Find a Lawyer

‑‑ Art. 199(1), (5) read with Laws (Continuance in Force) (Fifth Amendment) Order, 1977 [C. M. L. A.'s No. 6 of 1977], para. 2 Contention : Chief Martial Law Administrator having no legislative power to amend Constitution of Pakistan and such legislative exercise being not within scope of doctrine of State necessity, Bench of Supreme Court, headed by respondent No. 1 (appointed Chief Justice consequent upon promulgation of C. M. L. A's. Order 6 of 1977) not validly constituted and as such respondent No. 1 could not preside over Bench hearing a named appeal‑No allegation in petition of respondent No. 1 being not qualified to be a Judge of Supreme Court or to hold office of Chief Justice of Pakistan‑Petition quite clearly challenging act of respondent No. 1 as Chief Justice in constituting Bench of Supreme Court deciding named appeal and judgment given by respondent No. 1 in said appeal‑Challenge thus laid to action of Chief Justice as a Court and not as a Judge in his individual capacity-Decision of Supreme Court reported as P L D 1976 S C 315, held, clearly leads to conclusion of petitions like present one being not maintainable.‑[Legislation].

Abrar Hassan v. Government of Pakistan and others P L J 1975 Kar. 179 and Abrar Hassan v. Government of Pakistan and another P L D 1976 S C 315 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

‑‑ Art. 199(1), (5)‑Writ jurisdiction‑Questioning judgment of superior Court‑Judgment of superior Court‑Held, cannot be questioned by High Court in writ jurisdiction whatever grounds of attack maybe. ‑[Judgment].

Abdul Hafiz Pirzada and Shaikh Mir Muhammad for Petitioner:

Sharifuddin Pirzada, Attorney‑General assisted by Muhammad Saiduzzaman Siddiqui for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 27th February, 1979.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.