- That some of the leading reported cases of public interest which the Muhammad & Ahmad have brought as pro bono publico, so far, before the Honourable High Court and the August Supreme Court of Pakistan are as under:
- In re “Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui & others vs. Federation of Pakistan & others”, reported as, PLD 2012 Supreme Court 774, the National Assembly’s Speaker’s ruling was challenged, by the Petitioner, whereby the Speaker had refused to send a reference against the (then) Prime Minister of Pakistan to the Election Commission of Pakistan seeking his disqualification on the basis of his conviction by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in the contempt of Court case. After various rounds of lengthy arguments, it was held that: “Having determined that the Speaker’s decision not to refer the question of disqualification to the Election Commission was flawed because the conviction by the 7-member Bench of this Court clearly met the conditions laid down in Art 63(1)(g) we are left with no choice but to direct the respondent’s disqualification to the Election Commission.”
- In re “Young Doctors Association & other vs. Government of Pakistan & others”, reported as, 2014 CLD 1133, the Petitioners assailed the project namely ‘Construction of Signal Free Junction at Azadi Chowk, Lahore’ on the plea that the project was to affect a portion of the Lady Willingdon Hospital, Lahore. After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, Honourable Mr. Justice, Abdus Sattar Asghar of the Lahore High Court, Lahore held that: “…(iv)No portion of the building of the Doctors’ Mess shall be demolished as the same has been proposed to be saved in the amended plan of location and design of bus-stop (Mark-C/1 to 4). (v) Reconstruction/rehabilitation of the alternate provisions of the Hospital shall be ensured by the respondents within stipulated period of 45 days and report in this regard prepared by the Project Director duly verified by the M.S. of the Hospital shall be submitted to the Registrar of this Court within seven weeks from the pronouncement of this judgment for perusal of the court. 19. For the above discussion and reasons, since the material apprehensions, objections and prayers of the petitioners have been duly taken care of and fructified by the respondents as detailed above therefore all the captioned three petitions are disposed of accordingly.”
- In re “Judicial Activism Panel vs. Government of Pakistan & others”, reported as, PLD 2014 Lahore 623, the Petitioner prayed for the redressal of the problem of rampant load shedding and for the removal of the Member, Board of Directors and Chief Executives of Power Sector Companies and the same to be replaced by personnel to be strictly appointment on merit alone. After hearing the arguments, it was held that: “…9. The present state of comprehension of and conclusion by the respondents about the necessary extent and effects of load shedding is unhelpful in addressing the Court’s concern that a reasonable right to life and to livelihood of power consumers is being restricted especially at the lower end of the scale because of their inability to access alternate sources of power supply. However, the criteria for devising and implementing suitable modes to ration power supply to consumers in the present situation of power shortage are objective conditions that are amenable to judicial scrutiny. The legal criteria for ascertaining the appropriate mode of rationing to be adopted in the present case is a refined point hitherto unaddressed by the Court. The parties need to prepare themselves about the same. Therefore, it is appropriate that fresh proceedings be undertaken thereon. Public inconvenience with load shedding rises dramatically during the month of Ramadan. The parties to this lis may collect the legal material on the point of legally recognized rationing criteria and bring the same for adjudication to be made in accordance with law and public interest about the validity and propriety of the respondents’ resort to load shedding as the sole rationing instrument for the present-day power shortage.”
- In re, “ Imrana Tiwana & others vs. Province of Punjab & others”, reported as, PLD 2015 Lahore 522, the constitutional and equitable jurisdiction of the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore was invoked in order to challenge the constitutionality and legality of the Signal Free Corridor Project, proposed and initiated, by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA). After lengthy arguments, it was held that: “…v. The approval of Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) for the construction phase of the Signal Free Corridor Project (“Project”) granted by the Director General, Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Punjab dated 19-3-2015 is declared to be without lawful authority.vi. Considering that the Project has not commenced in terms of Section 12 of Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997, the said Project, if at all, can only be initiated after seeking permission/approval from the concerned elected Local Government System, as and when it is formed. vii. LDA and its contractor are directed to remove all the construction equipment and construction works from the site of the Project forthwith and restore the roads to its original position in the best possible manner. viii. The concerned Officers of LDA and the EPA/EPD shall be held personally accountable for allowing the Project to be mobilized on the site, causing traffic disturbance to the public, without first obtaining the approval of the EIA as mandated under section 12 of PEPA.”
- In re “Muhammad Arif Idrees & others vs. Sohail Aamir & others”, reported as, 2017 SCMR 1379, the monopoly of the quota holder Hajj Group Organizers (HGOs) and the allocation of whole of private Hajj Scheme quota to quota holder ‘HGOs’ and the members of the Hajj Group Organizers Association of Pakistan to the exclusion of non-quota holder ‘HGOs’ was challenged because this monopolization was mere exploitation of pilgrims and in clear violation of the directions given by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in other matters. After arguments it was held that: “18. We may however observe here that in doing as above and while following the recommendations of the Competition Commission of Pakistan, MORA and the policy formulating committee may, devise a formula/criteria so that where a HGO achieves a certain quantitative threshold, through a third party audit/evaluation, the number of times it has performed as HGO may not remain relevant, so that any HGO may not suffer on account of being a comparatively newer/junior HGO. The policy be reviewed/reframed in accordance with the foregoing and the compliance report be accordingly submitted within thirty days of the receipt of this order.19. The titled cases are accordingly disposed of. Foregoing are the reasons for our short order of the even date.”
- In re ‘Abdullah Malik vs. Ministry of Information Broadcasting & others’, reported as, PLD 2017 Lahore 273, the notification declaring the film ‘Maalik’ to be an uncertified film was challenged, as the Ministry of Information was adamant that the movie and its contents violated the “ground norms” mentioned in S.9(2)(a) of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. After arguments, it was held that:“…17.In the context of the present case, it may be stated that an infringement of a right is not unconstitutional if it could be justified under the criteria set out in the proviso to section 9(2) of the Ordinance. The objective of the impugned decision and its underlying reasons, however, must not only satisfy the criteria set out in the proviso to section 9(2) of the Ordinance but they must be of sufficient importance to override the constitutionally protected right of freedom of expression. In addition thereto, the means adopted by the decision making authority must pass the proportionality test. In other words, the means employed must be rationally connected to the objective and should not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations and that they be such that their effects on the limitation of rights and freedoms are proportional to the objective (see R v. Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103).18.The Notification and the reasons furnished in the parawise comments for decertifying the film “Maalik” have no nexus with the permissible limitations provided for in proviso to section 9 (2) of the Ordinance on the freedom of expression. Our Constitution and the Ordinance do not allow absolute freedom of expression and free speech. The standards provided therein are, however, general in nature and, therefore, the Government’s action in decertifying the movie or placing a ban on it has to be strictly construed. Keeping in view the grounds offered by the Government, the movie in question does not appear to fall in category that section 9(2) of the Ordinance permits the Government to exclude from public view. In the present case, there is absolutely no justification for making an exception to the basic principles of freedom of expression as enunciated by various judgments mentioned above.19. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and Notification dated 27.04.2016 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.”
- In re ‘Munir Ahmed vs. Federation of Pakistan & others’, reported as, 2018 PLC (C.S) 746, the appointment of Mr. Absar Alam as Chairman, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) was challenged as he did not fall within the eligibility and educational criteria set for the vacant post and that the original qualification criteria which had been advertised was watered down by another advertisement with much lower requisite qualifications just to facilitate unqualified, Mr. Absar Alam. After lengthy arguments it was held that: “…In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. It is declared that: -i. the appointment of the respondent No.4 (Mr. Absar Alam) as Chairman, PEMRA is without lawful authority and of no legal effect and hence void ab initio. ii. As a consequence, the notification of his appointment dated 11.11.2015 and 08.04.2016 is set aside and the position of Chairman, PEMRA is deemed to be vacant. iii. The position shall be filled and appointment made after adhering to a rigorous and transparent selection process undertaken with due diligence to accord with the standards and criteria indicated in the opinions of the Superior Courts; as well as the observations made in paragraphs 40 and 41 of this judgment; iv. The concerned Division of the Government of Pakistan shall, prior to a fresh appointment, draw up a set of rules to be followed in any future selection process. v. The Selection Board shall comprise of bipartisan and independent nominees/members; vi. Complete record of the appointment process shall be maintained and a comprehensive summary shall be submitted to the Prime Minister; vii. The process for fresh appointment shall be complied with all deliberate speed.”
- That some of the leading cases of public interest which Muhammad & Ahmad have brought as pro bono publico, already, are mentioned, as under:
- The Writ Petition No.774/2006, titled as, ‘Muhammad & Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan, etc.’ was pertaining to a sad incident, wherein, several persons had been burnt alive on account of inefficiency and negligence by several governmental departments.
- The Writ Petition No.22426/2009, titled as, ‘Muhammad & Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan, etc.’ i.e. pending adjudication before this Honourable Court for implementation of the orders in above-referred Writ Petition.
- The Writ Petition No.2111/06, titled as, ‘Muhammad & Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan’. This writ petition was pertaining to a matter generally known as ‘Doongi Ground Case’ wherein a public park was unlawfully, forcibly and coercively turned into IMAX Theatre and Commercial Arcade with an arbitrary, unlawful and colossal expenditure of public money amounting to Rs.4 billion. This Writ Petition was decided by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore by declaring the construction on playground being in violation of fundamental rights.
- The Writ Petition No.8531/2006, titled as, ‘Muhammad & Ahmad v. Government of Punjab, etc.’ wherein the shifting of a girls’ school from Mozang to Makhdoomabad, Chungi Amersaddhu, Lahore (i.e. approximately, 20 kilometres away from the original location) was challenged being in violation of Article 9 of the Constitution.
- The Writ Petition No.2708/2011, titled as, ‘Muhammad & Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan, etc.’ wherein construction of Park & Ride Plaza, Liberty Market, Lahore was challenged for being illegally constructed on an amenity plot of land.
- The Writ Petition No.7302/2011 was filed to challenging the appointment of directors from state functionaries in the Punjab Education Foundation in the quota from public.
- The Writ Petition No.16615/2011 was filed for protection of religious injunctions and the same was decided through a consolidated order of 28.02.2011 with directions to the relevant authorities for controlling the blasphemy. Thereafter, for violating the above orders and on a fresh cause of action, another Writ Petition No.9635/2011 was filed i.e., still pending adjudication before the Honourable Court.
- The Writ Petition No.21043/2011 was filed for government’s failure to control Dengue Virus and directions for strict compliance by responsible authorities for provision of health facilities.
- The Writ Petition No.7580/2010, titled as, ‘Muhammad & Ahmad versus Government of Pakistan, etc.’ was disposed of by this Honourable Court because it borne fruit with respect to the implementation of presidential orders for release of prisoners.
- The Writ Petition No.9238/2010 regarding arbitrarily charging and receiving of fee, by NADRA, in respect of issuance of ‘National Identity Cards’ and ‘Form B’ and to resolve the problems of citizens of Pakistan. The same is pending adjudication before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.
- The Writ Petition No.11559/2010 in the matter of banning Facebook which was disposed of through consolidated order of 28.02.2011.
- The Writ Petition No.27001/2010 was filed for protection of Islamic Injunctions.
- The matter of sugar crisis was also taken up as a public cause. Apart from bringing to the notice of the highest provincial as well as central authorities including the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Governors and the Chief Ministers of all provinces, the Speaker of National Assembly, the Chairman of Senate, Chairman of Public Accounts Committee and all opposition leaders in the parliaments, the (then) Monopoly Control Authority (MCA) (now, Competition Commission of Pakistan [CCP) was pressed to take an immediate action. In a letter to all aforesaid authorities, it was sought to unequivocally point out the black sheep behind hoarding and black-marketing of sugar at the cost of poor and innocent consumers. As a result, the MCA quickly took an action and identified 27 sugar mills as the culprits and imposed a fine of Rs.1,00,000/each.
- It is also a part of record that the Petitioner had taken up the issue of promulgation of Competition Law purely in public interest. Therefore, the Federal Government had no choice but to promulgate the Competition Ordinance, 2010 pursuant upon agitating the matter at different fora and holding a seminar, in that regard.
- The Writ Petition No.15256/2010, titled as, ‘Judicial Activism Panel v. Government of Pakistan, etc.’ was filed with respect to already deteriorated and non-availability of health facilities in jails to the citizens across Punjab. This writ petition is still pending adjudication before this Honourable Court.
- The Writ Petition No.15802/2010 was filed by the Petitioner against the sale of animal food/cat juices to the human beings and seeking directions to take adequate measures to control food adulteration, etc., whereby, report had been sought by this Honourable Court which is still pending adjudication.
- The Writ Petition No.16260/2010 was also disposed of, whereby, a request had been made to this Honourable Court for strict compliance of laws with respect to the restraining of child marriages and provision of protection to the life of 13 years old, Saadia, who had been forced to marry a 55 years old man.
- The Writ Petition No.21822/2010 was filed in public interest pertaining to the implementation of Article 25-A of the Constitution with respect to the provision of compulsory and free education to children from 5 to 16 years. This writ petition is still awaiting its fate while pending adjudication, for a long time, now, before the Honourable Court.
- The Writ Petition No.8284/2011 was filed in public interest relating to the implementation of Punjab Public Defender Act, 2007 which had been promulgated by the Punjab Provincial Assembly for the provision of free legal aid to indigent persons in Punjab. This writ petition is still awaiting its fate while pending adjudication, for a long time, now, before the Honourable Court.
- The Writ Petition No.16353/2011 was filed for the recovery of Ms. Sapna Khan and thereby following the directions passed by the Honourable High Lahore Court, Lahore the matter was agitated before the Session Court and now again through Writ Petition No.23909/2011 the matter is still pending adjudication before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore. This matter is purely based on recovery of a citizen of Pakistan on the touch stone of Article 9 as well as in view of Article 199(1)(b)(i) of the Constitution.
- The Writ Petition No.32328 of 2014 was filed before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore against the discriminatory treatment to the disabled persons of the Province of Punjab in quota system throughout the public sector as the concerned authorities had badly failed to protect the fundamental rights of said challenged community with special needs. This writ petition is still awaiting its fate while pending adjudication, for a long time, now, before the Honourable Court.
- The Writ Petition No. 223609 of 2018 was filed against the Government of Punjab & Others pertaining to the maintenance of parks and restoration thereof for the public at large as well as preservation of amenity plots under the relevant provisions of LDA Act, 1975 and the Local Government Ordinance, 2001/Act of 2013 as the preservation of amenity plots and parks is so necessary as there must not be any transformation thereof in any manner, whatsoever. This writ petition is still awaiting its fate since pending adjudication before the Honourable Court.
- The Writ Petition No.236524-2018 was filed pertaining to an important issue of use and abuse of drugs at public places, especially, in educational institutions amongst students of all categories for the enforcement of Article 9 of the Constitution as the government departments concerned badly failed to protect the lives of citizens of Pakistan under Article 9 of the Constitution as their lives are at dangerous risk. This writ petition is also awaiting final disposal.
- The Writ Petition No.239548 of 2018 was filed on behalf of the Petitioner before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore seeking for the provision, to the public at large, better medical facilities and treatment, at cheap/affordable rates, in hospitals, so, as to protect their lives under the umbrella of budget allocated for their health services since the state is under legal as well as constitutional obligation to protect the lives of its citizens under Article 9 of the Constitution. This writ petition is still pending adjudication by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.
- The Writ Petition No.235829 of 2018 was filed before the Honourable Lahore High Court of Lahore which is still pending adjudication. Through this writ petition the construction of illegal wall and barricade by the MPA, the Opposition Leader of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab, namely, Mr. Hamza Shahbaz Sharif on the street adjacent to his residence, was challenged. The Petitioner sought complete restoration of the aforesaid street back to its original shape without any transformation in view of Article(s) 4, 5, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24, 25, 32 & 38 of the Constitution.
- The Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 7 & 8 of 2018 under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on behalf of Petitioner was filed in Writ Petition No. 226013/2018 titled as ‘Pervaiz Yousaf vs. The Local Government of the Punjab’ to contest the illegal act of land grabbers/encroachers who had illegally constructed houses and commercial buildings on the land specified and used for Christians’ graveyard as well as to protect the fundamental rights of the Christian community saved under Articles 4, 29, 36, 37 & 38 of the Constitution. The matter at hand is directly related to the encroachment made against the land falling within the Nishat Colony graveyards, Lahore.
- The Writ Petition No.57731/19of 2019 has also been filed by the Petitioner pertaining to the construction of Punjab Kidney Liver Institute and Research Centre, Lahore (PKLIRC) whereby the Punjab Government has badly failed to complete the aforesaid project within the stipulated timeframe despite being aware of the importance of the Project. The Project also includes a Hepatitis Prevention & Treatment Program Clinic. The Project is situated on a piece of land measuring 50 acres in area lying in the Lahore Knowledge City which is located between DHA Phase 6 and Bedian Road, Lahore. Unfortunately, the Former Punjab Government ruthlessly squandered away a mammoth sum of Rs.20 billion on construction of the PKLIRC building. The doctors working at PKLIRC are receiving the salaries around Rupees 1.2 million/month, whereas, the ones working under Government hospitals are only getting 0.2 million/month. This writ petition is pending adjudication before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.
