Find a Lawyer

Petition No. D-453 of 1986, decided on 18th February, 1987.

---Arts.199 & 270-A--Constitution of Pakistan (1972), Art.281(1)- Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts), Ordinance (IX "Of 1984)--Vires of Ordinance IX of 1984--Laws made between 5,7-1977 and 30-12-1985--Sanctity attributed to said laws by Art.270-A of Constitution (1973) as to their validity, held, could not be questioned in any Court on any ground whatsoever notwithstanding anything in Constitution and notwithstanding any judgment of any Court- Legislature has provided a complete cover for said laws and hence they could not be tested on the anvil of Constitution and since Fundamental Rights are a part of Constitution, validity could not be challenged even on that basis--Petition dismissed in limine.--[ Vires of legislation].

P L D 1986 Kar. 516; P L D 1983 S C 457 and P L D 1972 S C 139 rel.

Abdul Sattar Pinger for Petitioner.

--In this Constitution Petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Ordinance IX of 1984. The question of vires of the laws made between 5-7-1977 and 30th of December, 1985 has been decided by a full bench of this Court consisting of 5 Judges in the case of Nazar Muhammad reported in PLD 1986, Kar. 516, where it has been held as under:-

"The validity of the laws including Martial Law Regulations and Martial Law orders made between 5-7-1977, and the date on which the Article 270-A came into force i.e. 30-12-1985 could not be questioned."

The matter is, therefore, concluded as far as this High Court is concerned.

Mr. Abdul Sattar Pinger has submitted that this amounts to make all these laws as sacrosanct even though they may be in fact in the breach of fundamental rights. The sanctity, which has been attributed to these laws by Article 270-A, as to their validity cannot be -questioned notwithstanding anything in the constitution and notwithstanding any judgment of any Court and there is a further bar provided that it shall not be called in question in any Court on any ground whatsoever. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom has provided a complete cover for these laws and hence they cannot be tested on the anvil of the constitution and since fundamental rights are a part of the constitution, therefore, their validity cannot be challenged even on that basis.

In the case of Fauji Foundation, reported in P L D 1983 S C 457 while construing Article 281(1) of the Constitution of 1972, which was completely at par with the present Article 270-A(1) of the Constitution, it was observed as under:-

"That the Legislative measures themselves have been validated and Courts have been debarred from questioning their validity. Similarly; persons or authorities acting in the exercise of or the purported exercise of power given by these measures have been protected from legal proceedings but the acts done, proceedings taken or orders made in the exercise or purported exercise of powers derived from those measures have only been validated without ousting the jurisdiction of the Court."

"That the legislative measures stood validated, that is, declared valid, and the Courts were debarred from questioning their validity i.e. legal strength or force."

The Supreme Court in the above case had placed reliance upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Asma Jilani, reported in P L D 1972 S C 139, where the observations reproduced above have been made in respect of Article 281(1). Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine. Miscellaneous Applications are also dismissed.

S.Q./M-65/K Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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