Latest news with #LHC
Business Recorder
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
‘The mere pendency of any appeal, revision, or constitutional petition does not, of itself, stay the execution or implementation of the order impugned': SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court clarified that mere pendency of any appeal, revision, or constitutional petition does not, of itself, stay the execution or implementation of the order impugned. A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, ruled that while hearing the petitions of Chief Land Commissioner and Punjab/ Senior Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore against the Lahore High Court (LHC)'s order. The same bench, in dismissal of the application for pre-arrest bail by the LHC on 19.11.2024, maintained; 'Prompt and faithful enforcement of judicial orders is fundamental to the criminal justice system. Once pre-arrest bail is declined by a competent court of law and the accused stands exposed to arrest in accordance with law.' Both the judgments were authored by Yahya Afridi. In revenue department case, the judgment noted that the LHC over a decade ago directed revenue authorities to re-decide the matter in accordance with law. Despite such clear directions, the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur, failed to act, resulting in unreasonable and unexplained delay. The judgment said when superior courts issue remand directions, they are to be complied with faithfully and expeditiously. Such failure is contrary to the constitutional duty of all authorities to act in aid of judicial orders. It clarified; 'The mere pendency of any appeal, revision, or constitutional petition does not, of itself, stay the execution or implementation of the order impugned. This principle is expressly embodied in Order XX Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The judgment noted that in Rashid Baig vs. Muhammad Mansha (2024 SCMR 1385) the apex court made it clear; 'that mere pendency of a petition before this Court does not, by itself, operate as a stay of proceedings, which may only be lawfully restrained by an express injunctive order of the Court. Thus, administrative inaction premised on the mere pendency of further proceedings, without any lawful restraint, is both unjustified and impermissible.' The judgment said regrettable that despite the clear pronouncement of this Court in Rashid Baig's case expressing disapproval of such misuse of procedural pendency, the same practice continues unabated. This reflects not merely individual lapses, but a persistent pattern of administrative disregard for binding remand orders, which in itself constitutes systemic failure requiring urgent redress. The judgment reiterated that failure by the relevant authorities to observe established principles requiring prompt compliance with remand orders would frustrate the administration of justice and violate their constitutional duty. In dismissal of pre-arrest bail case, the Supreme Court clarified that any practice whereby police authorities treat the mere filing of a petition before the Supreme Court as an implied stay or bar to arrest, despite the dismissal of pre-arrest bail, indicates a misunderstanding of the purpose of pre-arrest bail. This relief exists as an exceptional measure to protect individuals against arbitrary or malafide arrest, where circumstances clearly warrant such protection. Once a competent court has declined pre-arrest bail, it has necessarily determined that no such exceptional circumstances exist and arrest is lawful and necessary to ensure an effective investigation. Allowing the mere act of filing another petition to operate as a de facto stay would render that judicial determination meaningless, defeat the objective of ensuring prompt and fair investigation, and risk abuse of process by enabling accused persons to indefinitely evade arrest without any legal basis. Therefore, judicial orders must remain binding and enforceable unless and until a competent court expressly orders otherwise. It must be remembered that interim protection is not automatic; it must be specifically sought and expressly granted. Absent such an order, a refusal of bail remains fully operative and must be implemented promptly and in good faith by investigating authorities. The Court said the practice of delaying or avoiding arrest on the pretext of a pending petition raises serious concerns, as it essentially frustrates and weakens ongoing investigations and undermines the authority and finality of judicial orders. In addition, such a practice risks promoting a culture of impunity, enabling accused persons to evade the process of law by exploiting systemic inaction. The judgment said that investigating officers and police authorities are legally bound to act upon court orders dismissing pre-arrest bail immediately, without waiting for further instructions or presuming the existence of any stay where none has been granted. Administrative convenience, internal practice, or mere pendency of higher-forum proceedings cannot justify or excuse failure to act in accordance with law. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
News18
2 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Rest house staff faces action in Pakistan for using judges crockery
Lahore, Jul 21 (PTI) Four employees of a rest house in Pakistan are facing punitive action for eating in the crockery designated for 'honourable judges, sparking a debate over class divide and discriminatory practices in the country. The Lahore High Court had ordered a probe into the use of 'forbidden" crockery meant for judges of the superior court against four suspects — Samuel Sandhu (waiter), Faisal Hayat (coolie), Shahzad Masih (sweeper) and Muhammad Imran (counter staff). Two of the accused were Christians. During a probe conducted by the LHC Additional Registrar, the staffers in question were found using crockery while having lunch in the Judges Rest House," a court official said, adding that the accused have denied any wrongdoing. The official said the probe body on Friday recommended that Christian waiter Samuel should be removed from service while the other three be issued 'censure" letters. As the inquiry focuses on administrative discipline, this case has sparked legal and ethical debate on social media. One netizen named Samrina Hashmi on her X account criticised the move and asked, 'Are these judges royal that none else could eat in their crockery…are these accused employees animals? 'Eating food has become a crime. Those who feast on the nation's wealth took notice of the staff's 'crime" of eating from the plates bought with the staff's own earnings," another social media user posted on X. Another person named Ali Hasan lambasted the LHC for treating a Christian staffer differently. 'If all accused committed the same basic act of violating crockery use rules, and only one belonging to a religious minority is singled out for removal, it could be viewed as discriminatory. The inquiry must ensure procedural fairness," he demanded. PTI MZ NSA NSA NSA view comments First Published: July 21, 2025, 15:00 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
LHC transfers custodial death cases to FIA
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that cases involving torture or custodial deaths, if falling under the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act, 2022, must be transferred from local police to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), provided that courts have not yet taken cognizance of the matter. Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh issued the directive while hearing the post-arrest bail petition of police official Aftab Mehmood. The petitioner, along with colleagues, was accused of torturing a suspect, Shehroze Haider, during custody in a robbery case. The alleged torture led to Haider's death and an FIR was registered at Lorry Adda Police Station, Gujrat, under the Pakistan Penal Code and Police Order 2002. The High Court questioned the jurisdiction of the local police, stating that such cases must be prosecuted under the 2022 Act and fall under FIA's jurisdiction. Justice Sheikh addressed three legal questions: the proper procedure for prosecuting offences under the Act; whether FIRs registered by local police could be transferred to the FIA; and the status of prior investigations by local police. The ruling clarified that if courts have not taken cognizance of such cases, the local police must cancel the FIR, and the FIA must register a new one. However, if the trial has begun, the existing FIR will stand, and no new FIR will be required. Regarding evidence collected by unauthorised agencies, Justice Sheikh noted that while procedural irregularities may exist, they do not necessarily vitiate the trial unless prejudice or injustice can be demonstrated. He further held that under Section 156(2) CrPC, investigations by an unauthorised agency remain valid unless they have resulted in injustice. The FIA, upon transfer of such cases, can assess the existing evidence and submit a new or supplementary report as required.
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Express Tribune
LHC orders transfer of torture, custodial death cases to FIA, nullifies police FIRs
Listen to article The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that first information reports (FIRs) registered by local police under general laws, despite falling within the scope of the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act, 2022, must be cancelled and the matter transferred to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), provided that the courts have not yet taken cognisance. The ruling came from Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh during the hearing of a post-arrest bail petition filed by a police official, Aftab Mehmood. The accused, along with colleagues, allegedly tortured a suspect, Shehroze Haider, in custody during a robbery case, resulting in serious injuries that led to his death. Following the incident, Lorry Adda Police Station in Gujrat registered an FIR under Sections 302, 342, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), along with Section 155-C of the Police Order, 2002. The FIR, however, was registered under general penal laws, despite the fact that it falls within the ambit of Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act 2022, which designates the FIA as the investigating authority. The court examined three legal questions: (i) What is the procedure for prosecuting offences under the 2022 Act? (ii) If an FIR alleging custodial death, torture, or rape is registered under general law (PPC) by local police in contravention of the 2022 Act, can it be transferred to the FIA? If so, what is the legal mechanism for such a transfer? (iii) If such a transfer is permitted, what is the legal status of the investigation conducted by the local police and the evidence collected before the transfer? These issues were deemed by the court to be of immense public importance, involving the interpretation of statutory law and the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A. Justice Sheikh observed that while the Police Rules do not apply to the FIA by default, the agency may adopt analogous procedures, such as Rule 25.7 of the Police Rules. Where the local police have already submitted a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the next steps depend on whether a trial court has taken cognisance. 'If cognisance has not been taken, the case may still be transferred to the FIA, preferably with the court's permission. In that event, the local police shall cancel the FIR and the FIA shall register a new one,' Justice Sheikh ruled. 'On the other hand, if cognisance has already been taken and trial proceedings have commenced, the FIR registered with the local police remains in the field and cannot be cancelled, nor is the FIA required to lodge a fresh FIR,' he added. Regarding the legal status of investigations conducted by local police in cases governed by the 2022 Act, Justice Sheikh stated that the issue must be assessed under two scenarios: (a) where the Section 173 CrPC report has not been submitted, or has been submitted but the trial has not commenced; (b) where the court has taken cognisance and the trial has commenced. He further stated that an investigation carried out by an agency lacking proper jurisdiction constitutes a procedural irregularity. However, under Section 156(2) CrPC, actions by police in cognisable cases cannot be challenged on grounds of lack of authority, provided the accused has not been prejudiced and no miscarriage of justice has occurred. Rules 25.5 and 25.6 of the Police Rules also support the preservation of proceedings and evidence collected by the local police. Therefore, procedural irregularity alone does not invalidate the trial. If a case is transferred to the FIA before the submission of the report under Section 173 CrPC, the FIA is authorised to evaluate the existing material and prepare its report. In cases where the police have already submitted a report before the transfer, the FIA may submit a supplementary report if deemed necessary, even after trial proceedings have begun. Justice Sheikh also clarified that cognisance taken by a competent court is legally distinct from the investigation process. Once cognisance has been taken, any earlier procedural misstep, such as an FIR registered by an unauthorised agency, does not vitiate the trial.
Scientific American
6 days ago
- Science
- Scientific American
Mysterious Antimatter Physics Discovered at the Large Hadron Collider
Matter and antimatter are like mirror opposites: they are the same in every respect except for their electric charge. Well, almost the same—very occasionally, matter and antimatter behave differently from each other, and when they do, physicists get very excited. Now scientists at the world's largest particle collider have observed a new class of antimatter particles breaking down at a different rate than their matter counterparts. The discovery is a significant step in physicists' quest to solve one of the biggest mysteries in the universe: why there is something rather than nothing. The world around us is made of matter—the stars, planets, people and things that populate our cosmos are composed of atoms that contain only matter, and no antimatter. But it didn't have to be this way. Our best theories suggest that when the universe was born it had equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and when the two made contact, they annihilated one another. For some reason, a small excess of matter survived and went on to create the physical world. Why? No one knows. So physicists have been on the hunt for any sign of difference between matter and antimatter, known in the field as a violation of 'charge conjugation–parity symmetry,' or CP violation, that could explain why some matter escaped destruction in the early universe. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Today physicists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)'s LHCb experiment published a paper in the journal Nature announcing that they've measured CP violation for the first time in baryons —the class of particles that includes the protons and neutrons inside atoms. Baryons are all built from triplets of even smaller particles called quarks. Previous experiments dating back to 1964 had seen CP violation in meson particles, which unlike baryons are made of a quark-antiquark pair. In the new experiment, scientists observed that baryons made of an up quark, a down quark and one of their more exotic cousins called a beauty quark decay more often than baryons made of the antimatter versions of those same three quarks. 'This is a milestone in the search for CP violation,' says Xueting Yang of Peking University, a member of the LHCb team that analyzed the data behind the measurement. 'Since baryons are the building blocks of the everyday things around us, the first observation of CP violation in baryons opens a new window for us to search for hints of new physics.' The LHCb experiment is the only machine in the world that can summon sufficient energies to make baryons containing beauty quarks. It does this by accelerating protons to nearly the speed of light, then smashing them together in about 200 million collisions every second. As the protons dissolve, the energy of the crash springs new particles into being. 'It is an amazing measurement,' says theoretical physicist Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study, who was not involved in the experiment. "Baryons containing b [beauty] quarks are relatively hard to produce, and CP violation is very delicate and hard to study.' The 69-foot-long, 6,000-ton LHCb experiment can track all the particles created during the collisions and the many different ways they can break down into smaller particles. 'The detector is like a gigantic four-dimensional camera that is able to record the passage of all the particles through it,' says LHCb spokesperson and study co-author Vincenzo Vagnoni of the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN). 'With all this information, we can reconstruct precisely what happened in the initial collision and everything that came out and then decayed.' The matter-antimatter difference scientists observed in this case is relatively small, and it fits within predictions of the Standard Model of particle physics—the reigning theory of the subatomic realm. This puny amount of CP violation, however, cannot account for the profound asymmetry between matter and antimatter we see throughout space. 'The measurement itself is a great achievement, but the result, to me, is not surprising,' says Jessica Turner, a theoretical physicist at Durham University in England, who was not involved in the research. 'The observed CP violation seems to be in line with what has been measured before in the quark sector, and we know that is not enough to produce the observed baryon asymmetry.' To understand how matter got the upper hand in the early universe, physicists must find new ways that matter and antimatter diverge, most likely via particles that have yet to be seen. 'There should be a new class of particles that were present in the early universe, which exhibit a much larger amount of this behavior,' Vagnoni says. 'We are trying to find little discrepancies between what we observe and what is predicted by the Standard Model. If we find a discrepancy, then we can pinpoint what is wrong.' The researchers hope to discover more cracks in the Standard Model as the experiment keeps running. Eventually LHCb should collect about 30 times more data than was used for this analysis, which will allow physicists to search for CP violation in particle decays that are even rarer than the one observed here. So stay tuned for an answer to why anything exists at all.
