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 […]
Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer Jamat-e-Islami Vs Gen Pervaiz Musharaf, Chief Executive and Another-27/04/2002
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.
Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer Jamat-e-Islami vs Gen Pervaiz Musharaf, Chief Executive and Another-27/4/2002
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.
Supreme Court Bar Association through its President Mr. Hamid Khan VS Federation of Pakistan-10/04/2002
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.
Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif VS Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior-7/4/2004
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 […]
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.
Supreme Court of Pakistan Quashed Reference filed by President of Pakistan against Justice Qazi Faez Isa-19/06/2020
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.
Appointment of General Qamar Javed Bajwa as COAS shall be continued for six months: Pakistan SC-28/11/2019
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.
Pakistan SC suspended government notification extending tenure of Army chief Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa for another three years- 26/11/2019
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.