Important Case decided By SC. P L D Supreme Court Present: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Sajjad Ahmad, Waheeduddin Ahmad. There have been a lot of important and leading cases in the history of Pakistan. Asma Jilani vs Government of the Punjab case is one of them. What is the grudge-Nazi informer case? • Riggs v Palmer, Re Sigsworth case. • Kelson in Pakistani courts??? • Dosso v. State,. • Asma Jilani v. The Government .
|Published (Last):||1 July 2013|
|PDF File Size:||6.22 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.42 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I would not also condone anything which seriously impairs the rights of the citizens except in so far as they may be designed to advance the social welfare and national solidarity.
On the 23rd DecemberMiss Asma Jilani, filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 98 2 b i of the Constitution of questioning the detention of her father on more than one ground.
Case Law Asma Jilani vs Federation of Pakistan | Thelawstudy
It must, therefore, embody the will of asmaa people which is usually expressed through the medium of chosen representatives. The Court on the very next day, i. Upon this analysis, I am, with the utmost respect for the then learned Chief Justice, unable to resist the conclusion that he erred both in interpreting Kelsen’s theory and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case before him.
It was held in this appeal that principles, which were laid down in State vs Dosso, were not justified. In accordance with the opinion given by the Federal Court, a new Constituent Assembly was elected and it eventually succeeded in framing a Constitution which came into force on the 23rd March The imposition of Martial Law does not of its julani force require the closing of the civil Courts or the abrogation of the authority jilnai the civil Government.
The nation expects you to discharge this responsibility to preserve the security and integrity of the country jlani to restore normal, social, economic and administrative life.
List of cases of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
With the utmost respect, therefore, I would agree with the criticism that the learned Chief Justice not only misapplied the doctrine of Hans Kelsen, but also fell into error in thinking that it was a generally accepted doctrine of modern jurisprudence. The validity of the acts done thereunder are no longer, therefore, open to challenge.
All these cannot be invalidated and toe country landed once again into confusion? The High Courts were, therefore, wrong in thinking that they had no jurisdiction to enquire into this matter. Justice Cardozo snakes an exception in the case of statutes, in so far as they are clear, and precedents which are clearly in point.
The Court would not also condone anything which seriously impairs the rights of the citizens except in so far as they may be designed to advance the social welfare and national solidarity. This was followed three days later by the promulgation of the Laws Continuance in Force Order on the 10th of October Now to judge the validity of the events that took place on and from the 24th of March The process of illegality thus set in motion led in its turn to the illegal usurpation of power by the President so elected under the said Constitution abrogating the Constitution and declaring Martial Law on the 7th of October He has also invoked in aid the principle of stare decisis to support his contention that the law laid down in that case should not now be changed.
Article 8 of this Order was, it is said, not repugnant to the provisions of clause 1 of Article 3 and did not override the same, because, it could be given a harmonious interpretation by limiting the power of making orders by the President thereunder to orders of a constitutional nature necessary for the administration of the affairs of the State but only to the extent they did not conflict with the Constitution or those parts of it which bad been preserved by the Provisional Constitution Order or were not inconsistent with any Martial Law Regulation.
About ICDP is an independent body of politically influential people with international standing — supported by a diverse group of 18 governments from all world regions — working for a world free from the death penalty. How is the worth of such a hypothesis to be assessed? Allen mentions two antithetic conceptions of growth of law: Laski’s book on the State in Theory and practice page 27 to show that the latter too held the view that those “who control the use of the Armed Forces of the State are in fact the masters of its sovereignty.
The functional Head of the State is chosen by the community and has to be assisted by a Council which must hold its meetings in public view and remain accountable to public. I have no cavil with this proposition, as I have myself in several cases indicated, that the Constitution can confer or restrict the jurisdiction of even superior Courts but jilzni is not the same thing as saying that it can also restrict or curtail the judicial power, because, that in effect would be denying to the Court the very function caase which it exists, i.
During Nawaz Sharif ‘s government, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional several anti-terrorist lawsincluding the Anti-Terrorism Act which established Anti-Terrorism Courts subsequently amended in October Merham Ali vs Federation of Pakistan ;  and the Pakistan Armed Forces Acting in Aid of Civil Power Ordinance, declared “unconstitutional, without legal authority, and with no legal effect” on 22 February Liaquat Hussain versus Federation of Pakistan.
Lord Pearce himself indicated 3 limitations for the validation! Jerome Frank on the other hand thinks that Gray’s view is not sufficiently radical.
This Order shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Provisional Constitution Order, or any Martial Law Regulation, or any other law for the time being in force.
Martial Law could not have arisen in the circumstances. The Courts undoubtedly have the power to hear and determine any matter or controversy which is brought before them, even if it be to decide whether they have the jurisdiction to determine such a matter or not. It was settled in this appeal that mere association with drafting of a law could not disqualify a judge from interpreting that law in light of those arguments, which presented before him.
This case was followed by the interim Constitution of and then by the permanent constitution of He also questioned the validity of the imposition of Martial Law on the ground that the state of the country was not such as to justify it.
In these circumstances, I have, for the reasons given above, come to the conclusion that both these orders were not only Illegitimate but were also incapable of being maintained on the ground of necessity. All his actions were also declared illegal.
Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan did not appoint him as his successor by his letter of the 24th March We are urging that law is, in truth, not the will of the State, but that from which the will of the State derives whatever moral authority it may possess. Dicey vide Law of the Constitution, page”utterly unknown to the law of England”, for, it has nothing equivalent to the French “declaration of State of siege”.
Asma Jilani vs Government of Punjab | Muhammad Akkas Akhtar –
But it must not be overlooked that since his own powers caee limited to deciding a controversy properly brought before him by a litigant or on his behalf, an equal duty lay on the gentlemen of the Bar as well to raise this question. Martial Law could not have arisen in the circumstances. Temporary or transitory changes were not even upon Kelsen’s own principles, which clearly postulated the condition of efficacy of the change as a necessary test, qualified to be classed in the category of a revolution.
This is a right which has consistently been claimed by Supreme Court and other Courts of superior jurisdiction in all civilised countries. The High Court relying on an earlier decision of this Jilaani in the case of State v. In judging the validity of laws at a given time, one of the basic doctrines of sama positivism, on which the whole science of modern jurisprudence rests, requires a jurist to presuppose the validity of historically the first Constitution whether it was given by an internal usurper, an external invader or a national hero or by a popular or other assembly of persons.
This does not, however, exclude the possibility of the armed forces being employed, even under the Laws of England, for the suppression of riots, insurrection and rebellion, but in this sense, according to Dicey, Martial Law is just “a name for the common law right of the Crown and its servants to repel force by force in the case of invasion, insurrection, riot or generally of any violent resistance to the law.