— 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]