Five reportable judgments in the 21–23 July 2026 window — two from the Federal Constitutional Court and three from the Lahore High Court (the Supreme Court and Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries, and the Sindh High Court portal was unavailable throughout 23 July owing to a Cloudflare outage).

Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan

• Managing Director, OGDCL v. Dr. Capt. (R) Nusrat Hussain — section 9A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance 1971 is a beneficial, compensatory provision, but OGDCL in its present form as a public limited company owes no prima facie statutory obligation under it, and a cause of action that accrued on the first rejection in 1994 cannot be revived by successive representations, so a constitutional petition filed only in 2011 was hopelessly barred by laches. Petition converted into appeal and allowed by a 2–1 majority; the High Court order set aside and the constitutional petition dismissed.
• Niamat Ali v. Muhammad Musa — an order divesting Government tenants of vested statutory rights without notice or hearing violates audi alteram partem and Articles 4, 10-A and 25 and is a nullity, concluded resumption proceedings cannot be reopened through a revision hopelessly barred by limitation and decided by the Chairman sitting singly without jurisdiction, and locus standi is assessed functionally by reference to whose rights are adversely affected. Appeals allowed; the High Court judgments, the Chairman’s 1996 order and the consequential mutation set aside, the matter to be considered afresh by the competent forum.

Lahore High Court

• Faisal Manzoor v. Sessions Judge, Okara — the functions of an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace under section 22-A(6) CrPC are quasi-judicial, so section 528 CrPC cannot be used to transfer such an application from one Justice of the Peace to another and the Sessions Judge cannot even administratively reassign it once entrusted, though the power to transfer pre-arrest bail applications stands on a different footing. Petition partly allowed; the transfer of the section 22-A(6) applications set aside and the transfer of the bail applications upheld.
• Umer Farooq alias Ahtisham v. The State — where an accused is not named in the FIR and is later implicated through a belated supplementary statement resting on an undisclosed source, the section 497 CrPC prohibition is prima facie bypassed and the case becomes one of further inquiry; a confession to the police is inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and a bare weapon recovery, other FIRs without conviction, and the heinousness of the offence are no grounds to refuse bail. Post-arrest bail granted, with province-wide directions issued to the police on arrests founded solely on such statements.
• Abid Ali v. The State — scientific evidence, resting on objective analysis rather than fallible human perception, furnishes formidable corroboration and a positive DNA match connecting the accused satisfies the standard of proof under Article 2(4) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, while a bare denial under section 342 CrPC by an accused who declines to testify under section 340(2) carries little weight. Convicts’ appeals in this motorway gang-rape dismissed and sentences maintained; the death sentences confirmed on the Capital Sentence Reference and the State’s appeal for enhancement dismissed.