- Government of India Act, 1935.
- Constitution of Pakistan, 1956.
- Constitution of Pakistan, 1962.
- Interim Constitution of Pakistan, 1972.
- Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
- General
Interpretation
While interpreting various provisions of constitution:
i) It should be read as whole.
ii) Apparent repugnancy to be resolved.
iii) Real intention to be discovered.
PLD 1994 LAH 222
PLD 1989 LAH 1
Word “shall” will not make a particular provision mandatory in nature – whether mandatory or directory.
PLD 1997 Kar 62.
Art. 2A, 18, 22, 25
Equal protection of Law – Concept – Meaning – Reasonable Classification – Scope.
Attiya Bibi v. Federation
2001 SCMR 1161
Art 3 & 9.
Security of person – Elimination of exploitation – Interpretation of the word “life” – “life” includes such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free is required to be engaged in the right job and there should not be any exploitation.
All Pakistan Newspapers Society Vs. Federation of Pakistan.
PLD 2012 SC 1.
Rel: Shehla Zia Vs. Wapda, PLD 1994 693
Arshad Mahmood Vs. Govt. of Punjab, PLD 2005 SC 193
Maulvi Iqbal Haider Vs. Federation, PLD 2006 S.C. 394
Bank of Punjab Vs. Haris Steel, PLD 2010 S.C. 1109
Suo Motu Case 2009 PLD 2011 SC 619
Art 4 & 9.
Right to get education is a fundamental right as it ultimately affects quality of life which has nexus with other Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Art. 4 & 9 – People cannot be free in real sense unless they are properly educated.
Supreme Court has to give a purposive interpretation to make constitution a living document.
Rana Aamer Raza Ashfaq Vs. Dr. Minhaj Ahmad Khan
2012 SCMR 6.
Art. 8.
Any provisions of any law which are inconsistent &/or in derogation of Fundamental Rights as provided in Constitution, the Supreme Court under Art. 8 can strike down such law. Supreme Court can also strike down any custom or usage which is in violation of “Fundamental Rights”.
All Pakistan Newspapers V. Federation of Pakistan.
PLD 2012 SC 1
Art. 25, 27, 199
No discrimination on the basis of sex- job in question was not of a matter which could not be done by a female.
1995 CLC 1541 (SC AJ&K)
Article 13.
Sect. 403 of Cr.P.C
Same Offence/ Double Jeopardy
Difference in elements to be proved in two instances would not make them same offence. Charges before Accountability Court were under Ss. 9(a) & 10(a) of NAB Ord. which related to fraudulent misappropriation, dishonest/corrupt practices or obtaining any benefit willfully which he could not obtain lawfully – Offence under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 related to violation & non-compliance of statutory requirements in respect of books of accounts, keeping true and fair contents of balance sheet and making false statement – So essential ingredients in both cases were quite different. Appellant could be prosecuted under Companies Ordinance, 1984 and same would not amount to double jeopardy in terms of Art. 13 of the Constitution & Sect. 403 of Cr.P.C.
Muhammad Nadeem Anwar Vs. Securities & Exchange Commission
PLD 2012 Peshawar 15.
Arts. 22(3) (b), 24(1) & 199
Suo Motu notice – requirements – infringement of fundamental rights & matter of public importance – encroachment on land earmarked for Govt. Girls College was a matter of fundamental right of education and also of public importance as per Arts. 25-A, 34, 37 & 38.
Students of Govt. Girls College Vs. Govt. of Baluchistan
2012 CLC 168 (Baluchistan)(D.B).
Art. 48(3)
Orders of President – Required to be made in writing – No sanction, held – could be attached to oral orders and such orders can neither confer any rights nor impose any penalty.
Mian Munawwar vs. Federation
PLD 1979 Note 80 Lah.
Art. 185
Supreme Court cannot make any modification in the order of the lower courts to give any relief to the petitioner without first granting leave to appeal- not proper to dismiss the petition for leave and simultaneously pass an order detrimental opposite party.
PLD 1995 SC 639
Art. 185
Appeal to Supreme Court – Finding of Fact – Interference – Where findings of tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction are based on in sufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumption of facts, patent errors of law or abuse of jurisdiction – same can be interfered by the Supreme Court.
Shamim Haider Kazmi vs. Presiding Officer
2001 SCMR 1270
Art. 185(3)
Leave to Appeal is a matter of discretion based on conduct and there is no limitation period – Supreme Court is not a court of appeal while exercising power under Art. 185(3) to appraise evidence except in special cases..
Province of Punjab Vs. Baz Khan
2012 SCMR 51
Art.199
Recovery of damage writ not proper.
PLD 1961 SC 1
Writ petition dies not lie against High Court.
1973 SCMR 153
Relief not prayed cannot be granted.
1964 SC 17
Question of malafide not to be gone into by in writ petition.
PLD 1978 LAH 766
Petitioner lacking bonafide coming with unclean hands not entitled to relief.
1983 SCMR 1197
1982 SCMR 571
Conduct of the petitioner may be taken in disallowing equitable relief.
1983 SCMR 137
PLD 1983 QUETTA 46
1983 SCMR 1191
Against interlocutory orders writ is not maintainable.
PLD 1986 KAR 365
Petitioner not impleading all parties on writ petition no effective relief can be granted.
1987 CLC 341
Art.199
W.P competent against the order of Member board of revenue in consolidation proceedings.
1995 CLC 966
Constitutional petition competent only when order impugned wholly void, without jurisdiction and nullity on the eye of law.
1995 CLC 1606
1995 CLC 1601
Writ of co-warranto and certiorari – interest of petitioner must be proved and not of official nature –no locus standi.
Reinstatement of employee of public Ltd .Co. under administrative control of Federal Govt.-principle of master & servant applicable- reinstatement by Prime Minister could not be objected to.
1195 MLD 966
Art .199
Order of Wafaqi Mohtasib suffering from lack of jurisdiction was declared without lawful authority in writ petition.
PLD 1995 LAH 572
Art.199
Question of public importance –any person can file constitutional petition.
Allocation of recruitment quota to MNA/MPA /minister offensive of constitution.
20% marks for interview by selection arbitrary and discriminatory.
1995 CLC 1834
Art.199
Writ –directions issued by High Court, bearing no relation to prayer- Recalled, on appeal, by Supreme Court –constitution of Pakistan 1956 Art.170
PLD 1964 SC17
Art. 199
Sec. 151 CPC
Restoration of Petition Dismissed for non-prosecution.
Admission of petition to full hearing prima facie indicates a good case – Factual grounds raised for restoration had not been counted – factually – Counsel’s affidavit of his indisposition to be taken on its face value unless countered by affidavit – High Court did not require substantiation by a medical certificate. Supreme Court set aside High Court’s order and restored writ petition.
Fareed Ahmad Janjua Vs. Punjab Small Industries Corp.
2012 SCMR 123
Referred: 1988 SCMR 263
1987 SCMR 770
1993 SCMR 256
Writ. Scope.
Art. 199, 183(3)
Function of judiciary to decide matters strictly in accordance with law – Such restraint cannot be exercised at cost of rights of citizens - Regarding fundamental rights no cavil with proposition that ultimate arbiter is court. Furthermore Supreme Court has always been enjoying jurisdiction of judicial review against administrative actions of executive which is settled law by now.
Human Rights Suo Moto Case of Hajj Corruption in 2010
PLD 2012 S.C. 13.
High Court has the judicial power to intervene in cases of wrongful exercise of statutory power, excess of jurisdiction, illegal exercise of discretion and abuse of power – procedure & process of Court – Any other interpretation of scope of powers of High Court under Art. 199 would amount to restricting, limiting and ousting jurisdiction of High Court.
PLD 1996 Kar. 68.
As to original Civil jurisdiction of High Court.
1993 CLC 1627
PLD 1993 SC 109
1993 MLD 1154
PLD 1984 Kar. 257
PLD 1992 Lah. 80
Article 199.
Public Interest Litigation – violation of fundamental rights concept of “aggrieved person” or “locus standi”.
Benazir Bhutto Vs. Federation
PLD 1988 SC 416
Shehla Zia Vs. WAPDA
PLD 1994 SC 693
General Secretary Salt Mines Vs. The Director
1994 SCMR 2060
Sindh Institute of Urology Vs. Nestle Milk Pak
2005 CLC 424
National resources like air, sea, waters, and forests are like “public trust” and should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of status. Writ is maintainable.
Chamber of Commerce Quetta Vs. D.G. Quetta Development
PLD 2012 Baluchistan 31.
Art.212
Departmental authority not dismissing appeal on limitation but on merits-deemed to have condoned delay- services tribunal could not dismiss appeal on limitation –case remanded.
1995 SCMR 950
Art .212
Up gradation & promotion distinguished- no nexus between eligibility for move over and functions performed or power exercised –only object behind such policy was to extend next higher pay scale.
Question of move over to next higher scale of pay would have little co-relation with functions performed or powers exercised.
1995 SCMR 1549
Art. 212(3)
Repeated transfers of lady health visitor during one year – service tribunal rightly deprecated the practice – leave refused.
1995 SCMR 1844
Art.212(3)
Question relating to the determination of eligibility of a civil servant to a post was not out side the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal constituted under Art.212.
Civil suit is not competent.
PLD 1994 SC 345
Rel.1991 SCMR 1129
1991 SCMR 696
Art.212(3)
Petition for leave to appeal – Limitation – statutory period is 60-days from receiving Tribunal’s order.
2012 SCMR 181
Art. 264
Effect of Repeal of Laws – Art. 264 which governs the implications of repeal of law would not be attracted to the laws which are declared to be void on ground of their being violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Court seized of such matters is to provide the solutions to the implications – Expression “ceased to have effect” is not synonymous with “Repeal” as is envisaged in Art. 264.
Federation Vs. Dr. Mubashir Hasan
PLD 2012 S.C. 106
Also see: Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder Vs. Federation
PLD 2010 s.c. 843.
Art 270-A
Inserted w.e.f. 30.12.85 - all laws made from 5.7.77 to 13.12.85 validated, could not be called in question in any court.
1995 MLD 1546.