When judiciary encroaches upon the domain of the Executive, as in this case, where the learned judge disregarded the eligibility criteria and the recruitment policy of the Executive Authority and assumed the function of the Executive, it is said to commit judicial overreach – which occurs when a court acts beyond its jurisdiction and interferes in areas which fall within the Executive and/or the Legislature’s mandate.
One judge may accord greater significance to the need for change, while the other may accord greater significance to the need for certainty and status quo. Both types of judges act within the zone of law; neither invalidates the decision of another branch of the Government unless it deviates from law and is unconstitutional.
We are of the opinion that such a mode employed to oust a Judge was an insult inflicted on the Constitution; was an offensive abuse of the same for a collateral purpose; was clearly malafide and could not be sustained in law or permitted to be continued. The impugned Reference is, therefore, quashed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) PRESENT: Mr.Justice Sh.Riaz Ahmed, HCJ Mr.Justice Munir A.Sheikh Mr.Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Mr.Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq Mr.Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal Mr.Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah Mr.Justice Hamid Ali Mirza Mr.Justice Abdul Hameed…
It may be observed that the principles for interpreting constitutional documents as laid down by this Court are that all provisions should be read together and harmonious construction should be placed on such provisions so that no provision is rendered nugatory.
We, therefore, hold that the Chief Executive’s Orders No. 2 and 3 of 2001 have been validly issued by the Chief Executive of Pakistan in exercise of his powers under the Proclamation of Emergency of the 14th day of October 1999 and the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999 as validated by this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah's case. Consequently, these petitions qua the issuance of writ of quo warranto are dismissed.
Appointment of Supreme Court Judges Case Appointment of Supreme Court Judges challenge on the ground that it has not been made on the seniority basis.
Public importance-If the decision of the issues affects only the rights of an individual or a group of individuals. The issue in order to assume the character of public importance, must be such that its decision affects the rights and liberties of people at large. The adjective ‘public’ necessarily implies a thing belonging to people at large, the nation, the State or a community as a whole. Therefore, if a controversy is raised in which only a particular group of people is interested and the body of the people as a whole or the entire community has no interest, it cannot be treated as a case of public importance.
Article 15 of the Constitution bestows a right on every citizen of Pakistan to enter or move freely throughout the country and to reside and settle in any part thereof. It is a settled proposition of law that the right…
It is a common practice in the Dacca High Court, based on the practice of the Calcutta High Court while section 205 of the Government of India Act 1935, was in force, for a single Judge or a Division Bench, different from the ‘Appellate Court’, to grant a certificate in cases where a substantial question relating to the interpretation of the Constitution is raised and decided.
One of our pivotal Constitutional values is that the independence of judiciary shall be fully secured. The same Constitution also ordains that to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen. Therefore, it is reiterated that in our constitutional democracy, neither the petitioner judge, nor any other judge, or any individual or any institution, is above the law.
Article 243 of the Constitution, therefore, clearly shows that the President shall, subject to law, raise and maintain the military, however, the laws referred to above do not specify the tenure, retirement, re-appointment and extension of the COAS or of a General of the Pakistan Army.
In the meanwhile the operation of the impugned order/Notification in respect of extension/re-appointment of General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Chief of the Army Staff for another term in the said office shall remain suspended.
In this view of the matter the alleged impropriety in the private letters written by the respondent-Judge to the President has not been found by us to be serious or grave enough to constitute misconduct sufficient for his removal from the exalted office of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
The 17th Amendment to the Constitution brought a significant change in Article 209 of the Constitution. Prior to the Amendment, the Council could process only such matters as were referred to it by the President. Under the amended Article 209,…