Art 25, 8, 4, 33 and 199 of the Administrative System (Termination) Act (XL of 1976), the proposed constitutional chief / patron system, sought the impression that he should be called the head of the Miankhel tribe and member. Be made. In his area, the Local Committee, the applicant, wanted representation of the tribe in the local committee and claimed such rights and / or privileges for himself as being the chief. Nor is any person more important than any other by law, and Article 25 of the Constitution declares the equality of all citizens, in which no one is entitled to the title of Nawab, chief, country, or any other title. By terminating the system of security as a system, any claim for superiority over the nawab, chief, country, or other title is waived. 1976 and Article 33 of the Constitution read that the State shall discourage prejudice, ethnic, tribal, sectarian and provincial prejudice among the citizens. The Constitution stipulates that any fundamental right under the Constitution conflicts with any Any custom or use will also be void and, therefore, in the present case, if the custodial applicant is treated at the touchstone of Article 25, the chiefs or civic system will be void. The protection of the law was not denied nor was it able to show that they were not being treated according to the law, so the applicant was not supported in Article 4 of the Constitution. Article 199 was not a grieving person. Constitutional application dismissed
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2013
