LAHORE: Lahore High Court’s (LHC) Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani resigned on Wednesday, citing personal reasons, including health concerns following a recent surgery, and “reasons of conscience”.

In his resignation letter to the president of Pakistan, a copy of which is available with Dawn, Justice Kayani said it had been a privilege for him to serve at the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and LHC.

“These years of judicial service remain among the most meaningful and fulfilling of my life. During my tenure, I have disposed of more than 23,000 cases of various categories, endeavouring always to uphold the Constitution, safeguard fundamental rights, and administer justice without fear or favour,” he continued.

However, he added, “in my considered view, the changes introduced through the 26th and 27th Constitutional Amendments have compromised the independence and institutional integrity of the high courts”.

“I have witnessed what I regard as the executive’s growing control over judicial institutions, extending to the appointment and transfer of judges. Such interference has, in my assessment, seriously eroded public confidence in judicial independence and the fairness of the judicial process.”

Justice Kayani stated that of particular concern was the plight of the ordinary litigant, “who is the principal stakeholder in the justice system, yet whose suffering continues to deepen”.

The needs of those seeking justice had too often been neglected, while other actors had become the “beneficiaries of a system intended to serve them”, he said.

“In these circumstances, my conscience does not permit me to continue on the bench. This is a painful decision, but it reflects my conviction that judicial office must remain inseparable from independence, fidelity to the Constitution, and the protection of human dignity.

“I, therefore, consider that the time has come for me to lay down my robes and return to legal practice, through which I intend to continue serving the people, protecting their rights, and promoting legal awareness,” he added.

The judge ended his letter expressing gratitude to “my teachers, fellow judges and family members for their guidance and steadfast support, including during the deliberations that led to this decision”.

His resignation has come years before the date of his retirement — Feb 10, 2032.

He hails from Islamabad and was serving at the IHC before his transfer to the LHC in April. He was assigned to the LHC’s principal seat in Lahore.

Despite being a senior judge of the LHC, he was not assigned to any division bench.

Justice Kayani previously served as the senior puisne judge of the IHC and was expecting to be elevated to the post of the high court’s chief justice. However, the transfer of incumbent IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar from the LHC, along with two other judges from the Sindh and Balochistan high courts, prompted him to challenge the inter-high court transfers.

The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench upheld the transfers to the IHC, including that of Justice Dogar. The decision, however, triggered a broader legal battle.

Justice Kayani and other senior IHC judges approached the Supreme Court to challenge the administrative powers exercised by Chief Justice Dogar. They alleged that the office had been turned into a “monocracy” and that judges could be excluded from the roster at will.

Following his own transfer to the LHC, Justice Kayani lost his seniority and was placed 10th on the high court’s seniority list.

His resignation came days after he returned to the twin cities to preside over a single bench at the Rawalpindi registry following a reshuffle at the high court.

The new duty roster assigned him only to a single bench at the Rawalpindi registry despite his previous position as the IHC’s senior puisne judge.

Justice Kayani was also one of the six IHC judges who had accused the country’s intelligence apparatus of interference in judicial affairs, including attempts to pressure judges through abduction and torture of their relatives and secret surveillance inside their homes in a startling letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) members in March 2024.

Education and career

According to information available on the LHC’s website, Justice Kayani completed his early education at FG Boys High School in Islamabad and pursued higher education at FG College for Men. He graduated in 1989.

The judge earned his LLB from the University of Punjab in 1994, followed by an MA degree in Political Science in 1996, an LLM from Karachi University in 2003 and a MSc in Pakistan Studies in 2005.

He also has postgraduate diploma in human rights from Peshawar University in collaboration with the Norwegian Institute of Human Rights, Oslo University.

Justice Kayani was enrolled as an advocate of the district courts in 1995 and ascended to the high court in 1997 and the Supreme Court in 2009.

He was appointed as an IHC judge on Dec 23, 2015 and transferred to the LHC on April 29 this year.

The judge also served as the joint secretary of the Islamabad District Bar Association from 1998 to 1999, general secretary of the Islamabad District Bar Association from 2002 to 2003 and the president of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association from 2013 to 2014.

“He has presided over significant cases, particularly those related to enforced disappearances. Justice Kayani has advocated for legislative reforms, including proposing strict penalties for enforced disappearances, reflecting his commitment to justice and the rule of law,” the website says.

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that an offer to settle a civil dispute through a “special oath” on the Holy Quran, coupled with a condition of divorce if the oath is false, is not a lawful offer.

Justice Anwaar Hussain issued the ruling allowing a civil revision filed by Muhammad Azam Khan against Akhtar Khan and others.

During a pending appeal before an appellate court, the petitioner had offered in August 2023 to have the matter decided by an oath on the Holy Quran taken by the opposing side, with a condition that the oath-taker’s wife would stand divorced if the oath proved false.

On Aug 22, the respondents appeared before the appellate court and expressed willingness to take the oath, while the petitioner said he did not wish to proceed.

Says divorce clause renders special oath offer unlawful; sets aside order refusing withdrawal of special oath offer

He formally applied to withdraw the offer on Aug 24, when the respondents accepted the oath but rejected the divorce condition.

The appellate court dismissed his withdrawal application in September 2023, ruling that the offer had been accepted.

It also directed that the oath be taken on the Holy Quran alone, holding the divorce stipulation contrary to public policy.

Justice Hussain held that the appellate court erred.

He maintained a special oath is not a mere private contract but a procedure governed by the Oaths Act, 1873.

Section 8 of the Act permits only oaths that are not repugnant to justice or decency and do not affect any third person.

A condition tying a perjury penalty to the oath-taker’s wife’s divorce violated both limits, the judge said.

The judge noted that, even if the offer was valid, the respondents’ reply was not absolute.

Assisting the court as amicus curiae, Barrister Awais Arshad, submitted that an offer for special oath must be examined not only under the 1873 Act, but also in the light of the principles governing offer, acceptance and revocation under the Contract Act, 1872.

He said acceptance does not automatically follow an offer and, in the present case, where the petitioner expressed his intention to withdraw the offer during the same proceedings in which the respondents conveyed their acceptance, it cannot be presumed that a concluded agreement had come into existence.

Justice Hussain ruled that a court cannot strike out an objectionable condition and enforce the rest against a party who never assented to the altered arrangement.

The judge also found that the order sheet of the relevant hearing did not establish whether the petitioner’s refusal came before or after the respondents’ willingness.

He further noted that a claim that one respondent had travelled from abroad specifically for the oath collapsed when his passport was summoned and the counsel acknowledged he was already in Pakistan.

The judge allowed the petition and set aside the appellate court’s order that had refused to let the petitioner withdraw the offer.

The judge directed the appellate court to decide the appeal on its merits without treating the proposed oath as binding on the petitioner.

Published in Dawn, October 28th, 2026

LAHORE: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Tuesday rejected a police request for further physical remand of PTI leader Hammad Azhar in the Jinnah House attack case and sent him to jail on judicial remand.

Sarwar Road police had booked several PTI leaders and workers on charges of attacking and vandalising Jinnah House during the May 9, 2023 protests against the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan.

According to his family, Azhar was arrested on Sept 5. However, police said the next day they were unaware of his arrest, and he was produced before an ATC on Sept 7. His initial 21-day physical remand was extended at least twice.

Subsequently, upon the completion of the latest 12-day remand, the PTI leader was presented before ATC Judge Sardar Muhammad Akram Khan on Tuesday.

The investigating officer sought further physical remand of the former finance minister, stating that the police wanted to conduct a polygraph test, also known as a lie detector test.

However, Azhar’s counsel, Barrister Abuzar Salman Niazi, argued that a polygraph test required the suspect’s consent.

He argued that according to a Lahore High Court judgment, the procedure was to be conducted during judicial remand.

The lawyer said the suspect was also required to make a statement before a magistrate indicating whether he wished to undergo the test.

Azhar told the court that he did not want to undergo the test if the law allowed him to refuse it. He said a suspect should not be punished for the prosecution’s alleged lack of knowledge about the legal requirements.

After hearing arguments from the prosecution and the defence over the proposed polygraph test, Judge Akram dismissed the police request for further physical remand and sent Azhar to jail under judicial custody.

Barrister Niazi hailed the verdict, writing on X that his client’s “50-day physical remand finally ends” and that he was sent to Kot Lakhpat jail.

Azhar served as a federal minister for multiple portfolios during the PTI government, including finance, industries and energy.

In the aftermath of the May 2023 riots, when the state launched a crackdown against the party leadership, he had gone into hiding and reappeared in public a year later, on May 22, 2024.

In 2025, he reiterated his decision to step down as the president of the PTI’s Punjab chapter, citing a lack of access to Imran.

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday disposed of a petition seeking the release of PTI founder Imran Khan’s three sisters after the Punjab government informed the court that their preventive detention had been extended for another 30 days.

An assistant advocate general of Punjab told Justice Abher Gul Khan, who has been holding hearings on the petition, that the government had approved a further 30-day detention of Aleema Khan, Dr Uzma Khan and Noreen Niazi on the recommendation of the Lahore deputy commissioner.

The law officer also submitted a report on behalf of the home secretary and said the detention period had been extended on Oct 7.

Imran’s sisters — Aleema, Noreen and Uzma — were detained by authorities in September, under the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, as the PTI geared up for a planned protest march towards Islamabad. Their detention was ordered for 30 days and expired on Oct 19 for Aleema and Oct 20 for Uzma and Noreen, the petitioner’s counsel had said at the previous hearing.

Today, counsel Rana Mudassar Umar requested the court to order the recovery of the three women and their production before the court.

However, Justice Khan observed that while the deputy commissioner had issued the detention notifications, but the petitioner had not made the official a respondent in the petition.

The judge held that the court could not issue an order beyond the scope of the petition.

The judge disposed of the petition in light of the home secretary’s report.

Aleema’s son, Shahrez, had filed the petition alleging that the three sisters remained confined at Kot Lakhpat jail despite the end of their initial 30-day detention orders on Oct 19 for Aleema and 20 for Noreen and Uzma.

The petition stated that the women were taken into custody in September under Section 3 of the MPO, 1960. Aleema was detained on Sept 20, while Uzma and Noreen were detained a day later.

The petitioner argued that the continuous detention beyond the notified period was unlawful, that the sisters were not wanted in any criminal case and that preventive detention could not be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law.

It asked the court to order the sisters’ immediate release and that they be produced before the court.