— Constitutional jurisdiction — Conceding statement of Law Officer — Effect — Not only a Law Officer is debarred from making a conceding statement before the Court, unless written instructions are available with him, but it is also mandatory to produce an officer not below the rank of Grade-17 to appear before the Court and verify and reiterate the same — The sensitivity of the matter can be further gauged from the fact that it is also obligatory on part of the Court to record presence of such officer in the order and to make the written instructions part of the record of the Court. [2024 CLS 8 = 2024 CLC 71 = 2021 LHC 5343]

— Availing remedy in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court — Laches — Scope — By 2010, the respondent had been superseded, and this supersession had not been challenged within a reasonable time — The constitutional petition filed by the respondent before the High Court had suffered from laches — Furthermore, the right that the respondent had asserted and continued to assert, to be granted proforma promotion for which there was no provision in the relevant service rule, was coupled with the fact that the respondent had already retired from service and received all his benefits due to him under the law — As such, it was found that interference by the High Court in the matter at the stage it interfered was not supported either by the relevant law or by any of the rules governing the terms and conditions of employees of the petitioner/Bank — Therefore, the impugned judgment was found to be unsustainable — Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, and the same was allowed. [2024 SCLR 37 = 2024 SCMR 12]

— Writ of quo warranto — Scope — For the purpose of maintaining a writ of quo warranto there is no requirement of an aggrieved person, and before a person can claim this relief he must satisfy the court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority — Granting relief in the nature of quo warranto is within the discretionary power of the superior courts and this relief cannot be allowed as a matter of course, rather the conduct and the bona fides of the petitioner, the cause and the object of filing such petition is also of considerable importance, which is to be examined. [PLR 2024 Lahore 4 = 2023 LHC 5587 = PLD 2024 Lahore 54]

— Constitutional jurisdiction — Scope — The authority of the Supreme Court to hear a matter cannot be stultified only because a petitioner has an alternative remedy before the High Court. [2023 SCLR 31 = 2023 SCMR 1732]

— Constitutional jurisdiction — Scope — A right of appeal is a right of entering into a superior court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the forum below — It is essentially a continuation of the original proceedings as a vested right of the litigant to avail the remedy of an appeal provided for appraisal and testing the soundness of the decisions and proceedings of the courts below — It is always explicated and elucidated that the right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right — While considering matters in appeal, the appellate courts may affirm, modify, reverse or vacate the decision of lower courts — Fundamentally, the remedy of appeal is elected on the grounds of attack that the court below committed a serious error in the verdict on law and facts, including the plea of misreading or non-reading of evidence led by the parties in support of their contention — It is the duty of the Court and Tribunal to adhere to the applicable law in letter and spirit — It is the foremost duty of the appellate court to determine whether the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties for and against during the trial fortifies and adds force to the weight of decision or not — No doubt the Trial Court possesses the distinctive position to adjudge the trustworthiness of witnesses and cumulative effect of evidence led in the lis and, in turn, the appellate court accords deference to the findings and such findings are not overturned unless found erroneous or defective — It is not the domain or function of appellate court and/or High Court to re-weigh or interpret the evidence, but they can examine whether the impugned judgment or order attains the benchmark of an unflawed judgment; and whether it is in consonance with the law and evidence and free from unjust and unfair errors apparent on the face of record — However, if the concurrent findings recorded by the lower fora are found to be in violation of law or based on flagrant and obvious defect floating on the surface of record, then it cannot be treated as being so sacrosanct or sanctified that it cannot be reversed by the High Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction vested in it by Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as a corrective measure in order to satisfy and reassure whether the impugned decision is within the law or not and if it suffers any jurisdictional defect, in such set of circumstances, the High Court without being impressed or influenced by the fact that the matter reached the High Court under Constitutional jurisdiction in pursuit of the concurrent findings recorded below, can cure and rectify the defect. [2024 SCLR 30 = 2024 SCMR 164 = 2023 SCP 350]

— Constitutional jurisdiction — Dismissal of writ petition (by Supreme Court) while adjudicating on an interlocutory application — Scope — Supreme Court addressed a petition filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan against an ad-interim ex-parte order of the Peshawar High Court — The High Court had suspended the ECP’s notification changing the returning officer for a constituency on medical grounds and the officer’s own request — Court found that the change of returning officer was justifiable, as supported by a medical certificate and the officer’s application citing health reasons — Respondents, who challenged the change of returning officer in the High Court, failed to provide a satisfactory reason for their objection (to the change) — The ECP stated that the suspension of the order hindered the scrutiny of nomination papers as scheduled — The Supreme Court not only set aside the interim order but also dismissed the writ petition pending before the High Court and criticized the High Court’s ex-parte order for potentially jeopardizing the election programme. [2024 SCLR 3 = 2024 SCP 3]

— Constitutional jurisdiction — Challenging the Show Cause Notice: Navigating Legal Perspectives and Due Process Safeguards — Scope — Forming a tentative view is a pre-requisite for the issuance of a show cause notice — There would be no occasion for the adjudicator to issue a show cause notice unless it forms tentative or prima facie view — But the formation of such prima facie view does not make it a final decision — And any correction of such view during show cause proceedings would not amount to a review of a prior decision — Any tentative view on the basis of which a show cause notice is issued merges with the final decision rendered at the end of the proceedings — And any correction or revision of the view formed does not qualify as a review of the prior decision — A contrary understanding of how the adjudicatory process works would create a chicken and egg problem — As no show cause notice could be issued by a public authority unless it forms a tentative view and has some basis to drag a party through show cause proceeding under a threat of penalty — And if such tentative view were to be treated as a final decision, it would render the show cause proceedings redundant and undermine the party’s due process right under Article 10A of the Constitution. [PLR 2024 Islamabad 1 = PLD 2024 Islamabad 1]

— Constitutional jurisdiction — Judicial review of administrative tribunal decisions: Constitutional limits, deference, and discretion explored—The scope of judicial review in relation to a decision rendered by an administrative tribunal that has been vested with the authority to decide such matter by the Constitution itself has limited scope. When a constitutional court in recognition of the scheme of separation of powers prescribed by the Constitution exercises self-restraint in relation to decision of another constitutional body, such deference is rooted in giving effect to the will of the Constitution. While even in such cases it remains for the constitutional court to decide the legal limits of the power being exercised by another constitutional body, as the interpretive function has been conferred by the Constitution on the Judiciary within our scheme of separation of powers, judicial review of the actual decision of another constitutional body is undertaken on a deferential basis. Even as a practical matter, courts defer to the evaluation of facts by administrative agencies, as in exercise of judicial review powers courts cannot second-guess factual determinations made by administrative agencies when the law and the Constitution empower them to make such determinations. This, however, does not mean that the court never exercises judicial review powers when it comes to the decisions of constitutional bodies such as the ECP. The jurisdiction to do so is well settled. The court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction hesitantly, while applying a deferential scope of review to correct errors of law, and does so at the appropriate time. [PLR 2024 Islamabad 1 = PLD 2024 Islamabad 1]

— Constitutional jurisdiction — Judicial review of actions of Election Commission — Scope — Anything done, whether an act, decision or omission, by the Election Commission, and whether it sounds on the constitutional or statutory plane, is not beyond the purview of judicial review. [2023 SCLR 74 = 2023 SCMR 2165 = 2023 SCP 211]

— Constitutional jurisdiction — Scope — Disputed questions of fact cannot be entertained and adjudicated in writ jurisdiction — The extraordinary jurisdiction is envisioned predominantly for affording an express remedy where the unlawfulness and impropriety of the action of an executive or other governmental authority could be substantiated without any convoluted inquiry. [2023 SCLR 61 = 2023 SCMR 2075 = 2023 SCP 277]

— Constitutional jurisdiction — Adequate remedy — Scope — The expression “adequate remedy” signifies an effectual, accessible, advantageous and expeditious remedy. [2023 SCLR 61 = 2023 SCMR 2075 = 2023 SCP 277]