Fourteen reportable judgments across the 9 to 19 October 2026 upload window (Sundays 11 and 18 October excluded) — three from the Federal Constitutional Court, four from the Supreme Court, four from the Lahore High Court and three from the Sindh High Court (the Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries).

Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan

• M/s Pakistan Microfinance Investment Company v. Pakistan Information Commission — the first significant appellate treatment of the Right of Access to Information Act 2017: two Commissioners constitute a valid quorum and Rule 9(3) is not ultra vires, but a company registered under the Companies Act 2017 and regulated by the SECP does not fall squarely within the definition of ‘public body’, and records concerning a chief executive’s remuneration fall outside section 6. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the Islamabad High Court judgment and the Commission’s order set aside.
• Mst. Shehla Khaliq v. President, International Islamic University — a discretion to grant an exceptional extension must be exercised on proper consideration of the circumstances, and circumstances particularly affecting women — marriage, relocation, pregnancy, health, childcare — deserve due consideration within the flexibility the framework allows, reasonable accommodation being no departure from equality under Articles 25 and 34. Leave granted, petition converted into appeal and allowed; the regret letter and High Court judgment set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration within thirty days.
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd v. Bheru Lal — disciplinary proceedings pending when a civil servant attains superannuation stand abated, and their mere pendency cannot thereafter be relied upon to withhold or defer pensionary benefits; CSR 351 (conviction/grave misconduct) and CSR 470 (reduction for unsatisfactory service) are distinct powers, and an inconclusive inquiry report is an exercise of neither. Leave refused; PTCL directed to finalise the retirement and pay all dues within three months.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Sarfraz Ahmad v. Ishtiaq Ahmad — where notices of Talb-i-Ishhad are denied, the attesting witnesses must be produced to prove execution and dispatch, and producing only one without explanation is fatal; a pre-emptor cannot postpone the commencement of the period by asserting a later date of knowledge without proving the statutory consequence does not operate. Appeal dismissed; dismissal of the pre-emption suit upheld.
• Muhammad Ramzan v. Regional Police Officer, Multan — an order resting on an erroneous assumption of material fact, or passed without adverting to a provision of law, may disclose an error apparent on the face of the record, and the Court may reopen its judgment where a manifest wrong has been done; review does not, however, permit a re-hearing or the raising of new grounds. Order under review recalled; both petitions restored, converted into appeals and disposed of with directions to the department.
• Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s Makerwal Collieries — where an order-in-original is set aside and the matter remanded, the limitation prescribed by section 36(3) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 is reckoned afresh from the date of remand and does not cease to apply; remand displaces the earlier adjudication and the fresh exercise carries its own deadline. Appeal dismissed; the order-in-original held time-barred.
• M/s Universal Express v. Karachi Properties Investment Company — sections 10 and 15(2)(ii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance address different situations and a tenant liable to pay in advance cannot borrow either timeframe; impairment under section 15(2)(iv) must be material but need not be actual, is not confined to structural alterations, and expert evidence is not an invariable requirement. Five petitions dismissed and leave refused; orders of ejectment maintained.

Lahore High Court

• Raja Shahid v. The State — after the 2023 amendment, Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order is a procedural provision for recording evidence through modern devices; electronic evidence is documentary, its admissibility resting on section 3 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002 read with Articles 46A, 73 and 78A, and where facial identification is obscured it is unsafe to convict on a partial admission or general physical similarity absent expert comparison or robust corroboration. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside and the appellant acquitted.
• Justice (R) Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan — a High Court, comprising its Judges, Committees of its Judges and the Chief Justice, represents an integrated whole and is not amenable to judicial review; Article 199(5) is a definition clause addressing who is amenable, not an ouster clause, and the review in Gul Taiz Khan Marwat left the original ratio intact. Application for amendment and constitutional petition both dismissed.
• Ata ul Mohsin v. Hashim Ali — a Majlis for the purpose of Talb-i-Muwathibat requires a sitting, meeting or gathering of more than one person, so a declaration made while sitting alone before the informer alone does not satisfy section 13(1); equity cannot prevail over an express statutory command authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Court and applied by a Larger Bench. All six connected matters dismissed for want of a valid Talb-i-Muwathibat.
• Ayyaz Ahmad v. Punjab Property Tribunal — where the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Act 2025 provides no appeal or revision against an interim order of the Property Tribunal, constitutional jurisdiction is not to be stretched to supply one; a Scrutiny Committee report neither challenged nor met by objections attains finality. Writ petition dismissed in limine as not maintainable.

Sindh High Court

• Fasih-ur-Rehman Alvi v. Dr. Tasneem Aslam Tariq — a written statement is not evidence and its mere filing and verification cannot substitute for proof; an order closing the right to lead evidence, left unchallenged, attains finality; and a suit for arrears of rent remains maintainable after the tenancy has terminated, unpaid rent surviving as a post-tenancy monetary claim. Second appeal dismissed; the concurrent decrees maintained.
• A.C. Technologies v. Commissioner Inland Revenue — the filing of withholding statements under section 154A(2)(b) is a condition of eligibility for the final tax regime and not a mere procedural requirement answered by penalty; non-fulfilment takes the exporter out of sub-section (2) by force of sub-section (3), and assessment reverts to the normal regime. Questions answered against the applicant; reference dismissed and the Tribunal’s remand for normal-regime computation left undisturbed.
• Collector of Customs v. M/s Eagle Clearing & Forwarding Agency — a customs agent’s licence is a conditional privilege but may be revoked only in conformity with Rule 102(3), which requires a show cause notice setting out the allegations with their particulars and disclosing the material relied upon; actual benefit is not an ingredient of Rule 102(1)(k), and a forensic report is not an invariable precondition to acting on electronic material. Nine references disposed of; the Tribunal’s restoration of the licences maintained (modified only on the answers to two questions), with liberty to initiate fresh, properly particularised proceedings.