UNICEF report calls for stronger protection of children from online sexual exploitation in Pakistan

Nearly one in 16 internet-using children aged 12–17 in Pakistan experienced at least one form of technology-facilitated sexual exploitation or abuse in a single year, according to Disrupting Harm in Pakistan, a study by UNICEF Innocenti, ECPAT International and INTERPOL. The estimate represents approximately 1.5 million children.

More than half of affected children told no one, and none of the children surveyed reported their experience to a helpline, social worker or police. In 85 per cent of incidents described by children, the person involved was someone they knew. The findings call for accessible confidential reporting, child-sensitive investigation and justice processes, effective support services, and greater accountability across institutions and digital platforms.

Justice (Retd.) Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan addressed judges from across Pakistan on 23 October 2026 in a virtual training programme organised by the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. His session, “From Digital Evidence to Courtroom: A Judicial Perspective”, examined the admissibility, authentication and evaluation of digital evidence in online child sexual exploitation and abuse cases, common weaknesses affecting prosecutions, and practical lessons for investigators and prosecutors. He also spoke to prosecutors on 30 October 2026 on these issues.

Life after Invalidation of 7E

Following Sher Muhammad Mughari v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2026 Federal Constitutional Court 155, the declaration that section 7E is unconstitutional and void from inception raises a practical question for property owners: how can tax already paid be recovered? The judgment provides a strong foundation for restitution, but an individual refund still requires attention to the applicable procedure, evidence and limitation.

Our memorandum examines refund applications under section 170, the position of older payments, protective requests for condonation of delay, and compensation for delayed refunds. It considers the relevant authorities and explains how a claim should identify the payments, establish the amount recoverable and preserve constitutional grounds alongside the statutory remedy.

Federal Constitutional Court upholds Justice Khan’s original Hague Convention return order

The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan has upheld the original order dated 25 January 2024 authored by Justice (Retd.) Zulfiqar A. Khan while serving as a Judge of the High Court of Sindh in proceedings concerning the international removal of a child from the United States to Pakistan. The order directed that the child be handed over to the father for return to the United States, where the courts of North Carolina had exercised jurisdiction over custody. It was implemented on 2 February 2024 when the child was handed over through the United States Embassy in Karachi and returned to the United States.

The controversy was subsequently revived when, by an order dated 16 March 2026, the High Court recalled the original return order and initiated contempt proceedings against the father. In Muhammad Faraaz Shaikh & another v. Javeria Shahani & others (F.C.P.L.A. No. 1183 of 2026), the Federal Constitutional Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it and set aside the later order. The Court observed that the relevant custody and return directions had attained finality and had already been implemented, while proceedings concerning the underlying custody determination remained before the competent forum in North Carolina. The effect of the reported judgment is that Justice Khan’s original order stands upheld.

The Federal Constitutional Court also formulated guidance for Pakistani courts dealing with cases under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It emphasised habitual residence, wrongful removal or retention, prompt return to the Contracting State from which a child was removed, respect for the jurisdiction of the competent foreign court and avoidance of conflicting custody determinations. It further affirmed that return proceedings under the Convention are not a determination of the ultimate merits of custody.

Julie Ismail secures landmark PKR 150 million Competition Commission order

Senior Partner Julie Ismail successfully represented PepsiCo, Inc. before the Competition Commission of Pakistan in proceedings against Mezan Beverages (Private) Limited concerning deceptive marketing and the confusingly similar presentation of its STORM energy drink. By its order dated 31 December 2025, the Commission imposed a PKR 150 million penalty for contravention of section 10(1), read with section 10(2)(d), of the Competition Act, 2010, concerning the fraudulent use of another undertaking’s trade mark, firm name, product labelling or packaging, and directed the respondent to cease using trade dress confusingly similar to PepsiCo’s STING energy drink. The decision is reported as 2026 C.L.D. 757.