Naqvi & Co. Advocates and Legal Consultants

28/12/2025

لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے پاسپورٹ قوانین 2021 کے تحت انتظامیہ کے اختیارات کا نہایت باریک بینی سے جائزہ لیتے ہوئے یہ بنیادی قانونی نکتہ طے کیا کہ ذیلی قانون سازی (Rules) کسی صورت بھی قانونِ اصل (Passports Act, 1974) سے تجاوز نہیں کر سکتی۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ پاسپورٹس ایکٹ 1974 کی دفعہ 8 میں صرف پاسپورٹ کو منسوخ (cancel)، ضبط (impound) یا ضبطی میں لینے (confiscate) کے اختیارات دیے گئے ہیں، جبکہ پاسپورٹ کو “Inactivate” کرنے کا اختیار قانون میں سرے سے موجود ہی نہیں۔ اس کے باوجود Rule 23 کے تحت پاسپورٹ کو غیر فعال کرنا نہ صرف قانونی دائرہ اختیار سے تجاوز ہے بلکہ یہ شہریوں کے بنیادی حقوق پر غیر آئینی قدغن بھی ہے، اس لیے عدالت نے اس اختیار کو Ultra Vires قرار دیا۔

عدالت نے یہ بھی قرار دیا کہ پاسپورٹ کو Inactivate کرنے کا طریقہ کار درحقیقت Due Process سے بچنے کا ایک غیر رسمی اور خفیہ ذریعہ بن چکا ہے، جس کے نتیجے میں شہریوں کو بغیر نوٹس، بغیر شوکاز اور بغیر سماعت کے ان کے حقِ سفر سے محروم کر دیا جاتا ہے۔ ایسے اقدامات شہریوں کو ایئرپورٹس پر اچانک ذلت، سماجی رسوائی اور شدید ذہنی اذیت سے دوچار کرتے ہیں، جو قانون، انصاف اور آئین کے منافی ہے۔ عدالت کے مطابق دفعہ 8 میں دیا گیا باقاعدہ قانونی طریقہ کار شفافیت اور احتساب کو یقینی بناتا ہے، جبکہ Rule 23 کے تحت Inactivation انتظامیہ کو من مانی اور غیر جوابدہ اختیارات فراہم کرتا ہے۔

اسی طرح عدالت نے Passport Control List (PCL) میں کسی شخص کا نام پانچ سال یا اس سے زائد مدت تک رکھنے سے متعلق Rule 22(2)(c) کا بھی تفصیلی جائزہ لیا اور یہ قرار دیا کہ ایسی پابندی کے لیے نہ تو کسی واضح قانونی بنیاد کا تعین کیا گیا ہے اور نہ ہی خلاف ورزی کی نوعیت کے مطابق کوئی درجہ بندی موجود ہے۔ عدالت کے نزدیک ایک ہی مدت کی پابندی کو ہر قسم کی مبینہ خلاف ورزی پر لاگو کرنا، خواہ وہ معمولی غیر قانونی قیام ہو یا سنگین جرائم، منصفانہ، معقول اور متناسب نہیں ہے بلکہ یہ اختیار کے ناجائز اور من مانے استعمال کے مترادف ہے۔

عدالت نے اس اصول کو بھی دوٹوک الفاظ میں بیان کیا کہ حقِ سفر شہری آزادی کا لازمی جزو ہے اور اس پر کوئی پابندی صرف اسی وقت لگائی جا سکتی ہے جب وہ قانون کے مطابق، معقول، شفاف اور تناسب (Proportionality) کے اصول پر پوری اترتی ہو۔ غیر معینہ یا طویل مدت کی پابندیاں، جن کے لیے کوئی واضح معیار یا رہنمائی فراہم نہ کی گئی ہو، Unguided Discretion کے زمرے میں آتی ہیں جو بالآخر Arbitrariness میں تبدیل ہو جاتی ہے اور قانون میں ناقابلِ قبول ہے۔

مزید برآں عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ اگرچہ اصل قانون سازی کے مقاصد پر عدالت سوال نہیں اٹھاتی، تاہم ذیلی یا تفویض شدہ قانون سازی (Delegated Legislation) اگر قانونِ اصل کے مقصد، دائرہ اختیار یا آئینی حقوق سے متصادم ہو تو وہ عدالتی نظرِثانی کے دائرے میں آتی ہے۔ موجودہ معاملے میں عدالت نے یہ نتیجہ اخذ کیا کہ پاسپورٹ قوانین 2021 کی مذکورہ شقیں قانونِ اصل سے متجاوز ہیں اور شہری حقوق کو غیر متناسب طور پر محدود کرتی ہیں، اس لیے انہیں برقرار نہیں رکھا جا سکتا۔

بالآخر عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ Rule 23 کے تحت پاسپورٹ Inactivate کرنے کا اختیار اور Rule 22(2)(c) کے تحت پانچ سال یا زائد مدت کی پابندی دونوں قانوناً کالعدم ہیں۔ وفاقی حکومت کو ہدایت دی گئی کہ وہ تیس دن کے اندر قوانین کو پاسپورٹس ایکٹ 1974 کے مطابق ہم آہنگ کرے، جبکہ درخواست گزار کی representation کو دوبارہ زیرِ غور لانے کا حکم دیا گیا۔ یہ فیصلہ شہری آزادیوں، قانونی طریقہ کار اور انتظامی اختیارات کی حدود کے حوالے سے ایک اہم اور اصولی عدالتی رہنمائی

13/09/2025

In the case of Ambreen Akram v. Asad Ullah Khan, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed two core questions: when a Muslim woman becomes entitled to maintenance, and under what circumstances a husband can be excused from this obligation. The judgment, written by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, overturned a lower court's decision that had denied maintenance to a wife on the grounds that the marriage was never "consummated".
The Court's decision can be summarized as follows:

Maintenance is an Unconditional Right: The right to maintenance for a wife is not conditional on consummation or the cultural practice of rukhsati (the bride's departure to her husband's home). This right is a legal and ethical obligation that arises immediately upon the solemnization of a valid marriage. The Court emphasized that marriage is a solemn civil contract ('aqd) and a relationship of mutual respect and compassion, not a transactional exchange of physical obedience for financial support.

Rejection of the Maintenance-Obedience Complex: The judgment critiques and rejects the traditional, patriarchal view that ties a wife's entitlement to maintenance to her "physical submission" or "obedience". The Court's reasoning is guided by contemporary Islamic principles, Pakistan's constitutional values—like dignity and equality—and statutory laws like the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.

Exceptions are Narrow and Require High Proof: A husband can only be excused from paying maintenance if he can prove with "clear, cogent, and compelling evidence" that the wife has "wholly and unjustifiably withdrawn from the marital relationship". This exception is to be construed narrowly to prevent it from being used as a tool for coercion or to reinforce gender inequality. In this specific case, the husband failed to prove the wife was at fault; instead, the record showed he failed to provide a home or arrange for the rukhsati.

Critique of Judicial Language:

The judgment also serves as a guide on using gender-sensitive language in court. It warns against using patriarchal terms like "surrender" or "submit," which reinforce outdated notions of female subordination and undermine the constitutional values of dignity and equality.

The Ruling:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and affirmed that Ambreen Akram was entitled to maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month from the date of her marriage until the end of her iddat (the waiting period after a divorce).
Regards:-
*Naqvi & Co.*
_Advocates And Legal Consultants_
Contact:0303-7540771

04/08/2025

"Supreme Court Upholds Widow's Right to Employment: "Remarriage Cannot Erase Dignity or Equality!"

Facts:
Case:C.P.L.A No. 808/2023 (Supreme Court of Pakistan).
Parties: Chief Commissioner Tax Officer (Petitioner) vs. Shaheen Yousaf (Respondent).
Issue:Shaheen, a widow, was granted compassionate employment under the PM’s Assistance Package after her husband’s death. Her job was terminated in 2016 for remarrying, citing a 2015 policy. The Lahore High Court reinstated her, prompting the govt’s appeal.

Judges & Date:
Bench: Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah & Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi.
Decision Date: 16th April 2025.

Legal Discussion:
🔍 Key Arguments:
The 2015 policy discriminated against widowsby linking employment to marital status, while widowers faced no such bar.
Violated Articles 25(1), 25(2)(equality), 27(non-discrimination in public service), and 14(dignity) of the Constitution.

Cited precedent (*Zahida Parveen* case) and international obligations (CEDAW) to reject patriarchal norms.
- Court emphasized: “Financial independence is a constitutional right, not a concession!

Final Judgment:
✅ Outcome:Petition :DISMISSED!

_^"Financial independence is not a concession to women, it is the foundation of their constitutional agency, dignity, and full participation in public life."_
- The discriminatory policy was struck down as unconstitutional.
- Shaheen’s reinstatement upheld.
- Court declared: “A widow’s remarriage cannot strip her of employment rights. Equality is non-negotiable!”

Observations:
- “Women are autonomous individuals, not defined by marital status.”
- Policies must dismantle patriarchy, not perpetuate it.
- Landmark win for gender justice and dignity! 🌍⚖️

NAQVI & CO.
Advocates and Legal Consultants
0303-7540771

25/07/2025

📰 NAQVI & CO.
Advocates & Legal Consultants

A Trusted Name in Legal Representation

We provide comprehensive, reliable, and result-oriented legal services tailored to your needs. Whether you're facing personal, property, employment, or constitutional legal issues — our firm ensures justice at your doorstep

OUR AREAS OF PRACTICE INCLUDE:

Property and land disputes

Family cases (Divorce, Maintenance, Child Custody)

Police abuse, FIR registration & Bail matters

Labour and employment disputes

Consumer court cases

Defamation, fraud & cybercrime litigation

Service Appeals before Tribunals & High Courts

Writ Petitions under Constitution

Women’s legal rights
Representation of Overseas Pakistanis in local disputes

📝 Free First Legal Consultation

We offer assistance in:
✔️ Legal drafting
✔️ Legal notices
✔️ Court representation
✔️ Civil, Criminal & Constitutional advice

📞 Contact Us Today

📱 0303-7540771
"Knowing the law is your right – Delivering justice is our responsibility."

📍 Office Locations:

Lahore Office:
Office No. 1, Shah Arcade, Adjacent to Fountain House,
Near New Judicial Complex Gate, Lahore.

Islamabad Office:
1-Ramday Block, F-8 Markaz, Islamabad.

Multan Office:
Seat No. 70, Jinnah Block, District Courts, Multan.

13/05/2025

Privacy is Sacred — Constitutionally and Spiritually.
Title: Shahbaz Akmal Jandran vs. Province of Punjab through Director General, Excise and Taxation, Lahore, etc.

Case No.: I.C.A. No. 22041/2025

Date of Decision: 15.04.2025

Coram:
Mr. Justice Malik Waqar Haider Awan
Mr. Justice Ch. Muhammad Iqbal
---
Facts of the Case:

The appellant, Shahbaz Akmal Jandran, filed two complaints via email under Article 19-A of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013, seeking detailed information from the Excise & Taxation Department. While some information was provided, the department withheld certain personal details about individual taxpayers, citing Section 13(1)(b) of the Act which exempts disclosure of private data.

The Punjab Information Commission issued multiple orders (dated 07.08.2023, 28.08.2023, 25.09.2023, and 05.10.2023) directing the department to provide the withheld information. The department challenged these orders via Writ Petition No. 70457/2023, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the Commission's orders. The present Intra Court Appeal (ICA) was filed against that decision.

---
Legal Discussion and Observations:

1. Right to Information vs. Right to Privacy:

The court emphasized that Article 19-A of the Constitution guarantees access to public information to promote transparency and accountability.

However, Section 13(1)(b) of the Punjab Transparency Act limits this right where it infringes upon the legitimate privacy interest of individuals.

2. Religious and Constitutional Foundations:

The judgment referenced Surah Al-Hujurat (Ayat 12) and several Ahadith, affirming Islam's emphasis on privacy and prohibition of spying.

Article 14(1) of the Constitution was cited, affirming that the dignity of man and privacy of home are inviolable.

3. Judicial Precedents:

PLD 2023 SC 461: Right to privacy is a personal right not confined to a physical place.

2021 CLC 204 and 2004 CLD 1680: Reaffirm the limits of information disclosure in light of privacy concerns.

4. Findings:

The court held that the appellant was not entitled to receive information involving personal data of taxpayers without their explicit consent.

It was observed that the appellant’s conduct (absence in hearings and persistence despite orders) showed lack of bona fide and mala fide intent.

---
Conclusion and Order:

The Intra Court Appeal was dismissed in limine.

The appellant was found to have indulged in frivolous litigation.

A special cost of Rs. 10,00,000 was imposed on the appellant, recoverable as a money decree in favour of respondent No.1, citing precedents from SCMR 2023 and 2024.

10/05/2025

" When the state misuses the system, the system strikes back—with sanctions."

C.R.P No. 292/2024 – Supreme Court of Pakistan

Case Facts:

The Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) filed a civil review petition (C.R.P No. 292/2024) before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, seeking review of an earlier order dated 14.09.2023, which upheld the Lahore High Court's decision. The core issue revolved around the maintainability of an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) by the FPSC, despite an alternative statutory remedy being available under the FPSC Ordinance, 1977. The review petition was delayed by 204 days, and no sufficient cause was presented for condonation of this delay.

Legal Discussion:

The Court reiterated the settled principle that where a specific statutory remedy exists—such as appeal, revision, or review—filing an ICA under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is barred. It emphasized that the mere existence of such remedy, and not its actual invocation, is what precludes an ICA. The Court cited Syed Asif Raza v. PIA (PLD 2001 SC 182) to reinforce this view. Furthermore, the Court discussed the misuse of judicial process, especially by public bodies, cautioning that frivolous litigation erodes judicial integrity and wastes precious court resources.

Court Observations:

The Court found the petition “hopelessly time barred,” “frivolous,” and “vexatious,” and emphasized that while access to justice is a constitutional right, it is not absolute or limitless. The Court condemned the increasing trend of meritless litigation by public institutions aimed at evading accountability rather than pursuing genuine relief. It viewed this as a “gross misuse of the judicial forum” and a reflection of “risk-averse governance.”

The Court observed:

> “Frivolous litigation not only clogs judicial dockets but also drains public resources and delays justice for genuine litigants… Public institutions must be strong and confident enough to make lawful decisions and stand by them.”

To express its disapproval and deter future misconduct, the Court:

Dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of Rs. 100,000 under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

Directed the FPSC to conduct an internal inquiry to fix responsibility.

Ordered nationwide circulation of this judgment to public departments via the Ministry of Law and Attorney General's Office.

This ruling stands as a precedent-setting warning to public bodies that the judicial forum must not be misused for bureaucratic cover or evasion of lawful duties.

05/03/2025

Significant Judgment by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench

Case Title: Malik Imtiaz Ahmad vs. Government of Punjab through Secretary Irrigation Department & others
Connected Case: W.P. No.13876/2024
Judgment Date: 29.10.2024
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asim Hafeez

Legal Representatives:

For Petitioners: M/s Syed Anees Mehdi & Syed Qunber Naqvi, Advocates

For Petitioner in W.P. No.13876/2024: Haji Muhammad Tariq Aziz Khokhar, Advocate

For Respondents: Malik Masroor Haider Usman, Assistant A.G. along with Hafiz Abdul Rehman, SE Irrigation & Mirza Hasnain Abbas, Inspector

Facts of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the transfer orders issued under the Notification No.PS/SCM/CMO/24/OT47 dated 01.03.2024.

The Notification imposed a blanket ban on all transfers/postings by the Chief Minister Punjab.

The court examined whether such an order was within the legal authority of the Chief Minister.

Legal Discussion & Court Findings:

Rule 23 of the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011 does not grant the Chief Minister absolute power to impose a complete ban on transfers/postings.

Section 9 of the Civil Servants Act, 1974 does not support such an arbitrary restriction.

The Notification attempted to centralize executive control, undermining the independence of the bureaucracy, including the police department.

Executive authority must be exercised within legal limits; the Chief Minister cannot assume legislative powers.

Decision:
✅ The court declared the Notification dated 01.03.2024 as unlawful and of no legal effect.
✅ All transfers/postings made under this Notification will remain valid until confirmed, endorsed, or cancelled by the competent authority.
✅ Petitioners may seek redressal for their individual grievances regarding transfers/postings through appropriate legal channels.

Impact:
This decision reinforces the principles of rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial scrutiny of executive overreach.

10/12/2024