Latest news with #SyedMansoorAliShah
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Punishment must be proportionate: SC
The Supreme Court has ruled that proportionality must be applied with discipline, care and sensitivity to context, especially in cases involving fundamental rights and human dignity. In a service matter involving a sub-inspector, the apex court stressed that the principle of proportionality offers a structured framework for judicial review of administrative actions. The four-page judgment, authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, explained that the principle of proportionality provides a structured framework for judicial review of administrative actions. "Developed across various constitutional jurisdictions, it involves a four-step test: (i) the measure must pursue a legitimate aim; (ii) be suitable to achieve that aim; (iii) be necessary, in that no less restrictive alternative exists; and (iv) strike a fair balance between the measure's impact on individual rights and the public interest." This court has recently introduced and adopted this four-stage test to assess the legality and fairness of administrative and disciplinary decisions. Such a framework ensures that any interference with rights is justified, necessary, and lawful," reads the four-page order. The judgment was passed in a service matter where the Punjab Service Tribunal had partially allowed the appeal of a sub-inspector and modified the penalty from a two-stage to a one-stage reduction in pay through an order dated February 2, 2016. According to the tribunal, while an investigation had been conducted, the prosecution "failed to produce even a shred of evidence" to substantiate the allegations. A division bench of the apex court, led by Justice Shah, heard the sub-inspector's appeal against the tribunal's ruling. The order noted that despite these clear findings, the tribunal opted only to reduce the penalty rather than exonerate the petitioner. "It appears that the Tribunal relied, albeit implicitly, on the principle of proportionality, finding the original penalty disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. However, this application was both legally flawed and logically inconsistent with its own conclusion when no misconduct was established. The Tribunal failed to properly exercise its discretion under Section 5 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, which empowers it to confirm, set aside, vary, or modify impugned orders. While the Tribunal has authority to vary the punishment in appropriate cases, such discretion must be exercised judiciously grounded in the record, legal standards, and principles of fairness," the order stated. The court noted that judicial interference in disciplinary penalties is only warranted when the punishment is "arbitrary, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations". "Once the Tribunal found that the allegations were wholly unsubstantiated, the only lawful outcome was to exonerate the petitioner." The judgment further elaborated that proportionality fosters a stable and systematic method for constitutional adjudication.
Business Recorder
5 days ago
- Business
- Business Recorder
SC suspends IHC order relating to enforcement of ICC London foreign arbitral awards
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court suspended the Islamabad High Court (IHC) order relating to enforcement of International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) London foreign arbitral awards. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi heard the appeals of Frontier Holdings Limited (petitioner) against an interim order of a division bench of the IHC. The apex court written order stated that the interim order of the IHC Division Bench shall remain suspended until the next date of hearing. The said appeals shall be listed before a three-member bench after a fortnight. The bench while issuing notice to the respondents (Petroleum Exploration Pvt Limited) ordered that the interim restraining order passed by the single judge of IHC shall remain in field and continue to operate. The case minutiae are that the dispute between the parties was referred for arbitration under the auspices of the ICC, London. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, a partial foreign arbitral award was rendered on 12.12.2024, and subsequently, a separate award on costs was issued on 31.03.2025. The awards were filed before the IHC for enforcement under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration, Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 (Act). SC explains how a foreign arbitral award can be refused by local courts The single judge of the IHC while admitting the enforcement petition, issued interim relief vide order dated 24.04.2025, restraining the respondents from assigning, transferring, or alienating their working interest in Badin Fields and from creating any charge, lien, or encumbrance thereon. This interim order was subsequently challenged before a Division Bench in an intra-court appeal (ICA), which vide impugned order dated 19.05.2025, suspended the interim relief granted by the single judge. It is contended that the interim relief was granted in aid of enforcement under the Act and did not amount to final relief. Courts are empowered to pass interim measures to protect the integrity and efficacy of the enforcement process. Denial of such protection would defeat the very purpose of the Act and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 ('Convention'). Reliance was placed on Taisei Corporation and another v. AM Construction Company (Pvt) Ltd (2024 SCMR 640), Orient Power Company (Pvt) Ltd, Lahore v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. (2021 SCMR 1728), Government of India v. Vedanta Limited and Ors (AIR 2020 SC 4550), and Zeiler v. Deitsch (500 F.3d 157 (2007)) which affirm that courts must maintain a pro-enforcement bias while dealing with foreign arbitral awards. It was further argued that the IHC Division Bench interfered at the interim stage without recording or satisfying any of the limited grounds of non enforcement under Article V of the Convention, as incorporated into the Act. Such premature judicial interference sends an adverse signal to the international community, undermines arbitral sanctity, erodes investor confidence, and undermines Pakistan's international obligations. A stable and enforcement-friendly legal environment is vital for encouraging foreign direct investment. It is further submitted with respect that the impugned order passed by the Division Bench, whereby the interim relief granted to the petitioners was suspended, has effectively obstructed the enforcement of the foreign arbitral award and is therefore inconsistent with the pro-enforcement mandate of the Act, the Convention, and the settled jurisprudence of this Court. Foreign arbitral awards are not to be treated as ordinary civil decrees; rather, they possess a binding character under international law, to which Pakistan has expressly committed itself. It is also contended that the ICA before the Division Bench was not maintainable. Orders passed therein are not amenable to an ICA appeal under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. It is well settled that ICAs do not lie from orders passed under special laws that contain a self-contained appellate mechanism and do not expressly provide for such appeals. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Disputes involving kids: Mediation offers a mutually beneficial solution: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that in matters involving children, such as custody, guardianship, and family disputes, the courts must recognise that a strictly adversarial approach often exacerbates conflict, delays resolution, and undermines the child's sense of stability and security. 'In contrast, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), particularly mediation, offers a more collaborative, efficient, and child-sensitive mechanism for resolving such dispute. While the CRC does not explicitly reference the term ADR, its spirit and structure clearly support its use,' said a two-judge bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi's verdict in children custody case. The bench gave children custody to their mother. The bench directed that all courts, particularly Family Courts and judges of the District Judiciary that 'the voice of the child must be heard and respected in every custody and guardianship matter'. The 12-page judgment, authored by Justice Mansoor, said that properly designed ADR mechanisms reduce the psychological burden on children, promote parental cooperation, and lead to faster, more sustainable outcomes that support the child's long-term welfare. Accordingly, Family Courts and Guardianship Tribunals must prioritise mediation as a first recourse, particularly where parties demonstrate a willingness to engage in good faith. Adjudication should be pursued only when mediation fails or is deemed unsuitable due to concerns of safety, coercion, or imbalance of power. It said that the principles enshrined in Articles 3 and 12 of the CRC, the primacy of the child's best interests and the right to be heard find clear constitutional resonance in Articles 9, 14, 25 and 34 of the Constitution. Article 9 guarantees the right to life, which includes the right to a healthy, secure, and meaningful life. Article 14 protects the inherent dignity of every person, including children. Article 25 enshrines equality before the law and nondiscrimination, and Article 34 obligates the State to ensure the protection of motherhood and childhood. It noted that collectively, these provisions establish a strong constitutional foundation for child justice and child-centered adjudication, aligning Pakistan's constitutional values with its international obligations under the CRC and other international instruments it has ratified16. The Constitution further reinforces these obligations. Article 25(3) empowers the State to enact special provisions for the protection of children, including measures that may favorably differentiate them from adults. The judgment underscored that courts are bound to approach all matters involving children through the lens of a dedicated child-centered and child justice framework, a judicial philosophy grounded in both legal and moral obligations to safeguard, nurture, and empower children within the justice system. The concept of child justice is broad and inclusive. It encompasses not only children in conflict with the law, who require rehabilitative and restorative processes rather than punitive sanctions, but also children in contact with the law, including those involved in custody and guardianship disputes and other civil proceedings who must be treated with dignity, heard, protected, and empowered throughout judicial proceedings. As custodians of justice, courts bear a heightened responsibility to prioritise the best interests of the child in all decisions affecting them. This principle, central to international child rights jurisprudence, demands that the judiciary transcend procedural formalism and engage substantively with each child's unique vulnerabilities, developmental needs, and future potential. Such an approach requires judicial sensitivity, active participation of children in proceedings (where appropriate), and the creation of child-sensitive courtroom environments that respect their dignity and ensure their voices are not only heard but meaningfully considered. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Hear child's voice,SC tells family courts
The apex court has ruled that all courts, particularly family courts and judges of the district judiciary must hear and respect the voice of the child in every custody and guardianship matter. "This is not an aspirational goal but a binding obligation under the CRC [UN Convention on the Rights of the Child]," said a 12-page written order on a review petition filed by a father in a children custody case. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Article 3 mandates that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning them. Article 12 of the CRC guarantees every child the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them, with due weight given in accordance with their age and maturity. The court noted that earlier proceedings regrettably failed to provide the children an opportunity to be heard, an omission which, it said, undermines both domestic constitutional protections and our international commitments. "Given the central importance of a child's voice in custody determinations, we found it imperative to re-examine the case to ensure that these rights are not only acknowledged but meaningfully upheld. "To rectify this oversight and to ensure that the children's welfare and perspectives were given due consideration, this court deemed it necessary to interact directly with both children involved. "The interaction enabled the bench to make an independent assessment of their emotional well-being, level of comfort, and expressed preference," the judgment added. The verdict issued by a division bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi noted that courts, especially family courts, have a moral and legal responsibility to see, hear, and protect every child not as a passive subject of proceedings, but as a rights-bearing individual whose dignity must be safeguarded at every stage of the judicial process. It also noted that in matters involving children, such as custody, guardianship, and family disputes, the courts must recognize that a strictly adversarial approach often exacerbates conflict, delays resolution, and undermines the child's sense of stability and security. In contrast, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), particularly mediation, offers a more collaborative, efficient, and child-sensitive mechanism for resolving such disputes. While the CRC does not explicitly reference the term ADR, its spirit and structure clearly support its use. "In General Comment No. 12 (2009), the UN Committee on the CRC explicitly encourages States to develop mechanisms that ensure meaningful child participation in family law proceedings, including through non-judicial and informal processes such as mediation. "Such processes must be voluntary, child-friendly, and facilitated by professionals trained to respect the evolving capacities of the child and prioritize their best interests. "Properly designed ADR mechanisms reduce the psychological burden on children, promote parental cooperation, and lead to faster, more sustainable outcomes that support the child's long-term welfare." It said family courts and guardianship tribunals must prioritize mediation as a first recourse, particularly where parties demonstrate a willingness to engage in good faith. "Adjudication should be pursued only when mediation fails or is deemed unsuitable due to concerns of safety, coercion, or imbalance of power. "This approach not only aligns with our international obligations under the CRC but also reinforces the constitutional commitment to protect the dignity, welfare, and future of every child," it said.
Business Recorder
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SC dismisses ‘frivolous' plea of FPSC with costs
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held that frivolous litigation not only clogs judicial dockets but also drains public resources and delays justice for genuine litigants. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi held that in the review petition of Federal Public Service Commission. The department had filed the review against the apex court order which was not only 204 days' time barred but also frivolous and vexatious. The judgment said when public bodies initiate litigation, they do so not as private litigants pursuing personal interests, but as custodians of the law and fiduciaries of the public interest. They are under an onerous obligation to act fairly, responsibly, and in accordance with the Constitution. Low-merit/failed candidates' particulars: PIC summons FPSC chairman It noted this becomes more concerning when such frivolous claims are filed by government or public statutory functionaries like the petitioner institution, who are expected to act with higher responsibility and to protect, rather than squander, public resources and judicial time. The petitioner institution ought to have exercised greater legal discipline and internal scrutiny before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. This case exemplifies a gross misuse of the judicial forum, initiated not to seek legitimate relief, but rather to harass and exhaust the opposing party through abuse of process. In these circumstances, not only is the petition dismissed, but costs are imposed to mark the Court's disapproval of such conduct and to deter the recurrence of similar misuse by public authorities. The Court further directed that the concerned institution shall undertake an internal inquiry to identify and hold accountable the officials responsible for authorising the filing of this petition. Only through such institutional self-correction can public bodies restore public confidence, reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, conserve precious state resources, and fulfil their constitutional mandate with integrity. The judgment noted with grave concern that the present petition, filed by a statutory public institution, is not only legally untenable and devoid of merit, but also reflective of a deeper, disturbing culture of risk-averse governance. Increasingly, public officers, driven by a misplaced fear of personal liability, resort to filing petitions before the highest court of the land not on the strength of legal grounds but to insulate themselves from accountability. Such conduct reduces the judicial forum from a platform for genuine legal address to a tool of bureaucratic self-preservation and indecision. This mindset must be deprecated in the strongest terms. Litigation is not a substitute for responsible administrative decision making. Public institutions must be strong and confident enough to make lawful decisions and stand by them. A culture built on fear and undue accountability only weakens the institutional spine of governance. It is imperative that public bodies cultivate the legal courage and internal discipline to act decisively. In institutional strength lies the strength of the nation. The present petition exemplifies not only a gross abuse of judicial process but also a troubling abdication of institutional responsibility. Courts are not to be approached mechanically or defensively, especially by those entrusted with public functions and legal stewardship. The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs100,000 for not only being frivolous, vexatious and having squandered the valuable time of the Court but also reflective of institutional abdication and poor governance. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
