Mandatory & Directory Provisions
Statute or a provision of substantive law which creates, affects or extinguishes rights of persons would ordinarily have prospective effect except where same was specifically stated to be retrospective.
Mst. Sarwar Jan V. Mukhtar Ahmad
PLD 2012 S.C. 217
Deeming clause in a statute is to be read to the extent of it application and not beyond that. The purpose of importing a deeming clause is to place an artificial construction upon a word/phrase that would not otherwise prevail and sometimes it is to make the construction certain. Deeming clause is a fiction which cannot be extended beyond the language of the provision by which it is created or by importing another fiction.
All Pakistan newspaper Society Vs. Federation
PLD 2012 S.C. 1
Said Judges, however, had deliberately and knowingly violated the order of Seven Members Bench of the Supreme Court and took oath not only in flagrant violation thereof but from Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar who was never and could have never been appointed as Chief Justice of Pakistan---Said Judges had acted in a highly prejudicial, unconstitutional and contemptuous manner fully knowing the implications and consequences of non-compliance of the said order of the Supreme Court being mandatory in nature and binding upon them pursuant to the provisions as enunciated in Art. 189 of the Constitution; it was their constitutional, legal and moral duty to defend the Constitution but they took oath under the Provisional Constitution Order, 2007, having no constitutional and legal sanctity.
Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder Versus Federation of Pakistan.
2010 P L D 483
Supreme Court
Suit against the Government---No suit can be filed against Provincial Government without impleading the Province as a party and the procedural pre-condition is mandatory in nature and no relief can be sought without its strict compliance and suit would not be maintainable.
Due to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of S.79, C.P.C. and Art. 174 of the Constitution, a suit against the functionary only is not maintainable.
Government of Balochistan, CWPP&H Department Versus Nawabzada Mir Tariq Hussain Khan Magsi
2010 SCMR 115
Supreme Court
Non-adherence to legislative provisions other than the Constitution is permissible, provided it does not entail penal consequences---There are two types of statutory/legislation i.e. mandatory and directory---mandatory provision is required to be enforced strictly without interpreting/construing it in any manner liberally.
Human Rights Cases Nos. 4668 of 2006, 1111 of 2007 and 15283-G of 2010
2010 PLD 759
Supreme Court.
Constitutional petition---Announcement of judgment by High Court after six months of hearing the arguments of parties---Validity---provisions of O.XX, R.1(2), C.P.C., were directory but not mandatory.
Muhammad Nadeem Arif Versus Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore.
2010 PLC 924
Supreme Court.
O. XXI, Rr.90, 66 & 85---Auction sale of property---Non-issuance of notice and non-compliance of the provisions of O.XXI, R. 66, which is mandatory, shall vitiate the sale on account of material irregularity, present case being a classic one of the nature, attracted O.XXI, R.90, C.P.C., therefore auction sale is liable to be set aside.
Khursheed Begum Versus Inam-Ur-Rehman Khan
2009 PLD 552
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Application for ejectment of tenant---prescribed notice to be issued to the tenant---Procedure---Guidelines---Said prescribed notice more or less is in accordance with the Form B-IV in which a notice is issued by a court in suits filed under O.XXXVII, C.P.C.; apart from this the notice has to be issued through process-server, registered post A.D. and courier service---mandatory requirement is that the notice has to be accompanied by the copy of the application and the documents annexed with the application.
Younas Siddique Versus Mst. Tahira Jabeen
2009 PLD 469
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Trial Court called upon the surety to show cause without forfeiting bail bond---Said order of the Trial Court being violative of mandatory provisions of S.514, Cr.P.C., was not sustainable---Trial Court forfeited the bail bond in favour of the State, which it should have forfeited before issuance of show cause notice and order for attachment.
Muhammad Rafique Versus State
2009 PLD 132
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Inquiry proceedings conducted in absence of service of statement of allegations on civil servant would be void and nullity in eyes of law as civil servant was not confronted with them---Evidence recorded prior to regular inquiry, in absence of civil servant, would not be of any value as right of cross-examining witnesses had been denied to civil servant resulting in manifest injustice---Inquiry had not been conducted according to mandatory provisions of law so much so that even statement of allegation was not supplied to civil servant to meet charges---Supreme Court set aside impugned judgment and directed reinstatement of civil servant with all back benefits.
Muhammad Ismail Shahid Versus Executive District Officer (Revenue), Lahore
2008 SCMR 609
Supreme Court
High Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to take the role of the investigating agency and to quash the F.I.R. while exercising constitutional power under Art.199 of the Constitution or under S.561-A, Cr.P.C unless and until very exceptional circumstances existed---High Court had decided the case in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure---Offences in the impugned F.I.R. being not compoundable, High Court was not justified to quash the same on the basis of alleged settlement between the parties outside the Court.
Dr. Ghulam Mustafa Versus State.
2008 SCMR 76
Supreme Court
Directions to tenant to deposit all the rent due from him etc.---Non-compliance---Effect.
Rent Controller, after the date and before the issues are framed, shall direct the tenant to deposit all the rent due from him, and also to deposit rent regularly till the final decision of the case, before the fifteenth day of each month.
Where such mandatory provisions of law had neither been complied with by the Rent Controller, nor attended to by the High Court, both the orders of the Rent Controller and High Court were not sustainable in law and were set aside by the Supreme Court.
Raja Sohail Javed Versus Raja Atiq-ur-Rehman
2008 PLD 470
Supreme Court
Police had grossly violated the law by entering into their house without any search warrants; it was a mandatory requirement of law under Art.22 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, to seek search warrants to enter into the private residence;
Raiding party had also violated the mandatory provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C. for not associating independent witnesses of the locality in the recovery process to prove the manufacturing of liquor;
Provisions of Art. 14 of the constitution which provide sanctity and privacy of the private house were also violated and raiding party had not complied with the mandatory provisions of S.105, Cr.P.C. by not taking permission from the Illaqa Magistrate before raiding a private residence;
Muhammad Siddique Versus State
2008 PLD 368
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Provisions of S. 12, National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 dealing with freezing of property,
And it was mandatory that if any property was frozen/seized by the NAB Authorities, the order had to be passed by the Chairman NAB for freezing/seizure of the same, which was non-existent in the present case.
The State through Prosecutor-General Accountability NAB, Islamabad Versus Babar Ali Kharal
2008 PLD 347
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Period of detention to be considered while awarding sentence of imprisonment---While awarding sentence of 14 years’ R.I, to accused benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. was not given to him, nor any such request was made before any Court up to the level of Supreme Court---provisions of S.382-B, Cr.P.C being mandatory, Trial Court should have considered the same in favour of accused.
Muhammad Akram Versus State
2008 PLD 266
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
R.4---Nature and scope of R.4---Rule 4 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 is directory in nature and not mandatory.
Manzoor Ahmad Versus State
2008 PLD 243
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Grievance of petitioner was that Presiding Officer of Trial Court did not record evidence in his own hand and neither made any memorandum of substance of evidence nor he had recorded any reason for his inability to record the memorandum---Effect---If evidence was not taken down in writing by Judge, he was bound under O.XVIII C.P.C., as the examination of each witness proceeded, to make memorandum of substance of what each witness deposed---Such memorandum was to be written by Judge and had to form part of record---Such was a mandatory provision and was required to be strictly adhered to and followed, so that Judge should be cognizant of testimony made by witnesses, to obviate any chance of misconstruing or misinterpreting it; in furtherance thereto O.XVHI, R. 14 C.P.C. contemplated that if Judge was unable to make a memorandum as required.
Ghulam Mustafa Versus Abdul Malik
2008 PLD 4
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Ss. 20, 21 & 22---Seizure and arrest---Non-compliance of mandatory provisions---Effect---Provisions of Ss. 20, 21 & 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being directory, non-compliance thereof would not be a ground for holding trial/conviction bad in the eyes of law.
Zafar Versus State
2008 SCMR 1254
Supreme-Court
Interpretation of Statues---Mandatory and directory provisions in a statue---Penalty clause in a statute---Effect---Where the Legislature had provided penalty/ consequences for the non-compliance of a provision such provision is “mandatory” in nature---Where, however, such consequences are not provided, the provision is termed as “directory”.
Ghulam Hassan Versus Jamshaid Ali
2008 SCMR 1001
Supreme Court
Direction of the Member Inspection Team of the High Court can only be regarded as directory, enabling the Court to expedite the hearing/decision, but in no case can be given supremacy over the explicit legal provisions.
Sazia Sultana Versus Razia Begum
2003 PLD 27
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Interpretation of Statues provisions of a statue which do not provide for consequences which may follow upon their non-compliance are directory and strict consequences cannot flow from their non-compliance.
Faiz Sons Versus Hakim Sons (IMPEX) Private Ltd.
1999 SCMR 2771
Supreme-Court
Civil Procedure Code---Order VIII of C.P.C. written statement and Set-off---O.VIII, Rr.11 & 12---Provision of O. VIII, R. 12, C.P.C. is directory in nature since its object is to avoid unnecessary delay in disposal of suit so that for purpose of service and address should be filed in court---Provisions of Rr.20, 23, 24 & 25 of O.VII Civil Procedure Code have been applied by O.VIII, R.11(3)---Where a party had failed to file an address for service as provided in O.VIII, R. 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it would be liable to have its defence, if any, struck off and to be placed in the same position as if it had not defended---Cumulative effect of Rr. 11 & 12 of O.VIII, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, stated.
Mirza Ali Khan State Shahida Parveen
1992 SCMR 2112
Supreme-Court
Irregularity or defect in investigation was of no legal consequence after the Court of competent jurisdiction had taken cognizance of the case---Court was competent to take cognizance both under S.190, Cr.P.C. as well as provisions of the Customs Act even if the report under S.173, Cr.P.C. had been forwarded by an incompetent person as the same could serve as an information---Such procedural irregularities in the investigation were curable under S.537, Cr.P.C. as the procedure was merely directory in nature and not mandatory.
Khalid Mehmood Versus The State
1999 PLD 279
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Provisions of O.XXI, R.2, C.P.C. were directory rather than mandatory as no consequences were to follow in case of failure---Court should keep in view the substantive rights of parties and not to go by mere technicalities of procedure.
Muhammad Tariq Versus Fazilat
1997 PLD 728
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Ehtesab Ordinance, 1996 Ss.13, (1) & 14(4) (5)---Provisions of Ss. 13, (1) & 14(4)(5) of Ehtesab Ordinance, 1996 are directory in nature and not mandatory.
Rifat Askari Versus The State
1997 PLD 285
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
It is not for the courts to fill in the lacuna or remove the defects in an enactment adopting construction which will remove the lacuna and advance the purpose and object of the statute.
Sayed Muhammad Aslam v. Sayed Mehdi Hussain etc.
PLD 1970 Lah. 6
Province of East Pakistan v. Sharifullah etc.
PLD 1970 SC 514.
Omission in a statute cannot as a general rule be supplied by construction --- if a particular word is omitted from the terms of a statute, even though such a word is within the obvious purpose of the statute, the court cannot include the omitted word by supplying the omission and this is equally true where the omission was due to the failure of the legislature to foresee a missing word.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC(AJ & K) at P-1309
Lacunas in a statute are not meant to be removed by the Courts---Duty of the Courts is only to try and harmonize the various provisions of an Act passed by the legislature and not to fill in gaps or omission in the provisions of the Act by stretching the words.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1312.
Most settled principle of interpretation is that the court must deduce the intention of the parliament from the words used in the Act.
Shahid Nabi Malik & another V. Chief Election Commissioner etc. PLD 1997 SC 32.
To construe and/or interpret a statute the whole of the statute is to be taken into consideration to know the over all and ultimate intention of the legislature whether about public policy or a specific matter. The intention of the legislation should be manifest and expressed. The specific text which has direct nexuses with the problem should be interpreted in the over all context of the legislation.
M/S Sunrise Textile Ltd etc. vs. Mushreq Bank & others
PLD 1996 Lah 1
Also see generally; 1993 CLC 631, 1993 CLC 412; 1993 CLC 2009.
The interpretation should be beneficial to the “just & right” and thus, it should advance the cause of justice.
Abdul Rehim etc. v. UBL Pakistan
PLD 1997 Kar. 62.
While interpreting a statute attempt should be made to suppress the mischief and advance the justice.
Abdul Fareed Khan v. Ferozuddin
1993 CLC 515 [Karachi].
Doubts in interpretation, if any, are to be resolved in favour of the affectee.
Zubair Ishtiaq Qureshi v. Chairman Academic Council
1993 CLC 1675 [Karachi] at p. 1677.
Whether a particular word and term is used in its “generic sense” or its common and popular meaning shall be employed, will depend on the context of the statute.
Saforic Textile Mills Ltd. Etc. v. Government of Sindh
PLD 1990 Kar. 402 at p.407.
The elementary rule of construction/interpretation is to construe the words “literally”.
Mehar Khan v. Yaqub Khan
1981 SCMR 267 at p. 273, PLD 2010 SC 759.
Where there is an enactment with regard to a particular trade or business and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade or business knows, then those words must be construed as having that particular meaning of such words.
M/S Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. Versus Lahore Municipal Corporation
1994 SCMR 262 at p. 265.
Civil and Military Press Ltd. V. Pakistan
1985 CLC 1021 [Karachi] at p. 1025.
Statute law silent-Muslim jurisprudence to be resorted to.
Muhammad Bashir v. State
PLD 1982 FSC 297.
Government instructions issued for guidance of its officers, the government is bound to follow such instructions and obliged to implement it’s own interpretation.
Case titled Munawar-ud-Din; cited as PLD 1979 Note 80 [Lahore].
When the text of the legislation gives rise to two interpretations, the court should avoid absurd construction leading to injustice and should adopt the construction in accord with reason and justice.
Pakistan Tobacco Co. v. Employees Union
PLD 1961 SC 403;
See also PLD 1964 Lah 101; PLD 1966 AJ & K 38.
While interpreting one has to fill in the gaps in a piece of legislation where a plain construction would lead to absurd results.
Lt. Col. Nawabzada Ahmad Amir Khan v. Controller Estate Duty etc.
PLD 1961 SC 119;
See also PLD 1964 Dacca 773.
Court has to afford interpretation, which would save the law rather than destroy the same.
Abdul Rahim and Others v. U.B.L.
PLD 1997 Kar.62.
See also 1998 FSC 117.
Statutory rule cannot be modified or amended by administrative instructions.
Muhammad Riaz Akhtar v. Sub-Registrar
PLD 1996 Lah 180 at p.187.
Provisions of a statute cannot be overridden by agreement.
M/S Sethi Straw Board v. Punjab Labour Court-III,
PLD 1977 Lah. 71.
A forged or illegal document does not provide any basis to all subsequent documents founded on it.
John Paul v. Irshad Ali & others
cited as PLD 1977 Kar. 267.
In case of any ambiguity in statute, it is permissible to refer to other relevant facts and circumstances for ascertaining the true intention of the legislature, such as debate in the Assembly preceding the passing of the statute under interpretation.
Mehar Zulfiqar Ali Baber v. Government of Punjab
PLD 1997 SC 11.
There is no estoppel against statute.
M/S Sethi Straw Board v. Punjab Labour Court-III
PLD 1977 Lah. 71 at p. 74;
See also PLD 1997 SC 11; PLD 1977 Lah.85; PLD 1963 Lah. 606.
Where there is inconsistency between the parent Act and Rules framed thereunder the first attempt should be to reconcile the inconsistency between the two and only when the conflict between the Act and the Rule is irreconcilable, the Rule will have to be declared ultra vires.
Mian Hakimullah etc. v. Addl. District Judge
1993 SCMR 907.
Sayed Mukhtar Gilani v. Registrar
1993 CLC 463 (Azad J & K).
It is not for the courts to fill in the lacuna or remove the defects in an enactment adopting construction which will remove the lacuna and advance the purpose and object of the statute.
Sayed Muhammad Aslam v. Sayed Mehdi Hussain etc.
PLD 1970 Lah. 6;
Province of East Pakistan v. Sharifullah etc.
PLD 1970 SC 514.
A “Proviso” cannot travel beyond the scope of the main enactment.
Bakh Elahi v. Qazi Wasif Ali
1985 SCMR 291. S
Commissioner Income Tax v. West Punjab Factories
PLD 1966(W.P.) Lahore 236 at p. 240;
See generally PLD 1976 Lah. 1273; PLD 1966 Lah. 236; PLD 1965 SC 434.
“Proviso” to a rule be allowed to override, nullify or whittle down statutory provisions or their effect.
Emmanual Masih v. Punjab Local Councils Election Authority
1985 SCMR 729.
The MERE Fact that the rules are mentioned along with provisions of a statute, it does not imply that rules are raised to the level of statute under which they are framed. Proviso to rule cannot, therefore, achieve an overriding power nor used to enlarge operation of a statute.
Emmanual Masih v. Punjab Local Council
1985 SCMR 729;
See also case titled Bakhash Elahi cited as 1985 SCMR 291.
Punctuation is not an essential part of a statute and its importance is not more than the text itself.
Nazar Ali v. Secretary
1963 Kar. 575;
See generally PLD 1984 B.J 15; PLD 1973 Lah. 256; 1998 SCMR 91.
See also Majid Khan v. Mujahid Khan
PLD 1966 (W.P) Peshawar 264.
If the meaning, due to merely punctuation of a statute leads to an absurd result or in conflict with some other provisions of the statute the punctuation must yield to an interpretation that is reasonable and makes it consistent with the other provisions.
Majid Khan etc. v. Mujahid Khan etc.
PLD 1966 Pesh. 264;
Also see generally PLD 1971 Kar. 535; 1972 DLC 91.
Use of comma between two parts of the provision stating, “…, which may include,…” would mean that the second portion does not control or restrict the meaning of the first portion.
M/S Dawood Yamaha Ltd. V. Government of Baluchistan
PLD 1986 Quetta 148.
Unlawful long user- cannot defeat provisions of a statute. No estoppel against statute.
Kohistan Travel v. Province of Punjab
PLD 1977 Lah. 85 at p.90.
“Proviso” – Exception to substantive provision. Definition clause – Has effect of a declaratory provision and governs all cases coming within it’s ambit.
Pramatha Nath Ch. Etc. v. Kamir Mondal etc.
PLD 1965 Supreme Court 434.
Proviso:- Cannot travel beyond scope of main enactment – Proviso something subordinate to main clause.
Province of Punjab etc. v. Nadeem & Co.
PLD 1976 Lah. 1273 at p. 1282.
Punctuation like colons, comas etc. may be of no help in construing legislation instrument – words like “and” or “or” may be interchanged. It is duty of the court to find correct meanings.
Muhammad Mumtaz-ul-Hasan v. Ataullah Mehar
PLD 1984 Lah. 27 at p.31.
Statutory rules cannot be modified or amended by administrative instruction.
Muhammad Riaz Akhtar v. Sub-Registrar
PLD 1996 Lah. 180 at p. 187.
Fiscal statutes to be strictly construed.
Muhammad Riaz Akhtar v. Sub-Registrar
PLD 1996 Lah. 180 at p. 187.
Effort should be made to harmonize seemingly inconsistent provisions – Two sections of Statute, if found repugnant, last must prevail.
Sahibzada Sharafuddin etc. v. Town Committee
1984 CLC 1517 [Lahore] at p. 1520.
Court must proceed on assumption that legislature meant exactly what it said – court has not to depart from plain meaning of expression used in statute.
Rehmat Khan v. Abdul Razzaque
1993 CLC 412 [Karachi] at p. 416.
Right of appeal being a substantive right and not a right of procedural nature could not be taken back.
Muhammad Ayyub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (Azad J & K).
Provisions vesting discretion on executive – construction should be minimize the discretion vested in the executive authorities.
Kamran Industries v. Collector
PLD 1996 Kar.68 at p. 101.
Government itself not only bound by instructions issued by it for guidance of its officers and public but also obliged to follow and implement its own interpretation of a particular provisions of law – Exception: when same found to be in clear violation of any law;
PLD 1979 Note 80 Lah; Ref: PLD 1970 SC 453.
Crawford’s statutory construction 1940 Edn P.399 legal control of By Government by Bernard Sehwarts & H.W.R Wade PP-92-103-104.
Statutory rules cannot be modified or amended by administration instruction.
PLD 1996 Lah 180 at P.187.
Right of appeal is a substantive right and the same cannot be regarded as a right of procedure alone until and unless such right is taken away retrospectively it would not affect the jurisdiction of the court to dispose of the appeal pending at the time of amendment according to law which was on the statute book before the amendment.
Ghazi & others v. The State
PLD 1962 Lah 662;
Also see PLD 1962 Kar 285.
Words are not be employed in a statute if there is no ambiguity.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1308.
Omission in a statute cannot as a general rule be supplied by construction --- if a particular word is omitted from the terms of a statute, even though such a word is within the obvious purpose of the statute, the court cannot include the omitted word by supplying the omission and this is equally true where the omission was due to the failure of the legislature to foresee a missing word.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC(AJ & K) at P-1309.
Intention of legislature can be ascertained after reading the statute as a whole.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1309.
Each word used in a statute is intended to have some effect and no word is to be considered as superfluous or redundant.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1309.
While interpreting a statute, the court should presume that no part of it was intended to be meaningless and that the provisions of a statute could not have been intended to operate against each other. Courts lean against construction, which makes words unnecessary in Acts of Parliament.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1309.
Also see 1946 Wag 152.
Court is not entitled to read words into an Act of the legislature unless a reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1310.
General principles of interpretation statute.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC(AJ & K) at P-1311.
Reference by president under defunct Constitution of 1956.
PLD 1957 SC (Pak) 219 Referred.
Law should be interpreted in such a manner that it should rather be saved than destroyed --- Law including the Constitution must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner giving effect to all its parts and the presumption should be no conflict or repugnancy was intended by the frames--- In interpreting the words of an Act actual words used in fact throw light on intention of the law-makers and the other parts of the statute.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC(AJ & K) at P-1312.
Lacunas in a statute are not meant to be removed by the Courts ---Duty of the Courts is only to try and harmonize the various provisions of an Act passed by the legislature and not to fill in gaps or omission in the provisions of the Act by stretching the words.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1312.
To ascertain the legislative intent all the constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together and each word, phrase or sentence is to be considered in the light of the general, purpose and object of the Act itself.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1312.
Language used by the legislative is the true depository of the legislative intent and the words and phrases occulting in a statute are to be taken not in isolated or detached manner disassociated from the content but are to be read together and construed in the light of the purpose and in object of the Act itself.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1313.
Ref: AIR 1953 SC 83; AIR 1953 SC 274.
In order to present conflict between two sections of a statute the two sections must be read together and the language of one interpreted and where necessary modified by that of the other.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1313.
Ref: AIR 1944 Mad 361.
Courts are not concerned with the reason of policy of the Act and they have to give effect to the plain meaning of the section or to its expressed intention Courts have no means of finding out its implied intention.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1314. Ref: AIR 1944 Lah. 33.
Court is to see whether a reasonable meaning can be given after reconciling the various provisions contained in different sections and not to read one section independently of all other sections and give any unreasonable interpretation.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1314.
Ref: PLD 1960 Dacca 506.
Legislature’s defective phrasing --- only of the court.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1314.
Ref: AIR 1938 Lah 606.
Consideration of hardship or injustice would never weigh with the court while interpreting a statute.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1315.
Court has to interpret a law as it is and not as it ought to have been --- presumption is that legislature did not intend to make substantial alteration in the law beyond what it explicitly declares either in express terms or by clear implication or in other words beyond the immediate scope and object of the statute --- intention to cut down or abolish resisting right must be clear and manifest.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1315.
Ref: AIR 1930 Sindh 265.
Difference of opinion between two judges of Supreme Court one being in Chief Justice --- Order of the senior (Chief Justice) would from the judgment of the court.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1315.
While interpreting a statute the words and phrases should be assigned ordinary dictionary meaning unless they are defined in the relevant statute.
Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq
1990 MLD 1293 SC (AJ & K) at P-1302.
Mandatory & Directory Provisions – Criterias
Kausar Begum Versus Matloob Hussain
2007 CLD 281(B)
Fauji Sugar Mills Versus Province of Punjab
1996 CLC 592
State Versus Zahid Nadeem
1996 MLD 506
2007 CLC 315(a)
Anwar Lal Versus Ishwardas
2007 SCMR 1776 (b)
Mohammad Nazir Versus Saima Akhtar
ALD 2007 Lah, 141(d)
Umar Aslam Versus Sumera Malik
PLD 2007 SC 362
PLD 2006 SC 697
PLD 2006 Karachi 25(a)
2006 CLD 244 (f)
2006 CLC 787
PLD 2005 SC 311 (f)
2004 YLR 2479
2004 CLD 716
2004 YLR 915
If an act was required to be performed in a specific/certain manner by law or rule, it should be done according to such prescribed manner alone or not at all.
2005 CLC 1201
PLD 2005 Kar. 128.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY LAWS
ZAKAT AND USHR ORDINANCE
Interpretation one consistent with the Islamic principles has to be adopted and that interpretation which advances the principles of policy and Islamic provisions on the constitution are to be adopted. Therefore, on interpreting the provisions of zakat and usher ordinance reference to Quran & and Sunnah and concepts developed by Muslim jurist would be necessary for enforcing the provisions of said Ordinance.
Definition of words, “means and includes”
Includes is of a wider import than the term “means.”
“Zakat is to be charged and collected of the company assets with reference to the liability of individual shareholder. As the investment in the N.I.T units as well as the profit accruing thereon was ultimately reflected in the account of each depositor and such deposits are subjected to compulsory deduction of zakat, the national investment units trust could not deduct zakat on the said investment.”
PLD 1994 LAH 207
Where it is possible without doing any violence to the language of the statue – a beneficial construction may be adopted which favour upon the right of a citizen of a party.
PLD 1985 SC 546
A case of interpreting provisions of Police Rules and Punjab Service Tribunal Act IX of 1974.
PLD 1995 SC 546
1982 SCMR 582
Amendments not always for changing law but also sometimes are made to clarify issues and remove doubts.
PLD 1995 LAH 541
Interpretation clause mot to be applied with rigidity – must give way to context in which certain word has appeared.
PLD 1995 LAH 541
Where his views possible in penal law – one favorable to subject to br taken.
PLD 1995 LAH 541
Any law taking away jurisdiction of courts id to be strictly construed.
PLD 1995 KAR 552
General Clauses Act
It is a well settled principle of interpretation of notification and/or and “execution order” that the same can operate prospectively and not retrospectively. This principle is equally applicable to a statute. It comes Circulars of the State Bank and the F.B.R.
PLD 1997 S.C. 315
PLD 1969 S.C. 487
PLD 1970 S.C. 80
PLD 1971 S.C. 252
The court can take notice of subsequent events.
1990 CLC 1069
BANKING COMPANIES (Recovery of Loans) Ord,1979
Rule making power conferred by statute cannot once ride postulates of the statute itself - to be confined within parameters of parent statute- cannot supply omissions or fill lacunas in legislation – rules have to be just, reasonable, in consonance with the law of the land, in accord with public policy and totally free from oppression.
PLD 1994 Kar. 275
AIR 1921 Lah. 134
PLD 1961 Kar. 349
PLD 1962 Pes. 51
PLD 1966 Lah. 287
1982 SCMR 522
1985 SCMR 386
PLD 1985 Kar. 201
PLD 1986 Kar. 369
1985 PTD 549
1987 CLC 61.
PLD 1988 Kar. 279
PLD 1989 Lah. 89 Ref.
Proviso to patent provision cannot be interpreted to mean that legislature giving by one hand and taking away by the other.
PLD 1990 Lah. 4(DB)
An appellant in appeal before competent authority is entitled to personal hearing even if not specifically provided for personal hearing.
PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 45
The same rule will apply to review.
1995 SCMR 65.
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
Power of attorney to be construed strictly given only such authority as confessed expresses or by implication.
1995 CLC 1541 (SC AJ&K)
General terms in operative part of a power of attorney are controlled by recital.
Power of attorney not open to liberal interpretation given to less formal instruments of commercial transaction.
1995 CLC 1572 AJ&K
INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTION
Each and every word in constitutional document must be given defined meaning.
PLD 1995 LAH 541