— Audi Alteram Partem — Scope — Article 10A of the Constitution requires that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and due process, which includes the basic right to be heard — The principle of ‘audi alteram partem’ is one of the foundational principles of natural justice — It necessitates the requirement of being heard so that the judicial order reflects the contention of every party before the court — To fulfill the requirements of being heard, it is settled that the relevant party must be issued first a notice and then be allowed a hearing — These two (notice and hearing) are basic pre-requisites, which satisfy the test of being heard as well as fair trial and due process within the ambit of Article 10A of the Constitution. [PLR 2025 SC 2 = PLD 2025 SC 11 = 2024 SCP 386]

— Right to dignity — Right to fair trial — Scope — One of the most compelling human values recognized as a fundamental principle is the right of human dignity which actually constitutes the basis of all fundamental rights and encapsulates the right to fair trial, justice and equality — When this fundamental principle is declared as a fundamental right its significance increases as it signifies the manner in which rights, norms, state practices and the law should be implemented and prescribes the limits — The State’s duty to secure human dignity is the lynchpin as it forms the bedrock upon which all fundamental rights stand —  Fundamental right to dignity acts as a compass that orients people and state functionaries in all their actions — Consequently, as a fundamental right it becomes a matter of judicial interpretation to determine whether executive decisions or legislative enactment have encroached upon these rights — It places a positive obligation on the State and requires it at all times that it protects and enforce the rights of the people so as to maintain their dignity — The right to dignity lends real meaning to human rights as it is inherent in every right protected by international human rights law — Therefore, when the right to fair trial and due process is invoked, so is the right to dignity which right under the Constitution is inviolable — Article 10A of the Constitution fortifies this right to fair trial and due process which is an essential requirement of human dignity. [2023 SCLR 31 = 2023 SCMR 1732]

— Right to dignity — Right to fair trial — Scope — The right to fair trial and due process are also important requirements of the rule of law — It ensures that the individual’s right to life, liberty and freedom prevails and that everyone enjoys the protection of law such that undue interference by the State is prevented — The Constitution mandates the protection and enforcement of Article 10A of the Constitution which in turn guarantees that the principles of fairness in the process and procedure will be followed for all parties so that they can establish their case — This right safeguards the dignity of a person even if prosecuted for a crime or facing a dispute before a court — In fact, the right to fair trial is sine qua non for the right to human dignity which must be preserved — Hence, the ultimate objective is to ensure fairness in the process and proceedings and fairness itself being an evolving concept cannot be confined to any definition or frozen at any moment, with certain fundamentals which operate as constants — The independence of the decision maker and their impartiality is one such constant — A reasoned judgment before a judicial forum is another constant without which the right to fair trial would become meaningless — The right of an independent forum of appeal is another relevant constant which ensures fair trial. [2023 SCLR 31 = 2023 SCMR 1732]

— Right to fair trial — Scope — An important feature of fair trial is access to an independent judicial forum, and the separation of powers of the judiciary from the executive and the legislature — The independence of the judiciary should be guaranteed by the State as enshrined in the Constitution, and respected and observed by the State — Judicial independence is also a pre-requisite to the rule of law, which requires judicial forums to be independent, impartial and maintain integrity. Furthermore, the independence of the judiciary requires that judicial forums have exclusive jurisdiction over issues that require adjudication in courts. [2023 SCLR 31 = 2023 SCMR 1732]

— Right to fair trial — Trial by Military Court — Scope — The very concept of a civilian facing military trial is violative of the fundamental right of fair trial and due process. [2023 SCLR 31 = 2023 SCMR 1732]

— Right to fair trial — Trial by an independent court — Scope — The basic principle of the independence of the judiciary is that everyone is entitled to be tried by the ordinary courts or tribunals established under the law and the trial of a citizen by a military court for an offence which can be tried before the courts established under Article 175 of the Constitution offends the principles of independence of the judiciary and of fair trial. [2023 SCLR 31 = 2023 SCMR 1732]

— Right to fair trial — Obligations of adjudicator, detailed — The requirements of fair trial and due process include the right of a party upon whom punishment can be inflicted to know the case against it and to correct or contradict the material or evidence on the basis of which any preliminary view has been formed that such party has rendered itself liable to a punishment prescribed by law. The right further obliges the adjudicator endowed with the responsibility to make such determination to act in good faith and afford the party a fair opportunity to defend itself. The right to a fair trial and due process in an administrative proceeding does not necessarily mean that the party is to be administered an oath or is to be provided an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses converting such proceedings into a trial with all its formalities. But what it does mean is that the adjudicator has a basic obligation to extend fair treatment to the party and an opportunity to enable it to correct or contradict the findings or allegations prejudicial to such party. The adjudicator therefore must sit with an independent and open mind without any bias. This means that a just adjudicator must shut its eyes to all considerations extraneous to the particular case and must have no interest in the outcome of the case that is to be decided. And the outcome must flow from the merits of the case. [PLR 2024 Islamabad 1 = PLD 2024 Islamabad 1]

— 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]