Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
P L D 1981 Supreme Court 334
(Shariat Appellate Bench)
Present : Justice Muhammad Haleem, Chairman, Justices Karam
Elahee Chauhan and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Members
AI‑Haj H. I. SHEIKH‑Appellant
versus
MAHMOOD A. HAROON, FEDERAL MINISTER, RELIGIOUS
AFFAIRS
AND oTHERs‑‑Respondents
Shariat Appeal No. K‑7 of 1980, decided on 17th January 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Sind High ,Court Shariat Bench, dated 13‑5‑1980, in SP. 17/80).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
‑‑ Art. 203 D‑Contrariety to injunctions of Islam‑Declaration for
removal of certain lacunae in Haj Policy (1980) of Government of Pakistan allegedly not in conformity with Injunctions of Islam‑Matters in issue, held, pertain to branch of law known as Muslim Personal law, applied to community of Muslims alone as distinct from general law applied to all citizens of Pakistan‑Scrutiny of such law, viz. Muslim Personal law‑Beyond jurisdiction of Shariat Benches (Courts as well as Appellate Bench of Supreme Court).‑[Jurisdiction].
Federation of Pakistan v. Mst. Farishta P L D 1981 S C 120 ref.
Appellant in person.
Abdul Aziz Urfi, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocate‑on Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Mahmood Alam, Manager (Legal Services) for Respondent No. 3. Date of hearing : 17th January, 1981.
KARAM: ELAHEE CHAUHAN, MEMBER.‑The appellant filed a Shariat Applica tion No. 17/80 in the erstwhile Shariat Bench of the Sind High Court (Karachi) under Article 203‑B (unamended) of the Constitution of 1973 "For removal of certain lacunae in the Haj Policy (1980)" of the Government of Pakistan which according to the appellant was not in confirmity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah/Hadith of the Holy Prophet. He particularly took exception to the practice and policy of the Government in selecting persons for performing Haj by a system of "ballot" and also to the requirement of that policy whereby every applicant had to deposit an unrefundable amount of Rs. 50 as handling charges of his application and for other similar services.
2. The petition was dismissed by the High Court on 4‑8‑1980 on the short ground that "these are ‑ obviously matters which do not fall within our jurisdiction", though, it earlier observed that (generally speaking) some policy of selection in the very nature of things would appear to be quite in order in view of large number of applicants, limited extent of foreign exchange at the disposal of the Government for this purpose, coupled with the inability of Saudi Arabia to accommodate unlimited number of. persons, and a number of similar other considerations.
3. The appellant has come up in an appeal to this Court under Article 203‑C of the Constitution.
4. We have heard the appellant who appeared in person and argued his case with great zeal and seriousness of a pious intention and motive. However, we are of the opinion that the matters in issue herein pertain to that branch of law which is known as Muslim Personal Law, which is applicable and is being applies to the community of Muslims alone as distincr from general law which applies to all the citizens of Pakistan. As recently held by this Court in Federation of Pakistan v. Mst. Farishta (P L D 1981 S C 120) scrutiny of such law namely Muslim Personal Law is beyond the jurisdiction of Sharia Benches/Courts as well as this Appellate Bench.
5. The result is that as the petition filed by the appellant before the Shariat Bench of the High Court was incompetent, it was liable to be dismissed as such. Similarly we are also unable to enter into the controversy agitated by the appellant and accordingly dismiss the appeal, with no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
(1) P L D 1981 S C 120
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer