2025 PLD 737 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

VS arts. 4, 9, 10a & 186---Reference by the President under article 186 of the Constitution to revisit the cases of Zulfiqar ali Bhutto (former Prime Minister of Pakistan) reported as Zulfikar ali Bhutto and 3 others v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 38) and Zulfikar ali Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 53)---Murder trial of Zulfiqar ali Bhutto by the Trial Court (the Lahore High Court) and the appellate court (the Supreme Court)---One of the questions framed by the Supreme Court in the Presidential Reference was whether the decision in the case of murder trial against Zulfiqar ali Bhutto fulfils the requirements of Islamic laws as codified in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (SaW)? ;if so, whether present case is covered by doctrine of repentance specifically mentioned in the following Suras of Holy Quran: (i) Sura al-Nisa, verses 17 and 18; Sura al-Baqara, verses 159, 160 and 222; Sura al-Maida, verse 39; Sura al-aaraaf, verse 153; Sura al-Nepal, verse 119; Sura al-Taha, verse 82, as well as Sunan Ibn-e-Maaja, Chapter 171, Hadith No. 395; and,what are effects and consequences of doctrine - Re: Repentance---His Lordship observed that no opinion was rendered by the Supreme Court for this question, which was left unanswered for the valid reason that no assistance was provided---Since the question on the doctrine of repentance was framed with reference to various verses of the Holy Quran, forming substantial segment of the Presidential Reference, it should not remain untouched or unanswered---The unresolved question is why the question regarding the doctrine of repentance was framed by the Supreme Court?---Who had to or has to repent for the unfair and biased trial?---Was it the departed souls who tried the case in the High Court? ; or those who heard the appeal and review? ; or the bench that entertained and framed the question? ;or the bench members who rendered their opinion years after the Reference was instituted?---Supreme Court unanimously noted various lapses and biases in the High Court's murder trial, ultimately concluding that the proceedings of the trial by the Lahore High Court and the appeal by the Supreme Court failed to meet the constitutional requirements of a fair trial and due process enshrined in articles 4, 9, and later guaranteed as a separate and independent fundamental right under article 10a of the Constitution---Not only it demonstrates some sought of remorse though not explicitly articulated but it also implies a recognition of repentance for the failure to ensure a fair trial and due process, even as this question of the Presidential Reference remains unanswered or undecided.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD