Ordinance, punished them for imprisonment for 25 years under S.10(3) of the Ordinance. Accused preferred appeal against their conviction and sentence before Lahore High Court Lahore. The High Court dismissed their appeals but on its own converted their conviction from S.10(3) to S.10(4) of the Ordinance and enhanced their sentence from 25 years imprisonment to death. The convicts assailed the decision of the High Court before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. This Court after reappraisal of the evidence did not concur with the High Court on its decision to alter the conviction and sentence from S.10(3) to S.10(4) of the Ordinance on the ground that Prosecutrix was not abducted forcibly by accused persons and that only the Appellant Munir Masih committed Zina with her, while Appellant Muhammad Abbas had not committed Zina with her and, thus, it was not a case of gang rape. The Court acquitted Muhammad Abbas appellant from the charge and appellant Munir Masih’s conviction was altered from S.10(4) to S.10(2) of the Ordinance and instead of death, sentenced him for 10 years R.I. with 30 stripes. [This case was decided by the Bench of Iftikhar Muhammad Ch., Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Sardar Muhammad Raza, JJ, and author judge was Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary, J]

3.8 State through Deputy Prosecutor General camp office , Karachi v. Ramesh M. Udeshi, Ex-Secretary, Board of Revenue (Land Utili- sation) Sindh and others (PLD 2003 SC 891) Different pieces of land were given to different persons on lease for a period of 30 years for poultry farming in various dehs by the Government. Lessees of such land moved separate applications to the Chief Minister for conversion of their poultry farming leases into industrial/commercial and residential leases for 99 years in relaxation of the existing policy. The Chief Minister sent the said application to the Secretary Provincial Board of Revenue for favourable action who prepared a summary containing recommendations for conversion of the leases in question into industrial/commercial leases under S.10(1) of the Colonisation of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912 in relaxation of existing policy/rules and also recommended the reduction of the prescribed lease money. The summary was approved by the Chief Minister and consequently conversion of 26 leases mentioned in the summary was allowed to be made. Reference under the NAB Ordinance, 1999 was filed against both the Chief Minister, the Secretary Board of Revenue and some of the lessees for causing huge monetary loss to the State by corruption and corrupt practice and providing illegal benefits to the lessees and thus committing offences punishable under S.10 of NAB Ordinance as holder of the

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 37 public Office. Accountability Court No.3 Karachi convicted all the accused persons and also recommended the filing of a reference against other lessees in the matter. On this, Chairman Nab filed separate references against other lessees and in this reference the name of the Chief Minister and Secretary Board of Revenue was also included. Consequently, Respondent Ramesh M. Udeshi moved an application before the trial court for his discharge from the subsequent references on the ground that more than one trial on the same charge was not legal. On its failure he filed a revision petition before the High Court for interference. His case before the High Court was that the approval of 26 leases through the combined summary would constitute a single transaction and as it was not a case of separate transactions for each lease the filing of more than one reference and framing of separate charges in each reference on the basis of the same facts against him was not legal. The High Court disposed of this revision petition along with other criminal appeals against the judgement of the Accountability Court by a single judgement and held that since a proposal for grant of 26 leases of Government lands to different persons was approved through the joint summary, therefore, it would constitute a single transaction for the purpose of the joint trial of all the accused and separate trial in each reference would not be legal. The State not satisfied with the decision of the High Court preferred criminal petitions for leave to appeal on all the matters before Supreme Court of Pakistan. This Court after reviewing the law held that if same kind of offences are committed in separate transactions, the joinder of the charge in each case would be in contravention of the law but if similar nature of offences are committed in the same transaction a joint charge would be framed. If more than one offender committed the same offence in the same transaction all would be charged together at the joint trial. The framing of the separate charge against the respondent in each reference on the basis of the same facts would be violative of the law embodied in S.403 Cr.PC and Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan. All the petitions were dismissed. [This case was decided by the bench of Sh.Riaz Ahmad, CJ, Munir A. Sheikh and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi JJ, and judgement was authored by Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi J.]

3.9 Commissioner of Income Tax, Peshawar v. M/s Gul Cooking Oil and Vegetable Ghee (Pvt.) Ltd. (PLD 2003 SC 614) Respondent Company having its registered office at Dargi Malakand Agency, carries on a business of manufacturing, processing and sale of vegetable ghee and cooking oil for which it imports edible oil as raw material for manufacturing the said material. Income Tax authorities Peshawar issued notices under Ss.56 and 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to the Respondent/Company to submit Income Tax return for the Assessment year 1998-1999. Against this action of the Appellant, the Respondent company filed a writ petition in the Peshawar High Court wherein it was contended that the registered head office of the Company is situated in Dargi, Malakand Agency of the Provincially Administered Tribal Area of the NWFP where the provisions of the Ordinance are not enforceable within the contemplation of Art.247 of the Constitution of Pakistan as such it is non-taxable area, thus, notices of the Income Tax authorities/Appellant are illegal and without any lawful authority. The High Court accepted the writ petition and held that provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 are not applicable to the Malakand Agency within the contemplation of Article 247 of the Constitution of Pakistan and notices issued to the Respondent Company were illegal and without jurisdiction. Income Tax authorities/Appellant approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan against this verdict of the High Court by filing petition for leave to appeal. Leave was granted to them to consider whether the assessee was not entitled to exemption of Advance Tax under S.50(5), Income

38 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Tax ordinance, 1979 on the raw material that was imported for the purpose of manufacturing cooking oil and vegetable ghee in the factory situated in the Tribal area where admittedly the Income Tax Ordinance had not been made applicable within the preview of Art.247 of the Constitution of Pakistan and that income arising out of the products of the assessee was not taxable if the ﬁnished product was sold by it in the open market where the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was applicable. This Court, after hearing the parties at length, held that the Company located in the Tribal Area where the Income Tax Ordinance had not been extended by virtue of Ar.247 of the Constitution was not a resident of a taxable area and it would not be amenable to the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance. Issuance of notices under S.56 & 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance to the Respondent Company were therefore without any lawful authority. Income Tax Ordinance having not been extended to the Tribal Area, none of its provisions would apply thereto and as such any action taken or purported to be taken under any provision of the Income Tax Ordinance would be without any jurisdiction and without any lawful authority. Appeal was dismissed. [This case was decided by the Bench of Sh. Riaz Ahmad ,CJ, Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ, and judgement was written by Mian Muhammad Ajmal, J.]

3.10 Ashiq Ali and others v. Mst. Zamir Fatima and others (PLD 2004 SC 10) In this case this Court held that a property gifted by a husband to his wife in lieu of dower and such factum having been recorded in column 13 of the Nikahanama carries presumption of truth which cannot be rebutted and husband subsequently cannot sell out such property to any other person as he had no title left in the property after having gifted the same to his wife. [This case was decided on 28/2/2003 by a Bench of Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokar JJ, and judgement was authored by Javed Iqbal J.]

3.11 Capital Development Authority through Chairman and another v. Zahid Iqbal and another(PLD 2004 SC 99) A commercial plot was auctioned to Respondent by the CDA/Petitioner. On failure of the Respon- dent to deposit an installment of the bid money, CDA/Petitioner cancelled the auction benefitting the Respondent. Respondent challenged the action of the CDA before Wafaqi Mohtasib who declared that action of the CDA was a case of maladministration, hence illegal and void ab intio. CDA/Petitioner submitted representation against the decision of the Wafaqi Mohtasib before the President of Pakistan, who accepted the representation and set aside the decision of Wafaqi Mohta- sib. Respondent assailed the decision of President of Pakistan before the High Court and the Court set aside the order of the President. Against this order of the High Court, CDA filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan and contended before the Court that Wafaqi Mohtasib had no jurisdiction in contractual matters, thus, order of the Wafaqi Mohtasib was without jurisdiction and coram non judice. This Court after analysing the law applicable to the subject held that object of establishing the office of Wafaqi Mohtasib was to diagnose, investigate, redress and rectify any injustice done to a person through maladministarion on the part of any agency. The purpose was thus to undo the administrative excess from within the administration so that justice could be made available to the wronged persons without such person being forced to knock at the doors of the courts of law. Therefore wide powers had been conferred on the Ombudsman vide S.9

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 39 of President’s Order I of 1983 and only matters which were kept out of his jurisdiction were the matters which were subjudice before some Court or Tribunal of competent jurisdiction; matters which related to external aﬀairs of Pakistan or matters which related to or were connected with the defence of Pakistan. All other matters, irrespective of whether they stemmed from contractual obligation or otherwise, were well within the powers of the Ombudsman and a complainant could not be thrown out only because a complained matter emanated from contractual dispute. Petition was dismissed. [This case was decided on 23/9/2003 by the Bench of Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramdey, JJ, and judgement was written by Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramdey, J]

3.12 Haﬁz Abdul Waheed v. Mrs. Asma Jehangir and another (PLD 2004 SC 219) In this matter, the Lahore High Court, Lahore ruled that according to Muslim law a Muslim sui juris girl cannot marry of her own accord without the consent of her “Wali” and such marriage would be void in Islam. This Court, after reviewing the law laid down by Federal Shariat Court on the subject, held that as noted earlier there are a number of judgements of the Federal Shariat Court speciﬁcally holding that an adult sui juris Muslim girl can contract a valid nikah on her own and consent of Wali/Guardian/relations is not needed. The repeated pronouncements of the Federal Shariat court are required to be followed by the High Courts and all Courts subordinate to a High court, by virtue of Article 203-GG of the Constitution of Pakistan. Appeal was accepted and judgement of the Lahore High Court Lahore was set aside. [This case was decided on 19/12/2003 by a Bench of Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ, and judgement was written by Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J]

40 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Judicial Activity and Statistics

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 41 THIS PAGE BLANK

42 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 4 JUDICIAL ACTIVITY AND STATISTICS

4.1 Court Performance During the Year 2003 The past trend of increase in litigation continued throughout the year 2003. Once again a large number of cases, both petitions and appeals, were filed. To deal with the situation the Supreme Court of Pakistan refined its earlier strategy for clearing the backlog of cases. Accordingly, the Chief Justice constituted different benches varying the number of Judges. Consequently, a substantial number of cases, both old and new, were disposed of and the pressure was managed adequately. The measures adopted led to decisions in 10329 cases during the year 2003. The earlier pending cases prior to this were 17370, but during the year an overwhelming number of 12990 cases were filed. The causes for such increase may be attributed to the bulging population and an increase in commercial activity. At the Principal Seat, Islamabad, against the balance of pending cases of 7915 from the previous year, a total of 5821 were decided. 6952 new cases were instituted leaving the balance of pending cases at the end of the year at 9046. At the Lahore Branch Registry, against the previous balance of 7788 pending cases, 3225 cases were disposed of. 3923 new cases were instituted leaving the balance of pending cases at the end of the year at 8486. At the Karachi Branch Registry 557 cases were decided against the previous pending case balance of 870. With 928 new cases having been filed, the balance of pending cases for the year 2003 stood at 1241. At the Peshawar Branch Registry 625 cases were decided when the figure for pending cases was 670 with institution of 934 new cases, the balance of pending cases rose by 304 to reach 974. At the Quetta Branch Registry 127 cases were pending, while 100 cases were decided, but with 257 new cases, the balance of pending cases became 284. The consolidated figures for the Supreme Court, as a whole, reveal that against a pending balance of 17370, 10329 cases were decided. In the year 2003, the institution of 12990 new cases raised the balance of pending cases to 20031. All these figures reveal the rising pressure of new institutions upon the resources of the Supreme Court. Despite a large number of disposals by the Court at the Principal Seat as well as the Branch Registries, the pressure of litigation continued to mount. The Supreme Court continued to accord importance, during the year 2003, to cases of national importance. A few such significant judgements have been included in this Report. To deal with these important cases as well as all the other cases, larger benches of 7 Judges and 5 Judges had to be constituted. At the Principal Seat, the sittings of the Court lasted for 36 weeks. At Lahore, it was 24 weeks 2 days, at Karachi 6 weeks 3 days, at Peshawar 6 weeks and at Quetta the sittings were for 2 weeks and 2 days. The detailed statistics of judicial activity during the year 2003, including the constitution of benches, are provided in the tables within this section. An effort has been made, where necessary, to highlight the significance of the tables through graphic representations.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 43 4.2 Statement of Court Sessions During the Year 2003 4.2.1 Principal Seat Islamabad

S.No. Working Period No. of Weeks/Days No. of Benches 1 01.01.2003 to 03.01.2003 3days 4 2 06.01.2003 to 09.01.2003 4days 4+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 3 10.01.2003 1day 4 4 13.01.2003 to 17.01.2003 1 week 3 5 20.01.2003 to 21.01.2003 2days 3 6 22.01.2003 to 24.01.2003 3days 4 7 27.01.2003 to 31.01.2003 1 week 4 8 03.02.2003 to 04.02.2003 2days 4 9 06.02.2003 1days 3+2(5 Judges Larger Bench) 10 07.02.2003 1day 4+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 11 17.02.2003 to 19.02.2003 3days 3 12 20.02.2003 to 21.02.2003 2days 4 13 24.02.2003 to 28.02.2003 1 week 3 14 03.03.2003 to 07.02.2003 1 week 4 15 10.03.2003 to 11.03.2003 2days 2 16 12.03.2003 1day 3 17 17.03.2003 to 21.03.2003 1 week 4 18 24.03.2003 to 28.03.2003 1 week 4 19 31.03.2003 1day 2+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 20 01.04.2003 1day 3+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 21 02.04.2003 1day 2+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 22 03.04.2003 to 04.04.2003 2days 3+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 23 07.04.2003 to 11.04.2003 1 week 3+1(5 Judges Shariat Bench) 24 14.04.2003 to 18.04.2003 1 week 3+1(5 Judges Shariat Bench) 25 21.04.2003 to 25.04.2003 1 week 3+1(5 Judges Shariat Bench 26 28.04.2003 1day 4 27 29.04.2003 1day 5 28 30.04.2003 1day 4 29 02.05.2003 1day 4 30 05.05.2003 to 06.05.2003 2days 4 31 07.05.2003 1day 5 32 08.05.2003 to 09.05.2003 2days 4 33 12.05.2003 to 14.05.2003 3days 3 34 16.05.2003 1day 2 35 19.05.2003 1day 5 36 20.05.2003 to 23.05.2003 4days 4 37 26.05.2003 to 30.05.2003 1 week 5 38 02.06.2003 to 06.06.2003 1 week 4 39 09.06.2003 1day 3+2(5 Judges Larger Bench) 40 10.06.2003 to 13.06.2003 4days 4+1( 5 Judges Larger Bench) Continued. . . .

44 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 S.No. Working Period No. of Weeks/Days No. of Benches 41 08.09.2003 to 12.09.2003 1 week 6 42 15.09.2003 to 19.09.2003 1 week 6 43 22.09.2003 1day 7 44 23.09.2003 to 24.09.2003 2days 6 45 25.09.2003 to 26.09.2003 2days 7 46 29.09.2003 to 03.10.2003 1 week 6 47 06.10.2003 1day 5 48 07.10.2003 to 08.10.2003 2days 6 49 09.10.2003 to 10.10.2003 2days 5 50 13.10.2003 1day 3+1(Larger Bench) 51 14.10.2003 1day 5+1(Larger Bench) 52 15.10.2003 to 17.10.2003 3days 5 53 20.10.2003 to 24.10.2003 1 week 4 54 27.10.2003 to 30.10.2003 4days 4 55 31.10.2003 1day 3 56 03.11.2003 to 07.11.2003 1 week 4 57 10.11.2003 to 14.11.2003 1 week 7 58 17.11.2003 to 21.11.2003 1 week 6 59 24.11.2003 1day 1 60 25.11.2003 1day 1 61 01.12.2003 to 05.12.2003 1 week 5+1(5 Judges Shariat Bench) 62 08.12.2003 to 12.12.2003 1 week 5+1(5 Judges Shariat Bench) 63 15.12.2003 1day 6+1(5 Judges Shariat Bench) 64 16.12.2003 to 19.12.2003 4days 5+1(5 Judges Shariat Bench) GRAND TOTAL:— 36 weeks

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 45 4.2.2 Branch Registry, Lahore

S.No. Working period No. of weeks No. of Benches 1 01.01.2003 to 22.01.2003 3 week 3 2 23.01.2003 1day 2 3 24.01.2003 1day 2 4 27.01.2003 to 29.01.2003 3days 3 5 30.01.2003 to 07.02.2003 6days 2 6 10.02.2003 to 14.02.2003 2days 3 7 17.02.2003 to 21.02.2003 1 week 3 8 24.02.2003 to 28.02.2003 1 week 3 9 03.03.2003 to 06.03.2003 4days 3 10 07.03.2003 1day 2 11 10.03.2003 to 12.03.2003 3days 2 12 17.03.2003 to 21.03.2003 1 week 3 13 24.03.2003 to 28.03.2003 1 week 3 14 31.03.2003 to 18.04.2003 3 weeks 3 15 21.04.2003 to 02.05.2003 2 weeks 3 16 05.05.2003 to 09.05.2003 1 week 3 17 12.05.2003 to 14.05.2003 3days 3 18 16.05.2003 1day 3 19 19.05.2003 to 21.05.2003 3days 2 20 22.05.2003 1day 2 21 23.05.2003 1day 2 22 26.05.2003 to 30.05.2003 1 week 2 23 02.06.2003 to 06.06.2003 1 week 2 24 09.06.2003 to 10.06.2003 2days 2 25 11.06.2003 1day 1 26 12.06.2003 1day 2 27 13.06.2003 1day 2 28 24.07.2003 1day 1 29 27.10.2003 to 31.10.2003 1 week 1 30 24.11.2003 to 25.11.2003 2days 3 31 22.12.2003 1day 3 32 23.12.2003 to 24.12.2003 2days 2 33 26.12.2003 1day 2 Grant Total:— 24 weeks, 2 days 78

46 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 4.2.3 Branch Registry, Karachi

S.No. Working period No. of weeks No. of Benches 1 24-02-2003 to 28-02-2003 1 week 1

2 17-03-2003 to 21-03-2003 1 week 1

3 12-05-2003 to 14-05-2003 4days 1 & 16-05-2003 4 06-10-2003 to 08-10-2003 3days 1 5 13-10-2003 to 17-10-2003 1 week 1 6 20-10-2003 to 24-10-2003 1 week 1 7 24-11-2003 to 25-11-2003 2days 2 8 22-12-2003 to 24-12-2003 4days 2 & 26-12-2003 Grant Total:— 6weeks,3days 10

4.2.4 Branch Registry, Peshawar

S.No. Working period No. of weeks No. of Benches 1 10/2/2003 1day 1 2 10-03-2003 to 12-03-2003 3days 1 3 13-10-2003 to 17-10-2003 1 week 1 4 20-10-2003 to 24-10-2003 1 week 2 5 27-10-2003 to 31-10-2003 1 week 2 6 03-11-2003 to 07-11-2003 1 week 2 7 24-11-2003 to 25-11-2003 2days 1 8 22-12-2003 to 24-12-2003 4days 1 & 26-12-2003 Grand Total:— 6 weeks 11

4.2.5 Branch Registry, Quetta

S.No. Working period No. of weeks No. of Benches 1 10-02-2003 to 14-02-2003 1 week 1 2 15-09-2003 to 19-09-2003 1 week 1 3 24-11-2003 to 25-11-2003 2days 1 Grand Total:— 2weeks,2days 3

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 47 4.3 Statistics on the Institution and Disposition of Cases During the Year 2003 4.3.1 Statement Showing Institution, Disposal and Pendency of cases at Islamabad (from 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003) PETITIONS

Description Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance as Balance on 31-12-2003 Civil Petition 1657 3169 4826 2939 1887 Criminal Petition 391 1040 1431 737 694 Civil Review Petition 260 112 372 63 309 Criminal Review Petition 53 55 108 15 93 Criminal Shariat Petition 45 30 75 18 57 Criminal Shariat Review Petition 3 10 13 5 8 Jail Shariat Petition 25 153 178 140 38 Jail Petition 196 600 796 151 645 Constitution Petition 80 35 115 9 106 Human Right 40 10 50 32 18 TOTAL 2750 5214 7964 4109 3855

APPEALS

Appeals Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance as Balance on 31-12-2003 Civil Appeal 3919 1032 4951 1055 3896 Criminal Appeal 1087 407 1494 372 1122 Criminal Shariat Appeal 95 124 219 115 104 Civil Shariat Appeal 64 50 114 61 53 Miscellaneous Application 0 125 125 109 16 TOTAL 5165 1738 6903 1712 5191

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR ISLAMABAD

Cases Opening Institution Total Disposal Pending Remarks Balance as on 31-12-03 Petitions 2750 5214 7964 4109 3855 Increased by 1105 Appeals 5165 1738 6903 1712 5191 Increased by 26 G/T 7915 6952 14867 5821 9046 Increased by 1131

48 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 4.3.2 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Lahore (from 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003) PETITIONS

Petitions Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance as Balance on 31-12-2003 Civil Petition 6983 3051 10034 2493 7541 Criminal Petition 583 592 1175 426 749 Civil Review Petition 191 91 282 116 166 Criminal Review Petition 29 6 35 5 30 Jail Petition 0 11 11 11 0 Criminal Original Petition 0 5 5 5 0 Total 7786 3756 11542 3056 8486

APPEALS

Appeals Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance as Balance on 31-12-2003 Civil Appeals 2 128 130 130 0 Criminal Appeals 0 39 39 39 0 Total 2 167 169 169 0

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR LAHORE

Cases Opening Institution Total Disposal Pending Remarks Balance as on 31-12-03 Petitions 7786 3756 11542 3056 8486 Increased by 700 Appeals 2 167 169 169 0 Decreased by 2 G/T 7788 3923 11711 3225 8486 Increased by 698

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 49 4.3.3 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Karachi (1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003) PETITIONS

Petitions Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance as Balance on 31-12-2003 Civil Petition 567 806 1373 437 936 Criminal Petition 59 117 176 99 77 Civil Review Petition 40 16 56 6 50 Criminal Review Petition 1 0 1 0 1 Human Right 11 0 11 1 10 Jail Petition 0 1 1 0 1 TOTAL 678 940 1618 543 1075

APPEALS

Appeals Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance as Balance on 31-12-2003 Civil Appeal 189 -15 174 11 163 Criminal Appeal 3 3 6 3 3 TOTAL 192 -12 180 14 166

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR KARACHI

Cases Opening Institution Total Disposal Pending Remarks Balance as on 31-12-03 Petitions 678 940 1618 543 1075 Increased by 397 Appeals 192 -12 180 14 166 Decreased by 26 G/T 870 928 1798 557 1241 Increased by 371

50 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 4.3.4 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Peshawar (1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003) PETITIONS

Petitions Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance as Balance on 31-12-2003 Civil Petition 569 717 1286 501 785 Criminal Petition 98 168 266 91 175 Civil Review Petition 3 13 16 6 10 Criminal Review Petition 0 2 2 0 2 Jail Petition 0 2 2 0 2 Criminal Original Petition 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 670 902 1572 598 974

APPEALS

Appeals Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance as Balance on 31-12-2003 Civil Appeals 0 20 20 20 0 Criminal Appeals 0 7 7 7 0 TOTAL 0 27 27 27 0

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR PESHAWAR

Cases Opening Institution Total Disposal Pending Remarks Balance as on 31-12-03 Petitions 670 907 1572 598 974 Increased by 304 Appeals 0 27 27 27 0 No Variation G/T 670 934 1599 625 974 Increased by 304

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 51 4.3.5 Statement regarding Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Quetta (From 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003) PETITIONS

Petitions Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance as Balance on 31-12-2003 Civil Petition 37 194 231 47 184 Criminal Petition 39 58 97 31 66 Civil Review Petition 0 3 3 2 1 Criminal Review Petition 0 1 1 0 1 Jail Petition 4 2 6 6 0 Suo-Moto Review Petition 1 0 1 1 0 TOTAL 81 258 339 87 252

APPEALS

Appeals Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance as Balance on 31-12-2003 Civil Appeal 46 -2 44 13 31 Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal 0 1 1 0 1 TOTAL 46 -1 45 13 32

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR QUETTA

Cases Opening Institution Total Disposal Pending Remarks Balance as on 31-12-03 Petitions 81 258 339 87 252 Increased by 171 Appeals 46 -1 45 13 32 Decreased by 14 G/T 127 257 384 100 284 Increased by 157

52 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 4.3.6 Consolidated Statements for the Principal Seat and Branch Registries (From 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003) PETITIONS

Location Balance as Institution Total Disposal Balance as on 01-01-2003 on 31-12-2003 Islamabad 2,750 5,214 7,964 4,109 3,855 Lahore 7,786 3,756 11,542 3,056 8,486 Karachi 678 940 1,618 543 1,075 Peshawar 670 902 1,572 598 974 Quetta 81 258 339 87 252 Total 11,965 11,070 23,035 8,393 14,642

Total

Principal Seat

Lahore Registry

Karachi Registry

Peshawar Registry

Quetta Registry

1 23456789101112 Thousands Pending (Current) Disposal Institution Pending (Old)

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 53 APPEALS

Location Balance as Institution Total Disposal Balance as on 01-01-2003 on 31-12-2003 Islamabad 5,165 1,738 6,903 1,712 5,191 Lahore 2 168 170 170 0 Karachi 192 -12 180 14 166 Peshawar 0 27 27 27 0 Quetta 46 -1 45 13 32 Total 5,405 1,920 7,325 1,936 5,389

Total

Principal Seat

Lahore Registry

Karachi Registry

Peshawar Registry

Quetta Registry

1 2345678910 Thousands Pending (Current) Disposal Institution Pending (Old)

54 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR ALL CASES FROM 01-01-2003 to 31-12-2003

Cases Previous Institution Total Disposal Current Remarks Pendency Pendency Pendency Petitions 11,965 11,070 23,035 8,393 14,642 Increased by 2,677 Appeals 5,405 1,920 7,325 1,936 5,389 Decreased by 16 G/Total 17,370 12,990 30,360 10,329 20,031 Increased by 2,661

Petitions

Appeals

Total

1 234567891011121314151617181920 Thousands Pending (Current) Disposal Institution Pending (Old)

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 55 THIS PAGE BLANK

56 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Statistical Data Analysis

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 57 THIS PAGE BLANK

58 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 5 STATISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS

5.1 The Ratio of Pending Cases to Disposal The “Ratio of Pending Cases to Disposal” shows how long the Court will take, at the current rate of disposal, to dispose of the balance of cases pending at the end of the year.1 The ratio when applied to the consolidated ﬁgures for the Supreme Court for the year 2003, give the following results:

Cases Previous Institution Total Disposal Current Pending Cases Pendency Pendency Pendency to Disposal (Ratio) G/Total 17,370 12,990 30,360 10,329 20,031 194

ENTIRE PENDING BALANCE The ratio reveals that it will take the Court approximately two additional years at the current rate of disposal to elimi- nate the pending balance. As this is the total of all petitions and appeals, the ratio does not reveal the true picture.

Cases Previous Institution Total Disposal Current Pending Cases Pendency Pendency Pendency to Disposal (Ratio) Petitions 11,965 11,070 23,035 8,393 14,642 174

1A result of 100 means one year, 50 means six months and so on. The ratio is easily calculated from the data provided in the table. The calculation is as follows: P ending balance for the year × 100 Cases disposed of during the year

Thus, if the number of pending case were 5000 at the end of the year, while those disposed of were 10000, the calculation will be as follows: 5000 × 100 = 50 10000

This means, it will take the Court six months to dispose of the balance. If the cases pending were 20000, while those disposed of were 10000, the calculation would be: 20000 × 100 = 200 10000

This means that the Court will take 2 years to dispose of the balance at the current rate of disposal.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 59 PENDING BALANCE OF PETITIONS At the current rate of disposal, it will take the Court approximately additional one year and nine months to dispose of all the pending petitions.

Cases Previous Institution Total Disposal Current Pending Cases Pendency Pendency Pendency to Disposal (Ratio) Appeals 5,405 1,920 7,325 1,936 5,389 278

PENDING BALANCE OF APPEALS At the current rate of disposal, it will take the Court additional two years and ten months to dispose of all the pending appeals. This does not include the appeals to be instituted during this period, therefore, the word “additional” is added.

Cases Previous Institution Total Disposal Current Pending Cases Pendency Pendency Pendency to Disposal (Ratio) Islamabad 5,165 1,738 6,903 1,712 5,191 303

PENDING BALANCE OF APPEALS AT ISLAMABAD At the current rate of disposal, it will take the Court at the Principal Seat additional three years to dispose of all the pending appeals. This does not include new appeals to be instituted during these three years.

The conclusion may be drawn that a comprehensive strategy is needed to deal with rising pending balances, especially the appeals, keeping in view the fact that the number of Judges usually remains constant.

5.2 Median Time Analysis and the Supreme Court It is not possible at present to undertake median-time analysis on the basis of the data available for the Supreme Court. Median-time means the average time taken by the Court to decide a case, whether petition or appeal. Once the Automation Plan for the Courts is fully implemented such an analysis will become feasible. It may be mentioned, however, that median-time analysis is useful for measuring performance of diﬀerent courts of the same status (for example, the District Courts). Such an analysis may not be very useful for the Apex Court, except to the extent that performance in diﬀerent years can be compared.

60 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 5.3 Average Cost Per Case—Comparison with Last Year The cost per case ratio will acquire greater signiﬁcance when the automation plan is implemented and starts generating detailed data that will enable the assigning of weights to diﬀerent cases in terms of time taken to decide them. At present we may use the simple calculation Annual total expenditure for the year Cases disposed of during the year

for last year as well as this year and compare the result.

year 2002 year 2003 +/(-) Rs. 12966 Rs. 10796 (-2170)

COST PER CASE Cost per case this year, as compared to the cost last year, has gone down considerably, by almost 17%

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 61 5.4 Some Visible Trends 5.4.1 Insitution, Disposal and Pendency (1994 to 2003) The pending balance shown for each year in the following graph is the pending balance of the previous year. Thus, the pending balance shown for 2003 is 17,370, which was the ﬁnal balance at the end of 2002. The pending balance as on 31.12.03 was 20,031.

SUPREM E COURT OF PAK ISTAN

Yearwise In stitution, Disposal & Pendency of cases (1994 to 2003)

PETITIONS AND A PPEA LS

pendency Institution Disposal

20000

18000 17370

16000 15243

14000 13847 13171 13070 12990 11702 12000 11668 10998 10751 10371 10349 10329 10229 9547 9538 9409

10000 9289 9029 8834 8608 8413 8000 8205 6607 6439 6079 5826 6000 5658 5134 4955 4000 2000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

62 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 5.4.2 Trend of Pending Cases Over the Last Ten Years

Increase/ The pending balance contin- Year Current Previous Decrease ues to rise even though in- 1993 5134 3866 1268+ stitution of new cases has 1994 5658 5134 524+ declined over the last two 1995 5826 5658 168+ years and disposal has in- 1996 9289 5826 3463+ creased somewhat in the 1997 9409 9289 3463+ current year. Nevertheless, 1998 9029 9409 380- the increase in the pending 1999 8834 9029 195- balance this year was less 2000 10998 8834 2164+ than what it was last year. 2001 13070 10998 2072+ 2002 17370 13070 4300+ 2003 20031 17370 2661+

20 19 18 17 16 THE STEEP CURVE 15 OF PENDING CASES 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7

Thousand Cases 5 4 3 2 1 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 63 5.4.3 Trend of Institution of Cases Over the Last Ten Years 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 6498 6079 6607 11668 10349 10371 8413 11702 15243 13847 12,990

The number of new cases instituted has been declining over the last two years. The decline was sharper last year as comapred to this year.

20 19 18 17 16 THE CURVE FOR CASES FILED 15 OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS 14 13 12 11 10

9 8

7 6 Thousand Cases 5 4 3 2 1 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

64 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 5.4.4 Trend of Disposal of Cases Over the Last Ten Years 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 5230 4955 6439 8205 10229 10751 8608 9538 13171 9547 10329

There is an increase in the number of cases disposed of this year. What is signiﬁcant is that more appeals have been disposed of this year, and the pending balance of appeals actually decreased by 16 cases.

20 19 18 17 16 THE CURVE FOR CASES DECIDED 15 OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS 14 13 12 11 10 9 8

7 6 Thousand Cases 5 4 3 2 1 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 65 5.4.5 Comparative Graph of Cases Filed, Decided and Pending

The pending balance for the current year increased by 2,661, the number of cases instituted decreased by 857, and the number of cases disposed of increased by 782.

19 18 17 16 CASES FILED, DECIDED & PENDING 15 DURING THE LAST TEN YEARS 14 13 12 11 10 9 8

7 6 Thousand Cases 5 4 3 2 1 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

66 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 5.4.6 Analysis of the Pending Balance To understand the balance of pending cases, the following tables may be examined. The pending balance for all cases for the year 2003 is 20031, while the pending balance for appeals is 5389 and that for all petitions is 14642.

Civil Petitions at the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

Civil Opening Current Petitions Balance Insititution Total Disposal Balance Islamabad 1657 3169 4826 2939 1887 Lahore 6983 3051 10034 2493 7541 Karachi 567 806 1373 437 936 Peshawar 569 717 1286 501 785 Quetta 37 194 231 47 184 Total: 9813 7937 17750 6417 11333

The pending balance of 11333 for civil petitions is 77.40% of all pending petitions and 56.57% of all pending cases.

Criminal Petitions at the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

Criminal Opening Current Petitions Balance Insititution Total Disposal Balance Islamabad 391 1040 1431 737 694 Lahore 583 592 1175 426 749 Karachi 59 117 176 99 77 Peshawar 98 168 266 91 175 Quetta 39 58 97 31 66 Total: 1170 1975 3145 1384 1761

The pending balance of 1761 for criminal petitions is 12.02% of all pending petitions and 8.7% of all pending cases.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 67 Civil Appeals at the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

Civil Opening Current Appeals Balance Institution Total Disposal Balance Islamabad 3919 1032 4951 1055 3896 Lahore 02 128 130 130 0 Karachi 189 -15 174 11 163 Peshawar 0 20 20 20 0 Quetta 46 -2 44 13 31 Total: 4156 1163 5319 1229 4090

The pending balance of 4090 for civil appeals is 75.89% of all pending appeals and 20.04% of all pending cases.

Criminal Appeals at the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

Criminal Opening Current Appeals Balance Institution Total Disposal Balance Islamabad 1087 407 1494 372 1122 Lahore 0 39 39 39 0 Karachi 03 03 06 03 03 Peshawar 0 07 07 07 0 Quetta 0 01 01 0 01 Total: 1090 457 1547 421 1126

The pending balance of 1126 for criminal appeals is 20.89% of all pending appeals and 5.62% of all pending cases.

68 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Civil Petitions

56.57%

9.07% Remaining 5.62% 8.7%

20.04% Criminal Petitions Criminal Appeals

Civil Appeals

Civil Petitions and Civil Appeals form 76.61% of the balance of all pending cases.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 69 5.5 Data for the Last Five Decades: Increase in Institution of Cases as Compared to Increase in the Number of Judges INSTITUTION, DISPOSAL AND PENDENCY OF CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN FROM 1950 TO 31-12-2003.

APPEALS

Last Fresh Year Balance Institution Total Disposal Pending 1950 — 25 25 11 14 1951 14 31 45 19 26 1952 26 53 79 31 48 1953 48 65 113 95 18 1954 18 50 68 48 20 1955 20 140 160 92 68 1956 68 63 131 42 89 1957 89 44 133 59 74 1958 74 1 75 16 59 1959 59 210 269 91 178 1960 178 288 466 285 181 1961 181 287 468 285 183 1962 183 382 565 273 292 1963 292 454 746 326 420 1964 420 367 787 316 472 1965 472 392 864 379 485 1966 485 371 856 384 472 1967 472 328 800 335 465 1968 465 426 891 341 550 1969 550 829 1379 359 1020 1970 1020 541 1561 343 1218 1971 1218 118 1336 350 986 1972 986 138 1124 387 737 1973 737 166 903 249 654 1974 654 174 828 259 569 1975 569 207 776 225 551 1976 551 1208 1759 170 1589 1977 1589 603 2192 182 2010 1978 2010 1284 3294 579 2715 1979 2715 765 3480 613 2867 Continued....

70 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Last Fresh Year Balance Institution Total Disposal Pending 1980 2867 1334 4201 410 3791 1981 3791 772 4563 536 4027 1982 4027 1127 5154 661 4493 1983 4493 1459 5952 1242 4710 1984 4710 541 5251 878 4373 1985 4373 978 5351 866 4485 1986 4485 1186 5671 1060 4609 1987 4609 1130 5739 972 4767 1988 4767 1415 6182 1012 5170 1989 5170 2279 7449 1472 5977 1990 5977 1301 7278 5601 1677 1991 1677 1208 2885 1095 1790 1992 1790 4808 6598 4245 2353 1993 2353 1525 3878 1559 2319 1994 2319 1200 3519 692 2827 1995 2827 1872 4799 876 3823 1996 3823 4919 8742 3227 5515 1997 5515 1949 7464 2487 4977 1998 4977 3282 8259 3817 4442 1999 4442 1883 6325 2237 4088 2000 4088 3055 7143 1806 5337 2001 5337 3100 8437 3738 4699 2002 4699 2375 7074 1669 5405 2003 5405 1920 7325 1936 5389

PETITIONS Last Fresh Year Balance Institution Total Disposal Pending 1950 - 9 9 1 8 1951 8 154 162 93 69 1952 69 141 210 186 24 1953 24 213 237 217 20 1954 20 205 225 210 15 1955 15 228 243 199 44 1956 44 278 322 268 54 Continued....

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 71 Last Fresh Year Balance Institution Total Disposal Pending 1957 54 305 359 314 45 1958 45 408 453 408 45 1959 45 218 513 385 128 1960 128 199 327 251 76 1961 76 886 962 861 101 1962 101 1277 1378 1337 41 1963 41 1218 1259 1069 190 1964 190 1318 1571 1341 230 1965 230 2038 2268 1999 269 1966 269 1845 2114 1912 202 1967 202 2316 2518 1923 595 1968 595 1857 2452 2018 434 1969 434 1728 2162 1740 422 1970 422 1478 1900 1489 411 1971 490 640 1130 230 900 1972 900 974 1874 489 1385 1973 1385 1092 2477 678 1799 1974 1799 633 2432 373 2059 1975 2059 5755 7814 4266 3548 1976 3548 2370 5918 1746 4172 1977 4172 2651 6823 2676 4147 1978 4147 2651 6798 1153 5645 1979 5645 2455 8100 2734 5366 1980 5366 2519 7885 3804 4081 1981 4081 3689 7770 2249 5521 1982 5521 3365 8886 2399 6487 1983 6487 2888 9375 3270 6105 1984 6105 3934 10034 2302 7737 1985 7737 3663 14400 3616 7784 1986 7784 2935 10719 3486 7233 1987 7233 3803 11036 4379 6657 1988 6657 4429 11086 5942 5144 1989 5144 3534 8678 7528 1150 1990 1150 3999 4771 3621 772 1991 772 3560 4332 1604 2728 1992 2728 1818 4546 3033 1513 Continued....

72 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Last Fresh Year Balance Institution Total Disposal Pending 1993 1513 4973 6486 3671 2815 1994 2815 4879 7094 4263 2831 1995 2831 4735 7566 4663 2003 1996 2003 6749 8752 4978 3774 1997 3774 8400 12174 7742 4432 1998 4432 7089 11521 6934 4587 1999 4587 6530 11117 6371 4746 2000 4746 8647 13393 7732 5661 2001 5661 12143 17804 9433 8371 2002 8371 11472 19843 7878 11965 2003 11965 11070 23035 8393 14642

INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF JUDGES OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES

Chief Period Justice Judges 1947-1950 1 — 1950-1951 1 2 1953-1955 1 4 1955-1956 1 5 1956-1977 1 6 1977-1979 1 7 1979-1981 1 8 1981-1986 1 10 1986-1987 1 12 1987-2003 1 16

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 73 Institution of Cases Over the Last Five Decades

Cases 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2002 2003 Petitions 199 1478 2519 3999 8647 11472 11070 Appeals 288 541 1334 1301 3055 2375 1920 Total 487 2019 3853 5300 11702 13847 12990

19 18 17 16 THE CURVE FOR CASES FILED 15 OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6

Thousand Cases 5 4 3 2

1 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

74 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Social Objectives and the Contribution of Judges

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 75 THIS PAGE BLANK

76 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 6 SOCIAL OBJECTIVES AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF JUDGES

6.1 Judges of Supreme Court Nominated to Various Committees, Tri- bunals, University Syndicates and other Bodies

Name of Judge Name of Committee, Organisation/ Body Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui 1. Chairman, Pakistan Law Commission (Ex- Chief Justice of Pakistan officio) 2. Chairman, Board of Governors of Federal Judicial Academy (Ex-officio) 3. Trustee of the International Islamic Univer- sity (Ex-officio)

Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry 1. Judge Incharge for Affairs of Staff Welfare. 2. Chairman, Building, Committees, Islam- abad,Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar ,Quetta and Murree. 3. Chairman of Enrolment Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council (w.e.f. 29-9-2000) 4. Financial powers to sanction expenditure:— i) Repair, maintenance & purchase of official transport, machinery, furniture and other miscellanous items. ii) Cost of petrol. iii) Medical charges for Hon. Judges and other staff of the Court. iv) Transport of goods. v) Law charges. vi) Advertisement and other miscellanous expenditure.

Mr Justice Rana Bhagwandas 1. Member, Building Committee, Karachi. 2. Member of the Library Committee. 3. Financial powers to sanction expenditure of ’Purchase of books, other misc. items/equipments/machinery for use in the Library.

Continued. . . .

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 77 Name of Judge Name of Committee, Organisation/ Body Mr Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal 1. Member, Building Committee at Peshawar. 2. Chairman, Disciplinary Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council. 3. Member, Syndicate of the Quaid-i-Azam University. 4. Financial powers to sanction expenditure:— i) Under P.O.No.1/2001 and medical bills in respect of retired Judges. ii) Purchase of stationery and printing. iii) Uniform and liveries. 5. Liaison Judge for resolving “issues relating to Child and Family laws” of Pakistan and U.K 6. Chairman, Federal Review Board.

Mr. Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah 1. Member, Committee for maintenance of panel of counsel at state expense. 2. Chairman, Tribunal of the Pakistan Bar Council. 3. Member, Building Committee, Karachi.

Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal 1. Member, Building Committee, Quetta. 2. Member, Committee for maintenance of a panel of counsel at state expense. 3. Member of the Executive Council of the Al- lama Iqbal Open University from 7.3.2002.

Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza 1. As a Trustee of Shah Abdul Latif Education Trust. 2. Member, Federal Review Board. 3. Chairman, Election Tribunal of the Pak- istan Bar Council.

Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar 1. Member of Syndicate of Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur, Sindh. 2. Chairman, Central Zakat Council.

Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan 1. Member Selection Board of the Quaid-i- Azam University, Islamabad.

Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday 1. Represention on the Air University Board of Governors from 5th June, 2003. 2. Member, Building Committee, Lahore.

78 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 6.2 Interaction With International Judicial Institutions 1. A Judicial Delegation comprising the following Judges of the Pakistan Judiciary, attended UK-Pakistan Judicial Conference on Child and Family Laws held at London form 15-17th January, 2003, wherein a Protocol was signed:—

i) The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sh.Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan. ii) The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan. iii) The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan (now Chief Justice of Pakistan). iv) The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan. v) The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Judge, Lahore High Court. vi) The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, Judge, High Court of Sindh. vii) The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manzoor Hussain Gillani, Chief Justice, Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court.

The Protocol reads as under:—

The President of the Family Division and the Hon. Chief Justice of Pakistan in consultation with senior members of the family judiciary of the United Kingdom (“the UK”) and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (“Pakistan”), having met on 15th to 17th January 2003 in the Royal Courts of Justice in London, reach the following consensus: WHEREAS: (a) Desiring to protect the children of the UK and Pakistan from the harmful eﬀects of wrongful removal or retention from one country to the other; (b) Mindful that the UK and Pakistan share a common heritage of law and a commitment to the welfare of children; (c) Desirous of promoting judicial cooperation, enhanced relations and the free ﬂow of information between the judiciaries of the UK and Pakistan; and (d) Recognising the importance of negotiation, mediation and conciliation in the resolution of family disputes. IT IS AGREED THAT: 1. In normal circumstances the welfare of a child is best determined by the courts of the country of the child’s habitual/ordinary residence.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 79 2. If a child is removed from the UK to Pakistan, or from Pakistan to the UK, without the consent of the parent with a custody/residence order or, a restraint/interdict order from the court of the child’s habitual/ordinary residence, the Judge of the court of the country to which the child has been removed shall not ordinarily exercise jurisdiction over the child, save in so far as it is necessary for the Court to order the return of the child to the country of the child’s habitual/ordinary residence. 3. If a child is taken from the UK to Pakistan, or from Pakistan to the UK, by a parent with visitation/access/contact rights with the consent of the parent with a custody/residence order or a restraint/interdict order from the court of the child’s habitual/ordinary residence or in consequence of an order from that court permitting the visit, and the child is retained in that country after the end of the visit without consent or in breach of the court order, the judge of the court of the country in which the child has been retained shall not ordinarily exercise jurisdiction over the child, save in so far as it is necessary for the court to order the return of the child to the country of the child’s habitual/ordinary residence. 4. The above principles shall apply without regard to the nationality, culture or religion of the parents or either parent and shall apply to children of mixed marriages. 5. In cases where the habitual/ordinary residence of the child is in dispute the court to which an application is made should decide the issue of habitual/ordinary residence before making any decision on the return or on the general welfare of the child, and upon determination of the preliminary issue as to habitual/ordinary residence should then apply the general principles set out above. 6. These applications should be lodged by the applicant, listed by the court and decided expeditiously. 7. It is recommended that the respective governments of the UK and Pakistan give urgent consideration to identifying or establishing an administrative service to facilitate or oversee the resolution of child abduction cases (not covered by the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction). 8. It is further recommended that the judiciaries, the legal practitioners and the non-governmental organisations in the UK and Pakistan use their best endeav- ours to advance the objects of this protocol. 9. It is agreed that the UK and Pakistan shall each nominate judge of the superior court to work in liaison with each other to advance the objects of this protocol.

2. Chief Justice of Pakistan attended the International Symposium on Judicial Independence held at ADB Headquarters in Manila, Philippines on 6 & 7 August, 2003. 3. Chief Justice of Pakistan attended the 21ST Biennial Congress on the Law of the World held at Sydney and Adelaide, Australia, from 17-23 August, 2003. 4. Follow-up talks on the Protocol, signed between the UK-Pakistan Judiciaries on 17-1-2003, known as Second UK-Pakistan Judicial Conference were held at Islamabad, on 22 & 23

80 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 September, 2003, in which following Judges from Royal Courts of Justice, UK participated and certain guidelines were signed:—

i) The Rt Hon’ble Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss DBE, President of the Family Division of the High Court. ii) The Rt Hon’ble Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal. iii) The Rt Hon’ble Mr.Justice Singer, Family Division of the High Court. iv) His Honour Judge Pearl, President of the Care Standards Tribunal. v) The Hon’ble Lady Anne Smith, Supreme Court of Scotland. vi) The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gillen, Family Division of the High Court of Northern Ireland.

The Agreed Guidelines read as under:-

UK-PAKISTAN SECOND JUDICIAL CONFERENCE HELD AT ISLAMABAD ON 22ND AND 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2003.

AGREED GUIDELINES

1. Raising public awareness of protocol, maintaining awareness and providing continuing education to judiciary and practitioners involved in family-child cases. 2. Securing access to justice to ’left behind’ parents including knowledge of their rights and the opportunity to assert them. 3. To that end, instituting a system whereby the Judge in each Province of Pakistan is tasked with over-seeing the formation of a Committee to provide legal assistance to such parents. 4. Recognition of the importance of mediation within the extended family. 5. Recognition of the importance of liaison between Pakistan and the United Kingdom and, in particular, the importance of using the liaison Judges who need to know about all relevant cases which are pending or determined. The role of liaison Judge is to exchange orders by the Courts of respective countries in relation to the cases covered by the protocol for information. In case of breach of any such orders, further information is to be exchanged about those cases for appropriate steps to be taken by them in their respective functions. This role of the liaison Judge shall be given proper publicity. 6. Recognition of the importance of retaining judicial links between Pakistan and the United Kingdom, suggesting that Judges of both the countries should meet from time to time to discuss the working/implementation of the protocol, possibly through at least two Judges from each country meeting every two years. Also keeping in regular contact using, if appropriate, video link.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 81 7. Recognition of the need to address the problems that arise upon re-location after the return of a child to the country of his habitual residence. In particular, recognition of the need to aﬀord respect to any undertakings given to the Judge who ordered return or retention of a child. 8. Recommending the establishment of a Body in each country open to approach by an aggrieved person in United Kingdom-Pakistan seeking legal assistance in cases relating to wrongful and illegal removal of children.

Chief Justice of Pakistan and President of the Family Division of High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, U.K. signing the Guidelines at Islamabad on 23rd September, 2003 6.3 The Supreme Court and the Media The Press has free access to the Supreme Court, and the Court oﬃces are open throughout the year. Court Sessions and proceedings are open for the Press and copies of judgements are provided to the members of the Press. Rooms have been provided within the Supreme Court building to facilitate their work. In addition to this, the Press can now access the Court website and this website is growing by the day. In short, the Court encourages the Press to freely report on its proceedings. A few press reports are reproduced on the following pages:

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 83 84 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 85 86 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 87 88 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Code of Conduct for Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 89 THIS PAGE BLANK

90 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 7 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE HIGH COURTS

[Framed by the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 128 (4) of the 1962 Constitution as amended up to date under Article 209(8) of the 1973 Constitution]2

The prime duty of a Judge as an individual is to present before the public an image of the justice of the nation. As a member of this court, that duty is brought within the disciplines appropriate to a corporate body.

The Constitution, by declaring that all authority exercisable by the people is a sacred trust from Almighty Allah, makes it plain that the justice of this nation is of Divine origin. It connotes full implementation of the high principles, which are woven into the Constitution, as well as the universal requirements of natural justice. The oath of a Judge implies complete submission to the Constitution, and under the Constitution to the law. Subject to these governing obligations, his function of interpretation and application of the Constitution and the Law is to be discharged for the maintenance of the Rule of Law over the whole range of human activities within the nation.

To be a living embodiment of these powers, functions and obligations calls for possession of the highest qualities of intellect and character. Equally, it imposes patterns of behaviour, which are the hall-mark of distinction of a Judge among his fellow-men.

In this Code, an attempt is made to indicate certain traditional requirements of behaviour in the Judges of the Superior Courts, conducive to the achievement of a standard of justice worthy of the nation.

ARTICLE I faithful to his word, always preserving calm- ness, balance and complete detachment, for the On equiponderance stand the heavens and the formation of correct conclusions in all matters earth. By equiponderance, oppression meaning coming before him. unjust and unequal burdens, is removed. The In the matter of taking his seat, of his per- Judge’s task is to ensure that such equality sonal behaviour when in his seat and of rising should prevail in all things. from his seat, he shall be punctilious in point ARTICLE II of time, mindful of the courtesies, careful to A Judge should be God-fearing, law-abiding, preserve the dignity of the Court, while main- abstemious, truthful of tongue, wise in opin- taining an equal aspect towards all litigants as ion, cautious and forbearing, blameless, and un- well as all lawyers appearing before him. touched by greed. While dispensing justice, he should be strong without being rough, polite without being weak, awe-inspiring in his warnings and

2First printed in PLD 1967 Jour. 97.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 91 ARTICLE III To employ the influence of his position to gain undue advantage, whether immediate or To be above reproach, and for this purpose to future, is a grave fault. keep his conduct in all things, official and pri- A Judge must avoid incurring financial or vate, free from impropriety is expected of a other obligations to private institutions or per- Judge. sons such as may embarrass him in the perfor- ARTICLE IV mance of his functions. A Judge must decline resolutely to act in a case ARTICLE VII involving his own interest, including those of Extra-Judicial duties or responsibilities, offi- persons whom he regards and treats as near rel- cial or private, should be generally avoided. He atives or close friends. should equally avoid being a candidate, for any A Judge must rigidly refrain from entering elective office in any organisation whatsoever. into or continuing any business dealing, howso- ARTICLE VIII ever unimportant it may be, with any party to a case before him. Should the dealing be un- Gifts are to be received only from near rela- avoidable, he must discontinue his connection tives and close friends, and only such as are with the case forthwith. customary. Everything in the way of favours in A Judge must refuse to deal with any case in consequence of the office must be refused. In which he has a connection with one party or its accepting any entertainment offered, whether lawyer more than the other, or even with both general or particular, care should be taken that parties and their lawyers. its real purpose does not conflict with a Judge’s To ensure that justice is not only done, but duty to maintain detachment from likely liti- is also seen to be done, a Judge must avoid all gants, and from partisan activity. possibility of his opinion or action in any case ARTICLE IX being swayed by any consideration of personal In his judicial work, and his relations with other advantage, either direct or indirect. Judges, a Judge should act always for the main- ARTICLE V tenance of harmony within his own Court, as well as among all Courts and for the integrity Functioning as he does in full view of the pub- of the institution of justice. Disagreement with lic, a Judge gets thereby all the publicity that the opinion of any Judge, whether of equal or is good for him. He should not seek more. In of inferior status, should invariably be expressed particular, he should not engage in any public in terms of courtesy and restraint. controversy, least of all on a political question, notwithstanding that it involves a question of ARTICLE X law. In his judicial work a Judge shall take all steps ARTICLE VI to decide cases within the shortest time, con- trolling effectively efforts made to prevent early A Judge should endeavour to avoid, as far as disposal of cases and make every endeavour to possible, being involved, either on his own be- minimise suffering of litigants by deciding cases half for on behalf of others, in litigation or in expeditiously through proper written judge- matters which are liable to lead to litigation, ments. A Judge who is unmindful or indifferent such as industry, trade or speculative transac- towards this aspect of his duty is not faithful to tions. his work, which is a grave fault.

92 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 The Supreme Judicial Council

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 93 THIS PAGE BLANK

94 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 8 THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Article 209 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, provides for a Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan. The Article says:

209. Supreme Judicial Council.—(1) There shall be a Supreme Judicial Council of Pak- istan, in this Chapter referred to as the Council. (2) The Council shall consist of—

(a) the Chief Justice of Pakistan; (b) the two next most senior Judges of the Supreme Court; and (c) the two most senior Chief Justices of High Courts.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, the inter se seniority of the Chief Justices of the High Courts shall be determined with reference to their dates of appointment as Chief Justice, and in case the dates of such appointment are the same, with reference to their dates of appointment as Judges of any of the High Courts. (3) If at any time the Council is inquiring into the capacity or conduct of a Judge who is a member of the Council, or a member of the Council is absent or is unable to act due to illness or any other cause, then—

(a) if such member is a Judge of the Supreme Court, the Judge of the Supreme Court who is next in seniority below the Judges referred to in paragraph (b) of clause (2), and (b) if such member is the Chief Justice of a High Court, the Chief Justice of another High Court who is next in seniority amongst the Chief Justices of the remaining High Courts,

shall act as a member of the Council in his place. (4) If, upon any matter inquired into by the Council, there is a diﬀerence of opinion amongst its members, the opinion of the majority shall prevail, and the report of the Council to the President shall be expressed in terms of the view of the majority. (5) If, on information from any source, the Council or the President is of the opinion that a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court—

(a) may be incapable of properly performing the duties of his oﬃce by reason of physical or mental incapacity; or (b) may have been guilty of misconduct,

the President shall direct the Council to, or the Council may, on its own motion, inquire into the matter. (6) If, after inquiring into the matter, the Council reports to the President that it is of the opinion—

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 95 (a) that the Judge is incapable of performing the duties of his oﬃce or has been guilty of misconduct, and (b) that he should be removed from oﬃce,

the President may remove the Judge from oﬃce. (7) A Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court shall not be removed from oﬃce except as provided by this Article. (8) The Council shall issue a code of conduct to be observed by Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts.

96 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 The Court Registry

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 97 THIS PAGE BLANK

98 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 9THECOURTREGISTRY

Under Article 208 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, with the approval of the President, may make rules providing for the appointment by the Court of officers and servants of the Court and for their terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court (Appointment of Officers and Servants and Terms and Conditions of Services) Rules 1982 have been framed. The Registry of the Supreme Court provides administrative services to the Court for facilitating its judicial functions. The sanctioned strength of the Court Registry is 548, comprising the Registrar, Additional Registrar, Secretary to Chief Justice, Principal Private Secretary to Chief Justice, 5 Deputy Registrars, 11 Assistant Registrars and other officers and servants.

Mr. Muhammad Amin Farooqi is the present incumbent of the oﬃce of the Registrar having been appointed with eﬀect from 7th July, 1999.

9.1 Functions The Registry provides administrative services to the Court for carrying out its judicial functions. It prepares the cases for fixing before a bench and assists the Court in case flow management. The Registry provides information and assistance to advocates and the general public on legal proce- dures and formalities for filing cases and completing the record. The main Registry is situated at Islamabad, but Branch Registries have been established at Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta.

9.2 Goals The Registry’s goals are:

1. to provide services to the Court in cases ﬂow and court management;

2. to provide to the Chief Justice and to other Judges necessary assistance and information relating to processing of cases pending in the Court;

3. to ensure that necessary documents are included and all legal procedural formalities have been complied with before a case is ﬁxed for hearing;

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 99 4. to prepare cause lists and intimate ﬁxation of cases to parties, advocates-on-record and advocates;

5. to implement Court judgements and orders;

6. to maintain Court records; and

7. to maintain the record of senior advocates of the Supreme Court, advocates and advocates- on-record.

9.3 Services The Registry provides various services to the Court, the legal practitioners, and the litigant public. The staff ensures to the acquisition of necessary material and documents for preparing the cases for early hearing, and it coveys to lawyers as well as parties to the case, information about fixing cases for hearing. After the judgement is pronounced, the Registry makes copies of the judgement available to the parties and to general public and law journals for publication. It maintains record of advocates- on-record, advocates and senior advocates of the Supreme Court. Reception counters, manned by experienced personnel, have been established at the entrance halls of the Court Building with a view to facilitating the lawyers, litigant parties and general public in accessing various courtrooms, offices and information. The staff is imparted periodic training in the areas of their respective professional operation, particularly to equip them with essential skills and modern techniques.

100 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 9.4 Organisational Chart of the Court Staﬀ sitn Registrar Assistant r bu Razzaq Abdur Mr. DDO sitn Registrar Assistant r uamdAfzal Muhammad Mr. Administration sitn Registrar Assistant r aa aoqLone Farooq Talat Mr. euyRegistrar Deputy General/Protocol r hldNaseem Khalid Mr. Administration ne-aitnLeave ex-Pakistan On Librarian r uamdAlmLashari Aslam Muhammad Mr. aaProcessing Data Manager r uamdAi Farooqi Amin Muhammad Mr. r oalAmdBabar Ahmad Sohail Mr. diinlRegistrar Additional r uamdAslam Muhammad Mr. sitn Registrar Assistant euyRegistrar Deputy r uh Khan Budha Mr. Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Registrar r hrqSle Warraich Saleem Shariq Mr. sitn Registrar Assistant Civil r uamdZlani Shauq Zulqarnain Muhammad Mr. sitn Registrar Assistant euyRegistrar Deputy r hlmGhous Ghulam Mr. Printing Judicial r bu hn Memon Ghani Abdul Mr. sitn Registrar Assistant r uamdIqbal Muhammad Mr. euyRegistrar Deputy Criminal Karachi sitn Registrar Assistant euyRegistrar Deputy Implementation r aenSohail Yameen Mr. r evzAhmad Pervez Mr. Lahore r uamdBsi Janjua Bashir Muhammad Mr. sitn Registrar Assistant Coordination sitn Registrar Assistant r uarSabir Zubair Mr. Peshawar r uage Khan Aurangzeb Mr. fcrIncharge Ofﬁcer Quetta

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 101 9.5 Staff Welfare Fund In July, 1990 by the order of the then Chief Justice of Pakistan, a staff Welfare Fund was established with a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The aim of the fund was to help the needy and low paid employees of this Court. On 27th July, 1990, the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the staff members of the Court donated a sum of Rs.50,000/towards the fund. The members of the staff contributed the sums of Rs.47,500/-, Rs.39,350/- and Rs.91,000/- to the fund in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 respectively. The available amounts in the Staff Welfare Fund are as follows:

1. Amount invested in Special Saving Certificates with Post Office, Rs. 2,74,000 Supreme Court Building Branch, Islamabad. 2. Amount invested in PLS-TDR. No.937782 with Habib Bank Rs. 3,50,000 Limited, Supreme Court Building Branch, Islamabad. 3. Amount invested in PLS-TDR. No.937787 with Habib Bank Rs. 500,000 Limited, Supreme Court Building Branch, Islamabad. 4. Amount given as loan and due from members of Staff. Rs. 45,700 5. Balance lying with Habib Bank Limited, Supreme Court Build- Rs. 464,938.59 ing Branch in Account No. PLS-375-0 Rs.1634638.59

STAFF WELFARE ACTIVITIES A sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) was granted out of the Supreme Court Staff Welfare Fund to the family of late Sabaz Ali, Contingent Driver to meet his funeral expenses. Financial Assistance was also granted to Beneficiaries of Supreme Court of Pakistan from Al- Mizan Foundation. A statement showing payments made during the period 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2003 is given below:— Srl.No Name of Beneficiary Amount Purpose 1. Sabaz Ali, Driver (Deceased) Rs.5000/- Medical assistance 2. Abdul Aziz, Daftry (Branch Reg- Rs.3000/- Medical assistance istry Lahore) 3. Khani Zaman, Qasid Rs.5000/- Marriage of his daughter 4. Mst.Miskeena Khatoon (widow of Rs.5000/- Marriage of her daughter Late Shamim Ahmed,D.M.O) 5. Pervaiz Akhter, Naib Qasid Rs.3000/- Medical assistance 6. Dad Muhammad, Contingent Rs.2500/- Repair of house Driver 7. Abdur Rashid, Naib Qasid Rs.3000/- Medical assistance 8. Abid Hussain, Qasid Rs.3000/- Medical assistance 9. Muhammad Hayat, Qasid (Retd) Rs.1500/- Financial assistance 10. Muhammad Siddique, Naib Qasid Rs.2000/- Funeral expenses on his mother’s death

102 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Finances of the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 103 THIS PAGE BLANK

104 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 10 FINANCES OF THE SUPREME COURT

10.1 Expenditure During the Last Financial Year 2002–2003 Statement Showing the actual expenditure incurred during the last ﬁnancial year 2002-2003.

HEADS OF ACCOUNT ACTUALS 01101-Pay of Officers. Rs. 20,554,562 01201-Pay of Staff. Rs. 15,081,765 02000-Regular Allowances. Rs. 16,763,532 03100-Overtime Allowance. Rs. 1,196,641 03200-Night Duty Allowance. Rs. – 03300-Honorarium. Rs. 554,000 03400-Medical Charges. Rs. 4,144,810 03700-Pay of Contingent Staff. Rs. 12,740,866 03800-Leave Salary. Rs. — 11000-Purchase of Transport. Rs. 4,134,952 12000-Purchase of Machinery. Rs. 7,293,500 13000-Purchase of Furniture. Rs. 661,959 19000-Purchase of Others. Rs. 38,225 41000-R&M of Transport. Rs. 1,516,097 42000-R&M of Machinery. Rs. 304,061 43000-R&M of Furniture. Rs. 4,150 44000-R&M of Buildings. Rs. – 49000-R&M of Others. Rs. 27,575 51101-T.A. to Govt. Servants. Rs. 7,703,191 51200-Transportation of Goods. Rs. 1,130,667 51300-Cost of Petrol. Rs. 3,872,419 51400-Conveyance Charges. Rs. 399,534 52100-Postage & Telegraph. Rs. 322,693 52200-Telephone Charges. Rs. 6,551,561 52400-Courier Service. Rs. 69,372 53100-Gas Charges. Rs. 1,660 53300-Electricity Charges. Rs. — 53400-Hot & Cold W/Charges. Rs. — 54000-Office Stationery. Rs. 1,461,983 55000-Printing Charges. Rs. 449,151 56000-Purchase of Books. Rs. 2,072,808 57000-Uniform & Liveries. Rs. 151,667 Continued....

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 105 HEADS OF ACCOUNT ACTUALS 58100-Rent of oﬀﬁce building. Rs. — 58600-Rates & Taxes. Rs. 106,231 59300-Law Charges. Rs. 117,000 59500-Advertisement Charges. Rs. 310,246 59900-Other Expenditure. Rs. 1,640,950 67000-Entertainment Charges. Rs. 137,967 GRAND TOTAL:— Rs.111,515,835

10.2 Budgetary Allocation for the Year 2003–2004 Statement showing budget allocation under various Sub-heads for the current ﬁnancial year 2003-2004.

HEADS OF ACCOUNT ALLOCATION 01101-Pay of Officers. Rs. 23,472,000 01201-Pay of Staff. Rs. 17,223,000 02000-Regular Allowances. Rs. 22,550,000 03100-Overtime Allowance. Rs. 800,000 03200-Night Duty Allowance. Rs. 20,000 03300-Honorarium. Rs. 500,000 03400-Medical Charges. Rs. 3,500,000 03700-Pay of Contingent Staff. Rs. 25,345,000 03800-Leave Salary. Rs. 50,000 11000-Purchase of Transport. Rs. 500,000 12000-Purchase of Machinery. Rs. 1,000,000 13000-Purchase of Furniture. Rs. 1,000,000 19000-Purchase of Others. Rs. 500,000 41000-R&M of Transport. Rs. 1,400,000 42000-R&M of Machinery. Rs. 325,000 43000-R&M of Furniture. Rs. 100,000 44000-R&M of Buildings. Rs. 2,000 49000-R&M of Others. Rs. 75,000 51101-T.A. to Govt. Servants. Rs. 6,000,000 51200-Transportation of Goods. Rs. 1,300,000 51300-Cost of Petrol. Rs. 3,100,000 51400-Conveyance Charges. Rs. 600,000 Continued....

106 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 HEADS OF ACCOUNT ALLOCATION 52100-Postage & Telegraph. Rs. 300,000 52200-Telephone Charges. Rs. 5,700,000 52400-Courier Service. Rs. 200,000 53100-Gas Charges. Rs. 50,000 53300-Electricity Charges. Rs. 300,000 53400-Hot & Cold W/Charges. Rs. 10,000 54000-Office Stationery. Rs. 1,100,000 55000-Printing Charges. Rs. 650,000 56000-Purchase of Books. Rs. 1,200,000 57000-Uniform & Liveries. Rs. 150,000 58100-Rent of offfice building. Rs. 20,000 58600-Rates & Taxes. Rs. 180,000 59300-Law Charges. Rs. 2,000,000 59500-Advertisement Charges. Rs. 400,000 59900-Other Expenditure. Rs. 1,500,000 67000-Entertainment Charges. Rs. 400,000 GRAND TOTAL:— Rs. Rs.123,522,000

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 107 RECONCILIATION STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE FINAL, 2003. GRANT NO. NIL. NAME OF DEPARTMENT. SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN. FUNCTION MAJOR 20000-LAW & ORDER MINOR 21000-JUSTICE LAW COURTS. DETAILED. 21102-08-SUPREME COURT.

OBJECT HEADS. SANCTIONED SUPPLEMENTARY RELEASED PROPORTION- DEPARTMEN- PROGRESSIVE AUDIT PROGRESSIVE VARI- REASONS BUDGET,2002 /RE- BUDGET, ATE BUDGET, TAL FIGURES DEPARTMENTA FIGURES FIGURES OF ATIONS OF VARI- -2003. APPROPRIATION/ 2002-2003. 2002-2003. DURING THE L FIGURES. DURING THE AUDIT. ATIONS. SURRENDER. MONTH OF MONTH 06/2003 06/2003 (FINAL) (FINAL).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 00000-ESTABLISHMENTRs.95,589,000 R (-)Rs. 9,850,000Rs.71,036,176 Rs.71,036,176.00 Rs. -- Rs.71,036,176.00 Rs. -- Rs.71,036,176.00 -- -- CHARGES. Sur (-)Rs.14,070,000 Sur (-)Rs. 632,824 01101-PAY OF OFFICER. Rs.23,328,000 R (-)Rs. 2,000,000 Rs.20,554,562 Rs.20,554,562.00 Rs. -- Rs.20,554,562.00 Rs. -- Rs.20,554,562.00 -- -- R (-)Rs. 100,000 Sur (-)Rs. 500,000 Sur (-)Rs. 173,438

01201-PAY OF STAFF. Rs.16,219,000 R (-)Rs. 500,000 Rs.15,081,765 Rs.15,081,765.00 Rs. -- Rs.15,081,765.00 Rs. -- Rs.15,081,765.00 -- -- R (-)Rs. 55,000 Sur (-)Rs. 500,000 Sue (-)Rs. 82,235

02000-REGULAR Rs.22,513,000 R (-)Rs. 4,000,000 Rs.16,763,532 Rs.16,763,532.00 Rs. -- Rs.16,763,532.00 Rs. -- Rs.16,763,532.00 -- -- ALLOWANCES. R (-)Rs. 500,000 Sur (-)Rs. 1,000,000 Sur (-)Rs. 249,468

03000-OTHER Rs.33,529,000 R (-)Rs. 3,350,000 Rs.18,636,317 Rs.18,636,317.00 Rs.18,636,317.00 Rs. Rs. -- Rs.18,636,317.00 ------ALLOWANCES. R (+)Rs. 655,000 Sur (-)Rs.12,070,000 Sur (-)Rs. 127,683

03100-OVERTIME Rs. 600,000 R (+)Rs. 600,000 Rs. 1,196,641 Rs. 1,196,641 Rs. -- Rs. 1,196,641.00 Rs. -- Rs. 1,196,641.00 -- -- ALLOWANCE. Sur(-)Rs. 3,359

03200-NIGHT DUTY Rs. 20,000 Sur(-)Rs. 20,000 Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. ------ALLOWANCE.

03300-HONORARIUM. Rs. 400,000 R (+) Rs. 155,000 Rs. 554,000 Rs. 554,000 Rs. -- Rs. 554,000.00 Rs. -- Rs. 554,000.00 -- -- Sur(-)Rs. 1,000

03400-MEDICAL Rs. 3,000,000 R (+) Rs. 1,200,000 Rs. 4,144,810 Rs. 4,144,810 Rs. -- Rs. 4,144,810.00 Rs. -- Rs. 4,144,810.00 -- -- CHARGES. Sur(-)Rs. 55,190

03700-PAY OF Rs.29,459,000 R (-) Rs. 4,650,000 Rs.12,740,866 Rs.12,740,866 Rs. -- Rs.12,740,866.00 Rs. -- Rs.12,740,866.00 -- -- CONTINGENT STAFF. Sur(-)Rs.12,068,134

03800-LEAVE SALARY. Rs. 50,000 Sur(-)Rs. 50,000 Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. ------108 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 JUNE FINAL,2003. -2- SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 10000-PURCHASE Rs.OF 5,500,000 R (+)Rs. 6,750,000Rs.12,128,636 Rs.12,128,636.00 Rs. -- Rs.12,128,636.00 Rs. -- Rs.12,128,636.00 -- -- D/GOODS. Sur (-)Rs. 121,364 11000- Rs. 3,000,000 R (+)Rs. 1,000,000 Rs. 4,134,952 Rs. 4,134,952.00 Rs. -- Rs. 4,134,952.00 Rs. -- Rs. 4,134,952.00 -- -- TRANSPORT R (+)Rs. 150,000 Sur (-)Rs. 15,048

12000- Rs. 1,500,000 R (+)Rs. 1,000,000 Rs. 7,293,500 Rs. 7,293,500.00 Rs. -- Rs. 7,293,500.00 Rs. -- Rs. 7,293,500.00 -- -- MACHINERY. R (+)Rs. 4,800,000 Sur (-)Rs. 6,500

13000-FURNITURE. Rs. 500,000 R (+)Rs. 200,000 Rs. 661,959 Rs. 661,959.00 Rs. -- Rs. 661,959.00 Rs. -- Rs. 661,959.00 -- -- Sur (-)Rs. 38,041

19000-OTHERS. Rs. 500,000 R (-)Rs. 400,000 Rs. 38,225 Rs. 38,225.00 Rs. -- Rs. 38,225.00 Rs. -- Rs. 38,225.00 -- -- Sur (-)Rs. 61,775

40000-R&M OF D/GOODS. Rs. 1,800,000 R (+)Rs. 300,000Rs. 1,851,883 Rs. 1,851,883.00 Rs. -- Rs. 1,851,883.00 Rs. -- Rs. 1,851,883.00 -- -- R (-)Rs. 50,000 Sur (-)Rs. 198,117 41000-TRANSPORT. Rs. 1,400,000 R (+)Rs. 200,000 Rs. 1,516,097 Rs. 1,516,097.00 Rs. -- Rs. 1,516,097.00 Rs. -- Rs. 1,516,097.00 -- -- Sur (-)Rs. 83,903

42000-MACHINERY. Rs. 225,000 R (+)Rs. 100,000 Rs. 304,061 Rs. 304,061.00 Rs. -- Rs. 304,061.00 Rs. -- Rs. 304,061.00 -- -- Sur (-)Rs. 20,939

43000-FURNITURE. Rs. 100,000 R (-)Rs. 50,000 Rs. 4,150 Rs. 4,150.00 Rs. -- Rs. 4,150.00 Rs. -- SupremeRs. Court Annual Report 2003: 109 4,150.00 -- -- Sur (-)Rs. 45,850

49000-OTHERS. Rs. 75,000 Sur (-)Rs. 47,425 Rs. 27,575 Rs. 27,575.00 Rs. -- Rs. 27,575.00 Rs. -- Rs. 27,575.00 -- -- 50000-COMMODITIESRs.25,000,000 & R (+)Rs. 7,200,000Rs.26,361,173 Rs.26,361,173.00 Rs. -- Rs.26,361,173.00 Rs. -- Rs.26,361,173.00 -- -- SERVICES. R (-)Rs. 4,150,000 Sur (-)Rs. 320,000 Sur (-)Rs. 1,368,827 51000-TRANSPOR- Rs.10,100,000 R (+)Rs. 3,800,000 Rs.13,105,811 Rs.13,105,811.00 Rs. -- Rs.13,105,811.00 Rs. -- Rs.13,105,811.00 -- -- TATION R (-)Rs. 150,000 Sur (-)Rs. 644,189

51101-TRAVELLING Rs. 5,700,000 R (+)Rs. 2,500,000 Rs. 7,703,191 Rs. 7,703,191 Rs. 7,703,191.00 Rs. Rs. -- -- Rs. 7,703,191.00 -- -- ALLOWANCE. Sur(-) Rs. 496,809

51200-TRANSPORTATION Rs. 1,200,000 Sur(-) Rs. 69,333 Rs. 1,130,667 Rs. 1,130,667 Rs. -- Rs. 1,130,667.00 Rs. -- Rs. 1,130,667.00 -- -- OF GOODS.

51300-COST OF PETROL. Rs. 2,600,000 R (+)Rs. 1,300,000 Rs. 3,872,419 Rs. 3,872,419 Rs. -- Rs. 3,872,419.00 Rs. -- Rs. 3,872,419.00 -- -- Sur(-)Rs. 27,581

51400-CONVEYANCE Rs. 600,000 R (-)Rs. 150,000 Rs. 399,534 Rs. 399,534 Rs. -- Rs. 399,534.00 Rs. -- Rs. 399,534.00 -- -- CHARGES. Sur(-)Rs. 50,466

52000- Rs. 6,200,000 R (+)Rs. 900,000 Rs. 6,943,626 Rs. 6,943,626.00 Rs. -- Rs. 6,943,626.00 Rs. -- Rs. 6,943,626.00 -- -- COMMUNICATIONS. R (-)Rs. 50,000 Sur(-)Rs. 106,374

52100-POSTAGE & Rs. 300,000 R (+)Rs. 100,000 Rs. 322,693 Rs. 322,693 Rs. -- Rs. 322,693.00 Rs. -- Rs. 322,693.00 -- -- TELEGRAPH. Sur(-)Rs. 77,307

52200-TELEPHONE Rs. 5,700,000 R (+)Rs. 855,000 Rs. 6,551,561 Rs. 6,551,561 Rs. -- Rs. 6,551,561.00 Rs. -- Rs. 6,551,561.00 -- -- CHARGES. Sur(-)Rs. 3,439

52400-COURIER Rs. 200,000 R (-)Rs. 105,000 Rs. 69,372 Rs. 69,372 Rs. -- Rs. 69,372.00 Rs. -- Rs. 69,372.00 -- -- SERVICES. Sur(-)Rs. 25,628 JUNE FINAL,2003. -3- SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 53000-UTILITIES. Rs. 360,000 R (-)Rs. 50,000 Rs. 1,660 Rs. 1,660.00 Rs. 1,660.00 Rs. --- Rs. --- Rs. 1,660.00 -- -- Sur(-)Rs. 300,000 Sur(-)Rs. 8,340

53100-GAS CHARGES. Rs. 50,000 Sur(-)Rs. 48,340 Rs. 1,660 Rs. 1,660.00 Rs. -- Rs. 1,660.00 Rs. -- Rs. 1,660.00 = = 53300-ELECTRICITY Rs. 300,000 R (-)Rs. 50,000 Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. ------CHARGES. Sur(-)Rs. 250,000

53400-HOT & COLD Rs. 10,000 Sur(-)Rs. 10,000 Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. ------W/CHARGES.

54000-OFFICE Rs. 1,100,000 R (+)Rs. 200,000 Rs. 1,461,983 Rs. 1,461,983.00 Rs. -- Rs. 1,461,983.00 Rs. -- Rs. 1,461,983.00 -- -- STATIONERY. R (+)Rs. 200,000 Sur (-)Rs. 38,017

55000-PRINTING Rs. 650,000 R (-)Rs. 200,000 Rs. 449,191 Rs. 449,191.00 Rs. -- Rs. 449,191.00 Rs. -- Rs. 449,191.00 -- -- CHARGES. Sur (-)Rs. 809

56000-PURCHASE OF Rs. 1,100,000 R (+)Rs. 1,200,000 Rs. 2,072,808 Rs. 2,072,808.00 Rs. -- Rs. 2,072,808.00 Rs. -- Rs. 2,072,808.00 -- -- BOOKS. Sur (-)Rs. 227,192

57000-UNIFORM & Rs. 120,000 R (+)Rs. 100,000 Rs. 151,667 Rs. 151,667.00 Rs. -- Rs. 151,667.00 Rs. -- Rs. 151,667.00 -- -- LIVERIES. Sur (-)Rs. 68,333

58000-RENT & TAXES. Rs. 170,000 Sur (-)Rs. 20,000 Rs. 106,231 Rs. 106,231.00 Rs. -- Rs. 106,231.00 Rs. -- Rs. 106,231.00 -- -- Sur (-)Rs. 43,769

58100-RENT OF OFFICE Rs. 20,000 Sur (-)Rs. 20,000 Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. ------BUILDINGS.

58600-RATES & TAXES. Rs. 150,000 Sur (-)Rs. 43,769 Rs. 106,231 Rs. 106,231.00 Rs. -- Rs. 106,231.00 Rs. -- Rs. 106,231.00 -- --

59000-OTHER Rs. 5,200,000 R (+)Rs. 1,000,000 Rs. 2,068,196 Rs. 2,068,196.00 Rs. -- Rs. 2,068,196.00 Rs. -- Rs. 2,068,196.00 -- -- EXPENDITURE. R (-)Rs. 3,900,000 Sur (-)Rs. 231,804

59300-LAW CHARGES. Rs. 4,000,000 R (-)Rs. 3,850,000 Rs. 117,000 Rs. 117,000.00 Rs. -- Rs. 117,000.00 Rs. -- Rs. 117,000.00 -- -- Sur (-)Rs. 33,000

59500-ADVERTISEMEFNT Rs. 400,000 R (-)Rs. 50,000 Rs. 310,246 Rs. 310,246.00 Rs. -- Rs. 310,246.00 Rs. -- Rs. 310,246.00 -- -- Sur (-)Rs. 39,754

59900-OTHER Rs. 800,000 R (+)Rs. 1,000,000 Rs. 1,640,950 Rs. 1,640,950.00 Rs. -- Rs. 1,640,950.00 Rs. -- Rs. 1,640,950.00 -- -- EXPENDITURE. Sur (-)Rs. 159,050

60000-TRANSFER Rs. 400,000 R (-)Rs. 200,000Rs. 137,967 Rs. 137,967.00 Rs. -- Rs. 137,967.00 Rs. -- Rs. 137,967.00 -- -- PAYMENT. Sur (-)Rs. 62,033 66000-Gifts. Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. --. Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. -- Rs. ------67000-ENTERTAINMENT. Rs. 400,000 R (-)Rs. 200,000 Rs. 137,967 Rs. 137,967.00 Rs. -- Rs. 137,967.00 Rs. -- Rs. 137,967.00 -- -- Sur (-)Rs. 62,033

TOTAL:- Rs.128,289,000 Sur(-)Rs.16,773,165 Rs.111,515,835 Rs.111,515,835.00 Rs. -- Rs.111,515,835.00 Rs. -- Rs.111,515,835.00 NIL. -- This is to certify that Mr.Shahzada Alam, Budget Officer , Mr.Tanveer Masood, L.D.C. Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad have attended the office of the A.G.P.R., Islamabad on ……… ……..…………….and reconciled the figures of actual expenditure with audit figures upto June Final,2003 for the financial year, 2002-2003.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Dep.Rep. Assistant Accounts Officer, Sr.Auditor, Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer, Supreme Court. Expenditure. A.IV-Section. A.IV-Section. A.G.P.R.,Islamabad. 110 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 10.3 The Share of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Federal Budget

Year Total Budget Supreme Court Budget As %age of Federal (Rs in Million) (Rs in Million) Budget 1993-94 327,316 38.471 0.01 1994-95 375,427 71.741 0.02 1995-96 450,475 40.262 0.01 1996-97 482,612 42.916 0.01 1997-98 554,696 75.768 0.01 1998-99 613,658 83.949 0.01 1999-2000 688,125 79.408 0.01 2000-2001 686,104 84.587 0.01 2001-2002 741,959 115.229 0.02 2002-2003 747,674 128.289 0.02 2003-2004 743,028 123.522 0.02

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 111 THIS PAGE BLANK

112 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Legal Research at the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 113 THIS PAGE BLANK

114 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 11 LEGAL RESEARCH AT THE SUPREME COURT

11.1 The Supreme Court of Pakistan Library The Supreme Court of Pakistan maintains its own Library primarily for the use of Judges of the Court and for legal research to support their needs. The Supreme Court Library is one of the best libraries in the country. Besides the Main Library at the Principal Seat of the Court, three Libraries have been established at the Branch Registries: Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar. The Library is situated in the basement of Judges Chamber Block. Currently it has a collection of 62290 books including general books, text books, law reporters and journals on various subjects. It consists of 3 halls and separate offices for staff members and one study room for Judges. In the Main Hall, Law Reports of Pakistan and India have been shelved whereas in Hall No. 2 all the latest text books have been shelved and arranged subject wise. In the 3rd Hall Foreign Law Reports are available. All the Law Reports have been arranged alphabetically and are available from 1949 till the most recent. The All India Reports (AIR) is available from 1914 up to the most recent. All England Law Reports from 1558 till the present date. The Library also carries reference books like encyclopaedias, dictionaries and Halsbury’s Laws of England, as well as Annual Law Digests from 1947. There is sufficient storage space for storing books. The Library has its own binding facilities with two Book Binders. During the year the number of books available in the Supreme Court Library increased. The following table reflects the increase in Library holdings:—

Libray Holdings Increase during Available holdings Location as on 31.12.02 the year 2003 as on 31.12.03 Islamabad 48541 937 49478 Lahore 5093 793 5886 Peshawar 1375 2 1377 Karachi 5402 147 5549 Total: 60411 1879 62290

Among the signiﬁcant recent additions to the Library are the following encyclopedias:

1. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethicsedited by James Hastings.

2. Encyclopedia of Religious Rites and Ceremonies of all Nations.

3. The Encyclopedia of American Religions (3rd Edition).

4. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of India Pakistan Bangladesh and Srilanka.

5. Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice.

6. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.

7. Encyclopedia of the American Judicial System.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 115 8. The New Encyclopedia Britannica.

Besides the above Encyclopaedias, the Library has increased the available number of copies of the well known Law Reports, like PLD, SCMR, PLC, PTD, MLD and PLJ, as well as YLR that has been published recently. This has been done to ensure the smooth running of the Library. The Librarian is responsible for providing information and reference material to the Judges and the Court as and when needed. He is assisted by three Assistant Librarians. The Library employs 16 officials for the various functions of the Library. To meet the growing research needs a reference cell has been established. The reference cell is responsible for providing reference material to Judges in court as well as in their chambers. The Main Library also deals with administrative matters such as the ordering and payment of books and materials. A programme is underway for providing electronic research facilities and services to the Judges. These facilities are under various stages of implementation. One Senior Research Officer is available in the Library for this purpose. Among the components of the programme implemented are the automated inquiry logging system known as the Library Automation and Management Programme (LAMP), which is based upon the CDSIS program. This programme is used for cataloguing and to maintain an easily and swiftly accessible record of books and their movement. Almost all the books in the library have been fed into the programme. Besides this programme, a Case Citation System is in the process of implementation. Once implemented fully, it will help in conducting quick searches through queries based on (1) name of the parties, (2) subject, (3) sub-subject and (4) case citation. The Library maintains an efficient photocopying service.

11.2 Information Technology at the Supreme Court and Web Presence 11.2.1 Court Automation Plan The Computer Section in the Supreme Court of Pakistan was established in 1996. Initially, a contract was awarded to IBM for developing software for:—

• Case Monitoring System

• Library Management System

• Statute updating.

The above software system was installed in 1997 and data entry was started, but due to lack of funds no worthwhile progress could be made till 1998. In 1998 a study was carried out for computerisation in the court relating to:—

• Establishment of E-mail connection throughout the Court chambers/oﬃces and Branch Reg- istries;

• Facilitating the making of queries and receiving replies;

• Providing access to case law in digital format; and

• Case Flow Management.

116 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 In the light of this report, since 1999 a database of 50,000 library books has been updated under Library Management System, the Constitution of Pakistan has been updated on the Statutes Programme; and the Case Flow Management System has been redeveloped. Consequently:

1. All judgements and short orders are automated through word processing software. In fact, all typing work of the oﬃce is done on the Computers including all ﬁnancial statements.

2. Automation of Administration Section records for employees tracking is implemented and data processing is in progress.

3. Statistics data pertaining to cases is completed and software is successfully implemented.

4. Cause lists, notices, queries, diﬀerent lists of pending cases, and the history of all cases are now generated electronically.

5. The cases of AOR’s, ﬁxed in proposed and ﬁnal Cause Lists, are also generated electronically to facilitate the AORs concerned to have a list of their own cases.

6. New case entries are being made at the ﬁling stage.

7. The Criminal and Civil Branches are exclusively updating their respective cases on their own desks.

8. Full query of case tracking is available to all the oﬃcers/oﬃces.

9. The automation of Advocates (AOR, ASC, Sr. ASC) of Supreme Court is in progress.

10. E-mail connection has been established.

11. Computers have been provided in the Court to many oﬃcials, and automation for word processing of all departments of the Court is complete.

12. Display boards showing the status of cases being heard in the Court Rooms are installed successfully at following places:—

(a) One in the public entrance hall; (b) One outside each Court Room; (c) One in the Bar Room; and (d) One in the Bar Room Library. (e) The information regarding cases are also visible on the computers of the oﬃcers.

13. Application Software of keeping record of expenditure of branches has been implemented.

In addition to this, 84 Computers are now connected with Server through LAN. Internet is operative for approved Oﬃcers/Sections. In-house Case Flow Management Software is also available for all 84 Computers through the central Server via LAN. File transfer via Server is also achieved and actively in process via LAN. The setting up of a mail Server is in progress to facilitate internal mailing system. The LAN facility is expected to facilitate the display of case status.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 117 11.2.2 The Growing Website of the Court The Supreme Court launched its own website on 24th April, 2001. The website was designed by Mr. M.A.Lashari, DPM and prepared by Malik Sohail Ahmed, Programmer, Computer Section. Recently the website was redesigned. It displays essential information about the Court and its functioning and can be accessed at the address http://www.scp.com.pk. The following information has been made available on the website:—

1. Bio-data of the Honourable Chief Justice and Judges of the Court.

2. Proposed, ﬁnal and supplementary cause lists of the Court. Any information regarding any case can be searched only on currently available cause list. A plan is underway for making available dynamic searching of all cases.

3. Annual Reports of the Court.

4. Recent judgements of public importance.

5. List of Oﬃcers of the Court with telephone numbers.

Among the future plans of the website are the creation of dynamic cause lists that will be searchable by case number, by parties, or by names of Advocates. Further, dynamic Advocates lists with their address, telephone numbers, facsimile numbers and email addresses will be prepared. The query system mentioned above will be brought online for information on cases or any point of law. Finally, facilities will be created for updating case data between the Main Registry and Branch Registries via websites through a dialup connection. At present facilities in the Bar Room include viewing of cause lists and case progress. The display is a static display for the time being and the provision of search facilities for the Bar is under consideration.

118 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 The Court Building

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 119

12 THE COURT BUILDING

The Supreme Court complex, situated on Constitution Avenue, Islamabad comprises a Main Central Block, Judges Chambers Block and two Administration Blocks. The height of the Main Central Block is 167 feet above the ground. It is surrounded by Judges Chambers Block to the east and an Administratiion Block each to the north and south. The total covered area of the building is 3,39,861 sq.ft. The building was designed by the Japanese ﬁrm, Kenzo Tange Associates. Pakistan Environmental Planning and Architectural Consultant (PEPAC) served as consultant and interior designer. Civil and electrical work was carried out by Moinsons (Pvt) Ltd and Siemens (Pvt) Ltd. The building was completed in 1993 with a total cost of Rupees 605.960 million.

12.0.3 Building Architecture The splendid and magnificent structure with white marble exterior is a classic blend of Islamic and European architecture. The Islamic motifs are used in the exterior and interior of the building, especially in the marble flooring of the Ceremonial Hall, Judges Entrance Hall and Public Entrance Halls. The walls have detailed Islamic motifs on marble in inlaid brass. The forefront of the building is landscaped as a symbolic and ceremonial space, highlighting the dignity of Court. The fountain in the front creates a soothing effect and adds to the charm and beauty of the building.

12.0.4 Main Central Block The Main Central Block is placed in the heart of the complex. It primarily comprises 11 court rooms, the Ceremonial Hall, Auditorium of 550 seats and a Prayer Hall for 300 persons. The main court room, on the first floor, with seating capacity for 141 persons, is 125 ft high. It is surrounded by four court rooms, each having seating capacity for 72 persons. Six additional court rooms, each having seating capacity for 36 persons, are situated on the ground floor.

12.0.5 Judges Chambers Block The Judges Chambers Block houses the oﬃce of the Chief Justice, 20 Judges Chambers and the oﬃce of the Registrar. The library containing a collection of 62290 books, reports and journals, is situated in the basement. This Block also contains an impressive Entrance Hall, a Conference Room and a Dining Hall.

12.0.6 Administration Blocks The two Administration Blocks mainly contain the offices of the administrative officers/personnel. The northern Block is occupied by the staff of the Supreme Court. The southern Block contains the Secretariat of Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, offices of the Attorney General for Pakistan, Advocates-General and the Pakistan Bar Council. The cafeteria is also situated on the ground floor of this Block.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 121 THIS PAGE BLANK

122 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Judicial Hierarchy of Pakistan

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 123 THIS PAGE BLANK

124 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 13 JUDICIAL HIERARCHY OF PAKISTAN

13.1 Chart Showing Sanctioned Strength of Judges

JUDICIAL HIERARCHY OF PAKISTAN

(Sanctioned Strength of Judges)

Supreme Court of Pakistan

CJ+16 Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court

5(3 SC + 2 Ulema)

Federal Shariat Court

CJ+7(3 to be Ulema)

Forums Entertaining Criminal Cases Under Hudood Laws

Lahore High Court Sindh High Court Balochistan High Court Peshawar High Court

CJ+49 CJ+27 CJ+8 CJ+15

District & Sessions Judges District & Sessions Judges District & Sessions Judges District & Sessions Judges Addl. Distt & Sessions Judges Addl. Distt & Sessions Judges Addl. Distt & Sessions Judges Addl. Distt & Sessions Judges

Senior Civil Judges Civil Judges cum Judicial Magistrates Senior Civil Judges Civil Judges cum Judicial Magistrates

Civil Judges cum Senior Civil Judges Civil Judges cum Senior Civil Judges Judicial Magistrates Judicial Magistrates Majlis-e-Shoora Qazis

13.2 Strength of Judges and Administrative Staﬀ of Superior Judiciary

Supreme Federal Lahore High Peshawar High Court Shariat High Court of High Court of Judges of Pakistan Court Court Sindh Court Balochistan Chief Justice & Judges 17 8 50 28 15 9 Administrative Staﬀ 548 216 1490 1083 361 358

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 125 THIS PAGE BLANK

126 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Information on the Administration of Justice

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 127 THIS PAGE BLANK

128 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 14 INFORMATION ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

14.1 Advocates on the Rolls of the Supreme Court

Senior Advocates Advocates Advocates-on Record Total 249 2726 214 3189

14.2 Current Strength of Law Oﬃcers of the Federation and Provinces

Federal Punjab Sindh NWFP Balochistan 32 43 20 12 5

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 129 THIS PAGE BLANK

130 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Former Chief Justices, Judges and Registrars

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 131 THIS PAGE BLANK

132 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 15 FORMER CHIEF JUSTICES, JUDGES AND REGISTRARS

15.1 Former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Pakistan

S.No. Name of Chief Justice From To

01. Mr. Justice Sir Abdul Rashid 27.06.1949 29.06.1954 (Chief Justice, Federal Court) 02. Mr. Justice Muhammad Munir 30.06.1954 02.05.1960 (Chief Justice, Federal Court) 03. Mr. Justice Muhammad Shahabuddin 03.05.1960 12.05.1960 04. Mr. Justice A.R. Cornelius 13.05.1960 29.02.1968 05. Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman 01.03.1968 03.06.1968 06. Mr. Justice Fazle Akbar 04.06.1968 17.11.1968 07. Mr. Justice Hamoodur Rahman 18.11.1968 31.10.1975 08. Mr. Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali 01.11.1975 22.09.1977 09. Mr. Justice S. Anwar-ul Haq 26.09.1977 25.03.1981 10. Mr. Justice Muhammad Haleem 26.03.1981 31.12.1989 11. Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah 01.01.1990 18.04.1993 12. Mr. Justice Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah 17.04.1993 14.04.1994 13. Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 05.06.1994 02.12.1997 14. Mr.JusticeAjmalMian 03.12.1997 30.06.1999 15. Mr. Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui 01.07.1999 26.01.2000 16. Mr. Justice Irshad Hasan Khan 26.01.2000 06.01.2002 17. Mr. Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri 07.01.2002 31.01.2002 18. Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad 01.02.2002 31.12.2003

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 133 15.2 Former Judges of the Supreme Court

S. Name of Judge/Chief Justice Nature of Date of Date of No. Appointment Appointment Retirement 1. Mr. Justice Sir Abdul Rashid. Chief Justice 27.06.1949 29.06.1954 2. Mr. Justice Abdul Rehman Judge 07.02.1950 04.10.1953 3. Mr. Justice A.S.M.Akram Judge 15.02.1950 27.02.1956 4. Mr. Justice Muhammad Sharif Acting Judge 17.05.1950 to 23.05.1950 Judge 13.04.1954 01.04.1958 5. Mr. Justice Muhammad Munir judge 01.10.1951 to 22.11.1951 Chief Justice 29.06.1954 02.05.1960 6. Mr. Justice A.R. Cornelius Judge 22.11.1951 to 09.06.1952 Judge 17.10.1952 to 31.05.1953 Judge 10.10.1653 to 12.05.1960 Chief Justice 13.05.1960 29.02.1968 7. Mr. Justice M. Shahabuddin Acting Judge 06.10.1952 to 23.12.1952 Acting Judge 06.02.1953 to 07.06.1953 Judge 04.10.1953 12.05.1960 8. Mr. Justice S.A.Rehman Ad hoc Judge 02.03.1955 to 23.05.1955 Judge 02.04.0958 to 01.03.1968 Chief Justice 01.03.1968 03.06.1968 9. Mr. Justice Amiruddin Ahmad Judge 12.03.1956 21.12.1960 10. Mr. justice Fazle Akbar Judge 18.05.1960 to 04.06.1968 Chief Justice 04.06.1968 17.11.1968 11. Mr. Justice Badi-uz-Zaman Kaikaus Judge 25.07.1960 03.01.1966 12. Mr. Justice Hamoodur Rahman Judge 22.12.1960 to 18.11.1968 Chief Justice 18.11.1968 31.10.1975. 13. Mr. Justice Muhammad Judge 04.01.1966 Yaqub Ali to 31.10.1975 Chief Justice 01.11.1975 22.09.1977 14. Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan Judge 18.03.1968 31.03.1973 15. Mr. justisce Abdus Sattar Judge 04.06.1968 28.02.1971 16. Mr. Justice Mujibur Rahman Khan Judge 18.11.1968 23.11.1971 Continued. . . .

134 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 S. Name of Judge/Chief Justice Nature of Date of Date of No. Appointment Appointment Retirement 17. Mr. Justice Waheeduddin Ahmad Judge 22.09.1969 20.09.1974 Ad hog Judge 23.05.1977 06.02.1979 18. Mr. Justice Salahuddin Ahmad Acting Judge 04.12.1970 to 28.02.1971 Judge 01.03.1971 31.12.1976 19. Mr. Justice S.Anwar-ul-Haq Judge 16.10.1972 to 22.09.1977 Chief Justice 23.09.1977 25.03.1981 20. Mr. Justice Muhammad Gul Judge 14.04.1973 31.12.1976 21. Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Cheema Judge 08.10.1974 31.12.1977 22. Mr. Justice Abdul Kadir Shaikh Judge 08.10.1974 to 23.01.1975 Judge 01.07.1979 24.03.1991 23. Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Akram Judge 26.12.1975 31.09.1979 24. Mr. Justice Dorab Patel Judge 07.01.1976 25.03.1981 25. Mr. Justice Muhammad Haleem Judge 07.01.1977 to 25.03.1981 Acting Chief 26.03.1981 Justice to 22.03.1984 Chief Justice 23.03.1984 31.12.1989 26. Mr. Justice Qaisar Khan Judge 07.01.1977 30.07.1978 27. Mr. Justice G. Safdar Shah Judge 10.10.1977 16.10.1980 28. Mr. Justice Karam Elahee Chauhan Acting Judge 27.04.1978 to 13.06.1979 Judge 14.06.1979 04.02.1982 29. Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain Judge 12.01.1978 23.08.1988 30. Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah Judge 14.06.1989 to 31.12.1979 Chief Justice 01.01.1990 18.04.1993 31. Mr. Justice Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah Ad hoc Judge 18.05.1977 to 14.06.1979 Judge 14.06.1979 to 16.04.1993 Chief Justice 17.04.1993 14.04.1994 32. Mr. Justice Shaﬁur Rehman Ad hoc Judge 14.06.1979 to 29.07.1981 Judge 31.07.1981 15.02.1994 33. Mr. Justice Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain Acting Judge 02.06.1980 25.03.1981 34. Mr. Justice Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim Ad hoc Judge 17.06.1980 25.03.1981 35. Mr. Justice Shah Nawaz Khan Judge 05.04.1981 01.07.1982 36. Mr. Justice S.A. Nusrat Judge 04.08.1981 30.04.1989 37. Mr. Justice Zafar Hussain Mirza Judge 04.08.1981 09.10.1991 Continued. . . .

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 135 S. Name of Judge/Chief Justice Nature of Date of Date of No. Appointment Appointment Retirement 38. Mr. Justice M.S.H Quraishi Ad hoc Judge 30.07.1981 to 01.03.1982 Acting Judge 01.03.1982 30.09.1985 39. Mr. Justice Mian Burhanuddin Khan Acting Judge 02.03.1982 to 17.12.1984 Acting Judge 18.12.1984 17.12.1987 40. Mr. Justice Ali Hussain Qazilbash Acting Judge 17.04.1986 to 31.08.1988 Judge 01.09.1988 14.09.1991 41. Mr. Justice Dr.Javed Iqbal Judge 05.10.1986 04.10.1989 42. Mr. Justice Saad Saood Jan Ad hoc Judge 05.10.1986 to 24.03.1987 Judge 25.03.1987 30.06.1996 43. Mr. Justice Ghulam Mujadid Mirza Judge 25.03.1987 to 27.03.1987 Acting C.J.,LHC 28.03.1987 to 21.04.1988 Judge 22.04.1988 31.03.1990 44. Mr. Justice S.Usman Ali Shah Acting Judge 08.12.1987 to 31.08.1988 Judge 01.09.1988 14.09.1991 45. Mr. Justice Naimuddin Judge 04.09.1988 09.11.1991 46. Mr. Justice Abdul Shakurul Salam Judge 13.12.1988 31.03.1993 47. Mr. Justice Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Judge 13.12.1989 12.07.1994 48. Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian Judge 13.12.1989 to 02.12.1997 Chief Justice 03.12.1997 30.06.1999 49. Mr. Justice Rustam S. Sidhwa Judge 14.12.1989 31.08.1992 50. Mr. Justice Abdul Hafeez Memon Acting Judge 12.12.1989 to 08.10.1990 Judge 17.04.1994 22.07.1997 51. Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Lone Judge 13.08.1990 03.07.1993 52. Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah Judge 05.11.1990 16.02.1998 53. Mr. Justice Muhammad Raﬁq Tarar Judge 17.01.1991 01.11.1994 54. Mr. Justice Saleem Akhter Judge 25.03.1991 22.03.1997 55. Mr. Justice Wali Muhammad Khan Acting Judge 28.10.1991 to 04.09.1993 Judge 05.09.1993 31.10.1994 56. Mr. Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui Judge 23.05.1992 to 30.06.1999 Chief Justice 01.07.1999 26.01.2000 57. Mr. Justice Fazal Elahi Khan Judge 03.04.1993 31.12.1997 Continued. . . .

136 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 S. Name of Judge/Chief Justice Nature of Date of Date of No. Appointment Appointment Retirement 58. Mr. Justice Manzoor Hussain Sial Acting Judge 26.05.1993 to 04.09.1993 Judge 05.09.1993 24.03.1996 59. Mr. Justice Zia Mahmood Mirza Acting Judge 07.06.1993 to 18.10.1994 Judge 19.10.1994 20.04.1997 60. Mr. Justice Fazal Karim Acting Judge 07.06.1994 to 18.10.1994 Judge 19.10.1994 31.07.1996 61. Mr. Justice Muhammad Munir Khan Acting Judge 15.06.1994 06.08.1994 Ad hoc Judge 07.08.1994 06.08.1996 62. Mr. Justice Muhammad Ilyas Acting Judge 15.06.1994 to 18.10.1994 Judge 19.10.1994 30.09.1996 63. Mr. Justice Mir Hazar Khan Khoso Acting Judge 19.07.1994 29.09.1994 Ad hoc Judge 30.09.1994 29.09.1996 64. Mr. Justice Mamoon Kazi Ad hoc Judge 22.02.1995 to 14.04.1996 Judge 04.11.1997 26.01.2000 65. Mr. Justice Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo Judge 19.10.1994 19.02.1998 66. Mr. Justice Raja Afrasiab Khan Judge 22.02.1995 14.01.2000 67. Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid Ad hoc Judge 28.01.1991 to 28.04.1991 Judge 18.04.1996 26.01.2000 68. Mr. Justice Munawar Ahmed Mirza Judge 17.11.1996 24.11.1999 69. Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan Judge 17.12.1996 26.01.2000 70. Mr. Justice Sh.Ijaz Nisar Judge 29.05.1997 15.06.2000 71. Mr. Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed Judge 05.05.1998 26.01.2000 72. Mr.JusticeKamalMansurAlam Judge 22.04.1999 26.01.2000 73. Mr. Justice Rashid Aziz Khan Judge 04.04.2000 07.07.2001 74. Mr. Justice Abdul Rehman Khan Judge 04.11.1997 05.09.2001 74. Mr. Justice Muhammad Arif Judge 04.11.1997 09.01.2002 75. Mr.Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad Judge 4-11-1997 Chief Justice 1-2-2002 31-12-2003 76. Mr.Justice Munir A. Sheikh Judge 4-11-1997 31-12-2003 77. Mr.Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq Judge 4-2-2000 31-12-2003 78. Mr.Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari Ad-hoc Judge 7-9-2002 31-12-2003

Supreme Court Annual Report 2003: 137 15.3 Former Registrars of Federal Court and Supreme Court of Pakistan

S.No. Name Date of Appointment Date of Retirement

1. Mr. A.A.Mirza 15-08-1947. 10-01-1971 2. Mr.A.S.FaizulIslam 11-01-1971 17-07-1972 Chowudhury 3. Mr. Hidayat Hussain 31-03-1973 09-06-1977 4. Mr. Sajjad Ali Shah 10-06-1977 09-08-1978 5. Mr.S.A.Nizami 10-08-1978 31-10-1980 6. Mr.M.A.Latif 01-11-1980 09-01-1995 7. Mr. Ashiq Hussain 10-01-1995 05-10-1996 (Acting Charge) 8. Mr. Mohammad Zakaullah 06-10-1996 07-01-1998 (Acting Charge) 9. Mr.M.A.Latif 08-01-1998 07-07-1999 (Contract)

138 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003 Index

Abdul Hameed Dogar, J., 27 monthly average, 59 advisory jurisdiction, 8 Peshawar, 51 advocates, 129 principal seat, 53 advocates on the rolls of the Court, 127 Quetta, 52 allocation of funds, 106 visible trends, 62 analysis distribution of work, 44 last five decades, 74 analysis of pending cases, 67 election to the Senate, 33 apex court expenditure, 105 organisation, 5 appellate jurisdiction, 7, 13 Falak Sher, J., 29 Ashiq Ali v. Mst. Zamir Fatima, 39 Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J., 29 Attorney General, 15 foreword, 1 automation plan, 113, 116 former average cost per case, 61 Chief Justices, 133 Judges, 133, 134 branch registries Registrars, 133, 138 Karachi, 13 Full Court, 3, 16, 141, 142 Lahore, 13 Peshawar, 14 Hafiz Abdul Waheed v. Mrs. Asma Jahangir, 40 Quetta, 14 Hamid Ali Mirza, J., 27 budget of the Court, 105 Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, J., 25 CDA v. Zahid Iqbal, 39 important cases, 31, 33 Chief Justice information technology, 116 role and functions, 9 institution of cases, 48 code of conduct, 89, 91 all cases, 55 Commr. of Income Tax v. Gul Cooking Oil, 38 branch registries, 53 constitution of Benches, 44 Islamabad, 48 corruption and corrupt practice, NAB, 33 Karachi, 50 cost per case, 61 Lahore, 49 court building, 119, 121 last fifty years, 70 court composition, 15 last ten years, 64 Chief Justices, 15 Peshawar, 51 Judges, 15 principal seat, 53 Shariat Appellate Bench, 15 Quetta, 52 court performace, 43 visible trends, 62 court registry, 97, 99 interaction with international institutions, 79 functions, 99 international interaction goals, 99 guidelines, 79 organogram, 101 Javed Iqbal, J., 27 services, 100 Javed Jabbar and others v. Federation, 33 disposition of cases, 48 judicial activity, 41, 43 all cases, 55 judicial hierarchy, 123, 125 branch registries, 53 jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 7 Islamabad, 48 advisory, 8 Karachi, 50 and FSC, 8 Lahore, 49 appellate, 7 last fifty years, 70 original, 7 last ten years, 64 review, 8

139 Karachi Branch Registry, 13 Registrar, 15 court sessions, 47 Regstrar, 99 Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J, 30 review jurisdiction, 8 Khalid Mahmud, J, 30 rise in litigation, 2 Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, J., 28 Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J., 28 Lahore Branch Registry, 13 Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J., 1, 21, 83–88 court sessions, 46 bio-data, 22 law officers, 129 Sher Baz Khan v. Mst Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana, 36 legal research, 113, 115 signing of guidelines, 82 library, 115 social objectives contribution of Judges, 75, 77 Media, 83 Judges on committees, 77 Mian Muhammad Ajmal, J., 26 Staff Welfare Fund, 102 Mian Muhammad Saeed and others v. Election Tri- State v. Ramesh M. Udeshi, 37 bunal, 34 statistical data analysis, 57, 59 Muhammad Abbas v. The State, 37 statistics, 41, 43 Muhammad Amin Farooqi, 99 Sui Northern Gas v. Ghulam Abbas, 35 Muhammad Jahangir Badar v. The State, 33 Superior Judiciary Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J., 29 code of conduct, 91 Munir A. Sheikh, J., 25 Supreme Court advisory jurisdiction, 8 Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., 2, 17, 32 advocates, 129 bio-data, 18 and Media, 83 number of judges apex court, 5 last fifty years, 73 branch registries, 13 budget, 105, 111 original jurisdiction, 7, 13 court composition, 15 pendency, 48 decisions binding, 8 Islamabad, 48 execution of process, 9 Karachi, 50 Federal budget, 111 Lahore, 49 finances of, 105 Peshawar, 51 important cases, 31, 33 Quetta, 52 jurisdiction of, 7 pending balance, 2 legal research, 113, 115 pending cases, 48 library, 115 Islamabad, 48 organisation, 3, 5 Karachi, 50 review jurisdiction, 8 Lahore, 49 rule making powers, 9 Peshawar, 51 seat of Court, 13 Quetta, 52 Supreme Judicial Council, 93, 95 Peshawar Branch Registry, 14 Syed Ali Nawaz Shah v. The State, 36 court sessions, 47 Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, J., 26 principal seat, 13 Tanvir Ahmed Khan, J., 28 appellate jurisdiction, 13 court sessions, 44 original jurisdiction, 13

Qazi Muhammad Farooq, J., 25 Quetta Branch Registry, 14 court sessions, 47

Rana Bhagwandas, J., 26 Rashid Ahmad Jullundhri, J., 30 ratio of pending cases to disposal, 59

140 Supreme Court Annual Report 2003