"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 9\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 9\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"./2000J11_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eISLAMIC PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF\r\nPAKISTAN, 1973, WHAT MORE IS REQUIRED\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003ecosmos\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eSaif\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e4\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2002-04-11T05:44:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2003-01-03T07:01:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e7181\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e40933\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eoratier\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e341\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e81\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e50268\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e9.2720\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:View\u003eNormal\u003c/w:View\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e2.85 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e2\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\np.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\nh2\r\n\t{mso-style-next:Normal;\r\n\tmargin-top:0in;\r\n\tmargin-right:139.7pt;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:0in;\r\n\tmargin-left:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\ttext-align:justify;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tpage-break-after:avoid;\r\n\tmso-outline-level:2;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\np.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText\r\n\t{margin-top:0in;\r\n\tmargin-right:139.7pt;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:0in;\r\n\tmargin-left:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\ttext-align:justify;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\np.MsoBodyText2, li.MsoBodyText2, div.MsoBodyText2\r\n\t{margin-top:0in;\r\n\tmargin-right:139.7pt;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:0in;\r\n\tmargin-left:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\ttext-align:justify;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tfont-weight:bold;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:6.35in 841.7pt;\r\n\tmargin:.75in 0in 2.9pt .35in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eISLAMIC PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION\r\nOF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973, WHAT MORE IS REQUIRED?\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:2.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eMr. Justice (R) Dr. Tanzil\u0026#8209;ur\u0026#8209;Rehman\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eLegal fraternity may be aware\r\nthat the first Article of the First Constitution of Pakistan, 1956 provided\r\nthat:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eARTICLE\r\n1\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;PAKISTAN TO BE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e 1 (i) Pakistan shall be a\r\nFederal Republic to be known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.\u0026quot; This\r\nConstitution of 1956 was abrogated on 7th of October, 1958 and Martial law was\r\nimposed; and when on 8th of June, 1962, Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan, the\r\nChief Martial Law Administrator, enforced his self\u0026#8209;made constitution, the\r\nword \u0026quot;Islamic\u0026quot; from its name was\u0026#8209; omitted. It was only named as\r\n\u0026quot;Republic of Pakistan.\u0026quot; However, when the first session of the\r\nNational Assembly was convened at Dacca, on the move of the well\u0026#8209;known\r\nmember of Jama\u0027at\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Islami of the then East Pakistan, Barrister\r\nAkhtaruddin, the word \u0026quot;Islamic\u0026quot; was added before the word\r\n\u0026quot;Republic of Pakistan\u0026quot; and so by the first \u0026quot;Constitution\r\nAmendment Act, 1963,\u0026quot; Pakistan was again named as \u0026quot;Islamic Republic\r\nof Pakistan\u0026quot;. Its Islamic identification by its very name, as originally\r\nprovided in the first Constitution of Pakistan, 1956, made by the chosen\r\nrepresentatives by both the wings of Pakistan, was thus, restored. And since then,\r\nthe name of this State continues to be \u0026quot;the Islamic Republic of\r\nPakistan\u0026quot;. By the name itself it is plainly meant that this part of the\r\nland will be a cradle for Islamic Democracy but the rulers of this Islamic\r\nRepublic, whether elected or self\u0026#8209;imposed, neither exhibited their\r\nknowledge of Islam nor Democracy as recognized by Islam.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eARTICLE\r\n2\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;ISLAM TO BE STATE RELIGION:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoBodyText style=\u0027margin-right:0in\u0027\u003eArticle 2 of the Constitution of\r\nPakistan, 1973, for the first time provides that:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;2. Islam shall be the State\r\nReligion of Pakistan.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eAll Islam\u0026#8209;loving people\r\nwere very happy to find Islam to be the State Religion of Pakistan. But when\r\nthis Article 2 came to be interpreted in the Court of Law, a Full Bench of the\r\nSindh High Court comprising of 5 Judges, headed by its Chief Justice, held\r\nthat:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;Article 2 is incorporated\r\nin the Introductory Part of the Constitution and as far as its language is\r\nconcerned, it merely conveys a declaration. The question arises as to the intention\r\nof the Makers of the Constitution by declaring that \u0027Islam shall be the State\r\nReligion of Pakistan\u0027. Apparently, what the Article means is that in its outer\r\nmanifestation the State and its Government shall carry on Islamic Symbol. This\r\nArticle does not even profess that by its force, it makes Islamic Law to be the\r\nLaw of the land.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe Court further observed:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot; . ... There is, therefore,\r\nno scope for the argument that Islamic Laws are to be enforced, in their\r\nentirety by virtue of Article 2 itself.\u0026quot; (Niaz Ahmed v. Province of Sindh\r\nPLD 1977 Karachi 604 at pp.648\u0026#8209;49).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThis judgment, to say the least,\r\ndepicts. Constitutional constraints of our Courts, while interpreting Article 2\r\nof the Constitution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eARTICLE 2A\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;PRINCIPLES\r\nAND PROVISIONS SET OUT IN THE OBJECTIVES RESOLUTION TO BE EFFECTIVE PART OF THE\r\nCONSTITUTION:\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThis Article was added on 2nd\r\nMarch, 1985, to the original 1973 Constitution, by the late General Muhammad\r\nZia\u0026#8209;ul\u0026#8209;Haque, the then President and Chief Martial Law\r\nAdministrator by President\u0027s Order No. 14 of 1985 dated 2nd March, 1.985. It\r\nreads as under:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;2A. The principles and\r\nprovisions set out in the Objectives Resolution reproduced in the Annex are\r\nhereby made substantive part of the Constitution and shall have effect\r\naccordingly. \u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn order to give background of\r\nthe insertion of the above Article 2A, it may be added that the First\r\nConstituent Assembly, created under the Indian Independence Act, 1947, to frame\r\na Constitution for Pakistan, as an independent State, passed on 12th March,\r\n1949, a Historic Resolution called the \u0026quot;Objectives Resolution\u0026quot; which,\r\ninter alia, laid down the parameters of the future Constitution of Pakistan to\r\nbe framed by the Constituent Assembly.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eUnfortunately, the Constitution\u0026#8209;making\r\nwas delayed for various reasons which need not detain us here. The First\r\nConstitution was, however, promulgated on 23rd March, 1956, and the Objectives\r\nResolution was made as its preamble only, and it continued to be so in 1962,\r\n1972 and 1973 Constitutions. It was General Zia\u0026#8209;ul\u0026#8209;Haque who made\r\nthe Objectives Resolution as substantive part of the Constitution by inserting\r\nArticle 2A therein, for the observations made by the late Chief Justice\r\nHamoodur Rahman in Ziaur Rehman\u0027s case PLD 1973 SC 49 on the question of the\r\nlegal effect of the Objectives Resolution then incorporated as preamble to the\r\nConstitutions of 1956 and 1962 and later on, in interim and Permanent\r\nConstitutions of 1972 and 1973 respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn the case of State v. Zia\u0026#8209;ur\u0026#8209;Rahman\r\nPLD 1973 SC 49 regarding the Objectives\u0027 Resolution the Chief Justice Hamoodur\r\nRahman observed that:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;... the Objectives\r\nResolution of 1949, even though it is a document which has been generally\r\naccepted and has never been repealed or renounced, will not have the same\r\nstatus or authority as the Constitution itself, until it is incorporated within\r\nit or made part of it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eSo, in short, this was the\r\nbackground, among other things, that General Ziaul Haque incorporated the\r\nprinciples and provisions set out in the Objectives Resolution as substantive\r\npart of the Constitution and made them effective accordingly.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThis Article 2A came up for\r\nconsideration in several judgments of the High Courts of Sindh and Lahore as\r\nwell as Supreme Court of Pakistan. Perhaps, the last of such judgments, wherein\r\nthe effect of Article 2A was discussed in detail, is that of the Supreme Court\r\nreported as Hakim Khan and others v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1992\r\nSupreme Court 595) decided in July, 1992 on appeal from Full Bench Judgment,\r\ndated 14\u0026#8209;1\u0026#8209;1992 of the Lahore High Court reported as \u0026quot;Sakina\r\nBibi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1992 Lahore 99. The point at issue directly\r\ninvolved in the case was whether Article 45 of the Constitution empowering the\r\nPresident of Pakistan to grant pardons, contravenes, in some respects, the\r\nInjunctions of Islam and if so, can it be struck down as repugnant by virtue of\r\nArticle 2A or not? The High Court held it to be so. The Supreme Court in Hakim\r\nKhan\u0027s case while examining Articles 45 and 2A accepted the appeal against the\r\nsaid judgment of the Lahore High Court and observed that:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e .  ...in the instant case, if\r\nthe High Court considered that the existing provision of Article 45 of the\r\nConstitution contravened the Injunctions of Islam in some respects it should\r\nhave brought the transgression to the notice of the Parliament which alone was\r\ncompetent to amend the Constitution, and could initiate remedial legislation to\r\nbring the impugned provision in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eMr. Justice Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah,\r\nwho headed the Bench, restricting to the main issue, held that a provision of\r\nthe Constitution cannot be tested tin the touchstone of Article 2A of the\r\nConstitution. Mr. Justice Shafiur Rehman, however, went a step further while\r\nobserving that even a law, as to its repugnancy, cannot be tested on the\r\ntouchstone of Article 2A of the Constitution and even if found repugnant to the\r\nprinciples and provisions set out therein, cannot be struck down.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eWith due respect, my impression is\r\nthat the Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court has sidestepped the issue by saying \u0026quot;let\r\nParliament do it\u0026quot;. It should have examined the inconsistency between the\r\ntwo Articles, and if upheld the finding of the High Court as to the repugnancy,\r\nit should have declared Article 45 as repugnant to Article 2A to the extent of\r\nsuch repugnancy and it should not have left the matter to the Legislature\r\nalone. It is worthy to note that the entire Resolution, as such, has not been\r\nmade part of the Constitution. It is only the principles and provisions of the\r\nObjectives Resolution which have been made operative by virtue of Article 2A.\r\nPerhaps, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court.\r\nThis may, perhaps, be one of the reasons that the matter was left to the Legislature\r\nalone, as is apparent from the Resolution, reading it as a whole. However, in\r\nmy humble view, a High Court is empowered to declare repugnancy of a provision\r\nof the Constitution or law and strike it down on the basis of Article 2A, and\r\nthen it may advise the Legislature to re\u0026#8209;enact the same. The two\r\nprovisions, inconsistent with each other, cannot be allowed to exist as equally\r\noperative, if the question is agitated before the Court.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eAccording to the present view of\r\nthe Honourable Supreme Court, the principles and provisions set out in the\r\nObjectives Resolution even after they have become part of the Constitution by\r\nvirtue of Article 2A is devoid of any practical value. According to them, its\r\nvalue is that of an abstract declaration which is useless, unless there exist\r\nthe wheel and the means to make it effective. With due respect, I beg to\r\ndiffer. If the view expressed in Hakim Khan\u0027s case is accepted that Article 2A\r\nis not self\u0026#8209;executory in nature, and will require another statue to bring\r\nit into action, it negates the well\u0026#8209;recognized and very widely known\r\nprinciple of the interpretation of every country\u0027s Constitution that any law\r\nrepugnant to the Constitution is void. The reasoning, that since there is no\r\nindication in the Constitution that the violation of the principles and\r\nprovisions of the Objectives Resolution as made effective under Article 2A,\r\nwill not automatically come into play without a law, is hardly acceptable.\r\nAnalogy has been sought from Article 8 which specifically provides that any law\r\ncontrary to the fundamental right is void. In fact, there was no need for\r\nmaking a specific provision that a law coming into conflict with the\r\nfundamental right. will be void to be provided in the Constitution. It is\r\ninherent in itself (see American Constitution) that any law which is repugnant\r\nto any provision of the Constitution is void and the Fundamental Rights being\r\nalso part and parcel of the Constitution the same rule will apply to them\r\nwithout making a specific provision for the same. Putting the question on the\r\nreverse, suppose there is no declaration in the Constitution that a law against\r\nthe Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution will be void, what will\r\nbe its effect? Will the Courts not strike down the law if it comes into conflict\r\nwith the Fundamental Rights conferred and guaranteed by the Constitution?\r\nCertainly, they will not refuse to do so. Therefore, no such express provision\r\nin the Constitution is required to declare a law found against the Fundamental\r\nRights as void. Similarly, if a law passed by an Assembly not properly\r\nconstituted, will the Courts abstain themselves form declaring as void the said\r\nlaw passed by the so\u0026#8209;called Assembly? The Constitution is the Supreme\r\nLaw. It controls the entire legislative activity and whatever law is brought\r\ninto force it is to be in line with the fundamental law of the country, i.e.\r\nthe Constitution, otherwise the whole scheme of things provided in the\r\nConstitution will become superfluous.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eI regret to say that after\r\nleading the judgment in Hakim Khan\u0027s case the impression about the effect of\r\nArticle 2A of the Constitution that one gets is that Article 2A appears to be\r\nsimply a decoration piece of legislation, as it lacks enforceability. The\r\nHonourable Supreme Court has shown its inability to declare Article 45 as\r\nrepugnant to the Injunctions of Islam\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;laid down in the\r\nQur\u0027an and Sunnah in terms it is couched in Article 2A, being itself the\r\ncreation of the said Constitution. Maintaining its absolute neutrality, the\r\nSupreme Court feels satisfied to leave the matter to the Parliament without\r\ngiving any finding, if there existed any repugnancy in Article 45 of the\r\nConstitution to the principles and provisions as set out in the Objectives\r\nResolution now made an effective part of the Constitution under Article 2A.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eI may therefore, conclude the\r\ndiscussion on the point of the enforceability of Article 2A through Courts of\r\nlaw, by adding that the principles and provisions set out in the Objectives\r\nResolution by virtue of Article 2A furnish an example of Legislation by\r\nReference and have the potential of being positive Constitutional Law and thus,\r\nthe provisions, in case of contrariety, shall be held as repugnant.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eHowever, the judgment of the\r\nSupreme Court as pronounced in Hakim Khan\u0027s case still holds the field. It,\r\ntherefore, seems imperative that the Parliament in order to uphold the\r\nsupremacy of the Qur\u0027an and Sunnah makes the following amendments in Article\r\n2A:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(i) The phrase\r\n\u0026quot;notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution\u0026quot; be added to\r\nArticle 2A.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(ii) In order to remove any\r\nambiguity, a new clause (2\u0026#8209;B) be inserted in the Constitution as under:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;2B. Any provision of the\r\nConstitution or law or any custom having the force of law found inconsistent\r\nwith he principles and provisions set out in the Objectives Resolution\r\nreproduced in the annex shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eI may here venture to remind the\r\nHon\u0027ble Prime Minister, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, of his speech made by him on\r\n10th of April, 1991 on the floor of the Parliament while moving the Enforcement\r\nof Shariat Bill, 1991, that the Constitution will be amended so as to make \u0027the\r\nQur\u0027an and Sunnah to be the Supreme Law of the land\u0027. Perhaps, at that time, he\r\ndid not have the full support. But now Allah the Almighty has given to him\r\nthree -fourth majority in the Parliament, and he may easily fulfil his promise\r\nto the nation made by him some six years ago.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoBodyText2 style=\u0027margin-right:0in\u0027\u003eARTICLES 31, 37(h), 38 (f) and\r\n40 \u0026#8209;\u0026#8209; PRINCIPLES OF POLICY OF THE STATE:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe Constitution under Chapter 2 lays\r\ndown certain principles of policy of the State, such as Article 31 provides\r\nthat the steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually\r\nand collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental\r\nprinciples and basic concepts of Islam, according to the Holy Qur\u0027an and\r\nSunnah.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eArticle 37 (h) casts a duty on\r\nthe State to prevent the consumption of alcoholic liquor other than for\r\nmedicinal and, in case of non\u0026#8209;Muslims, religious purpose. Article 38 (f)\r\ncasts a duty on the State to eliminate Riba as early as possible. Article 40\r\nprovides for strengthening bonds with Muslims and promotion of international\r\npeace.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eBut this very Chapter of the\r\nConstitution itself provides that\u0026#8209;- .\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;the responsibility of\r\ndeciding whether any action of an. organ or authority of the State, or of a\r\nperson performing functions on behalf of an organ or authority of the State, is\r\nin accordance with the Principles of Policy is that of the organ or authority\r\nof the State, or of the person, concerned.\u0026quot; (Article 30(1)).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIt further provides that\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;the validity of an action\r\nor of any law shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not in\r\naccordance with the Principles of Policy, and no action shall lie against the State,\r\nany organ or authority of the State or any person on such ground.\u0026quot;\r\n(Articles 30 (2)).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eWith the result that the\r\nPrinciples of Policy, however, solemn or sacrosanct they may appear to be, are\r\nnot justifiable through Courts of law, as also held by our superior Courts to\r\nbe so.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eLate Justice M. Munir, a former\r\nChief Justice of Pakistan, in his Commentary on the Constitution of Pakistan,\r\n1962 (p.215) while discussing the Principles of, Policy has, thus, observed\r\nthat:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;It is usual in\r\nconstitutional instruments to set out the aims and objects of the State. The\r\npart of the Constitution in which they are stated is a sort of manifesto of the\r\nConstitution\u0026#8209;makers, and, except where a strong ideological party\r\ncontrols the Government from outside, such declarations remain as dead as the\r\nmanifestoes of demagogues after elections.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eARTICLES 41(2), 62(d), 62(e)\r\nand 62(h) \u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209; QUALIFICATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY:\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe Constitution by Article 41\r\n(2) provides that:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0027A person shall not be qualified\r\nfor election as President unless he is a Muslim...\u0027 Article 62 (d) then\r\nprovides that a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a\r\nMember of Majlis\u0026#8209;i\u0026#8209;Shoora (Parliament) unless \u0027he is of good\r\ncharacter and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions.\u0027\r\nArticle 62 (e) prescribes as one of the conditions for a Muslim to be elected\r\nor chosen as a member of Majlis\u0026#8209;i\u0026#8209;Shoora (Parliament), that he has\r\nadequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties\r\nprescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins. \u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe provisions of Article 62\r\n(alongwith Article 63 regarding disqualification and Article 113 regarding\r\napplication thereof to the members of the Provincial Assemblies) came up for\r\nexamination before the Federal Shariat Court in the case reported as Muhammad\r\nSalahuddin (Editor of Weekly Takbeer) v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1990 FSC\r\n1) wherein it was, inter alia, observed that the spirit of the Qur\u0027anic\r\nInjunctions has been embodied into the Constitution\u0027s Articles 62 and 63\r\n(alongvvith Section 99 of the People Representation Act) for their enforcement\r\nbut the law (in practice) has been made a mockery. The judgment underlined a\r\nnumber of suggestions for the proper scrutiny of the candidates and the\r\nenforcement of the provisions of law. The then Government, instead of giving\r\ndue consideration and effect to the suggestions and findings of the Federal\r\nShariat Court, tiled an appeal against the said judgment before the Shariat\r\nAppellate Bench of the Supreme Court where the said appeal is lying dormant for\r\nabout eight years, alongwith several other appeals against the judgments of the\r\nFederal Shariat Court in some other important matters which are also pending\r\nsince long.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn the recent general elections,\r\nthere has been much hue and cry in the public about the scrutiny of the\r\ncandidates of the National and Provincial Assemblies as provided under Article\r\n62 but the persons holding top positions showed their apathy towards it and\r\ntermed them as unworkable, rather impracticable. But the said Government\r\nfunctionaries avoided the hearing of the appeal before the Shariat Appellate\r\nBench against the said Judgment of the Federal Shariat Court. They also failed,\r\nrather neglected to frame a proper law for the same. One may very well\u0026#8209;construe\r\nthe meaning and purpose for such acts and omissions of all concerned.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2 style=\u0027margin-right:0in\u0027\u003eARTICLES\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003e227\u0026#8209;230\r\n\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209; THE COUNCIL OF ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0027these provisions relate to the\r\nestablishing of a Council of Islamic Ideology under the Constitution of 1973.\r\nEarlier the Constitution of 1956 (Chapter 1 of Part XIII contained two Islamic\r\nprovisions, namely Article 197 and Article 198. Article 197 required the\r\nPresident to set up an Organization for Islamic Research and Instructions in\r\nadvanced studies to assist in the re construction of Muslim Society on truly\r\nIslamic basis. Article 198 provided that no law shall be enacted which is\r\nrepugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur\u0027an and\r\nSunnah. and that the existing laws shall be brought in conformity, with such\r\nInjunctions. The second clause of Article 198, however, provided that the\r\neffect shall be given to the above requirement as to the law\u0026#8209;making in\r\nthe manner indicated in the third clause of the Article.. This clause of the\r\nArticle enjoined upon the President to appoint a commission to make\r\nrecommendations as to the measures for bringing existing laws in conformity\r\nwith the Injunctions of Islam and the stages by Which such measures shall be\r\nbrought into, effect. The Commission was also made responsible to compile in a\r\nsuitable form, for the guidance of the National and Provincial Assemblies, such\r\nInjunctions of Islam as can be given legislative effect.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eHowever, one day before the\r\nexpiry of one year\u0027s time fixed in the Constitution, a Chairman of the above\r\nCommission was named by the then President of Pakistan, but no members were\r\nappointed nor any step taken to achieve the objectives indicated in Article\r\n198.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn fact, before any beginning\r\ncould be made in this direction, the said Constitution of 1956 was abrogated by\r\nthe proclamation made by Iskandar Mirza, the then President of Pakistan, on 7th\r\nOctober, 1958, with General Muhammad Ayub Khan, Commander\u0026#8209;in\u0026#8209;Chief\r\nof Pakistan Army, as Chief Martial Law Administrator.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eAyub Khan assumed the office of President\r\nof Pakistan and imposed on the country his self\u0026#8209;made Constitution in\r\n1962. In that Constitution, however, the setting up of an Advisory Council of\r\nIslamic Ideology was provided for in place of the Commission, as aforesaid.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe Constitution of 1962 was\r\nabrogated in 1969 and a permanent Constitution was passed by the collective\r\nwill of the people of Pakistan expressed through their chosen representatives,\r\nin August, 1973. This Constitution, too provided that \u0026quot;all existing laws\r\nshall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in\r\nthe Holy Qur\u0027an and Sunnah\u0026quot;, and that \u0026quot;no law shall be enacted which\r\nis repugnant to such Injunctions\u0026quot;. A Council for Islamic Ideology (the\u0026#8209;word\r\n\u0026quot;Advisory\u0026quot; having been dropped) was also provided for and unlike the\r\nprevious Constitution, a time\u0026#8209;limit of 9 years, in all, was fixed to\r\nbring all the existing laws in conformity with the Qur\u0027an and Sunnah (Articles\r\n227\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;30).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe entire Part IX (Articles 227\r\nto 230) of the Constitution is devoted to the process of Islamization, which is\r\nevident from the very fact that the Part has been named as \u0026quot;Islamic\r\nProvisions\u0026quot;. Article 227 (1) provides that all existing laws shall be\r\nbrought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Qur\u0027an\r\nand Sunnah. Sub\u0026#8209;Article (2j of Article 227 provides that no law, which is\r\nrepugnant to such Injunctions, shall be enacted, An explanation to clause (I)\r\nto this Article added by Constitution (Third Amendment) Order, 1980 (P.O. No.2\r\nof 1980) with effect from September 17, 1980. provides that in the application\r\nof clause (1) of Article 227 to the personal laws of any Muslim sect the\r\nexpression \u0026quot;Qur\u0027an and Sunnah\u0026quot; shall mean the Qur\u0027an and Sunnah, as\r\ninterpreted by that sect. Article 228 provides for the constitution and\r\ncomposition of the members of the Council of Islamic Ideology by the President\r\nwho shall ensure, as far as practicable. that various schools of thought are\r\nrepresented in the Council. Article 229 provides for making a reference to the\r\nCouncil by the President of Pakistan or the Governor of Province or by a House\r\nor a Provincial Assembly. if two\u0026#8209;fifth of its total membership so\r\nrequires, for advice as to whether a proposed law is or is not repugnant to the\r\nInjunctions of Islam.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eArticle 230 states the Islamic\r\nCouncil\u0027s functions which are enumerated as under:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;(1) The functions of the\r\nIslamic Council shall be\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(a) to make recommendations to\r\nMajlis\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Shoora (Parliament) and the Provincial Assemblies as to\r\nthe ways and means of enabling and encouraging the Muslims of Pakistan to order\r\ntheir Ives individually and collectively in all respects in accordance with the\r\nprinciples and concepts of Islam as enunciated in the Holy Qur an and Sunnah;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(b) to advise a House, a\r\nProvincial Assembly, the President or a Governor on any question referred to\r\nthe Council as to whether a proposed law is or is not repugnant to the\r\nInjunctions of\u0026#8209;Islam:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(c) to make recommendations as to\r\nthe measures for bringing existing laws into conformity with the Injunctions of\r\nIslam and the stages by which such measures should be brought into effect;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(d) to compile in a suitable\r\nform, for the guidance of Majlis\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Shoora (Parliament) and the\r\nProvincial Assemblies, such Injunctions of Islam as can be given legislative\r\neffect.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eArticle 230 further provides that\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;(2) When under Article 229.\r\na question is referred by a House. a Provincial Assembly, the President or a\u0026#8209;\r\nGovernor to the Islamic Council, the Council shall, within fifteen days thereof\r\ninform the House,\u0026#8209; the Assembly, the President or the Governor, as the\r\ncase may be. of the period within which the Council expects to be able to\r\nfurnish that advice.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(3) Where a House, a Provincial\r\nAssembly, the President or the Governor, as the case may be, considers that in\r\nthe public interest, the making of the proposed law in relation to which the\r\nquestion arose should not be postponed until the advice of the Islamic Council\r\nis furnished, the law may be made before the advice is furnished, provided\r\nthat, where a law is referred for advice to the Islamic Council and the Council\r\nadvises that the law is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, the House or, as\r\nthe case may be the Provincial Assembly the President or the Governor shall\r\nreconsider the law so made. \u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(4) The Islamic Council shall\r\nsubmit its final report within seven years of its appointment, and shall submit\r\nan annual interim report. The report, whether interim or final, shall be laid\r\nfor discussion before both Houses and each Provincial Assembly within six\r\nmonths of its receipt, and Majlis\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Shoora (Parliament) and the\r\nAssembly. after considering the report, shall enact law in respect thereof\r\nwithin a period of two years of the final report. \u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eAs would appear from the\r\nprovisions quoted above, the Council holds an advisory capacity; its recommendations\r\nare to be placed before both the Houses and each Provincial Assembly and these\r\nshall enact laws in respect thereof. As provided in Article 227 (2), the\r\nexisting laws are to be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam, as\r\nmentioned in clause (1) only in the manner provided in Part IX. It seems to me\r\nthat the Council may recommend the transformation of laws either in the form of\r\na simple recommendation or a draft laws and submits an interim annual report or\r\nfinal report. It, therefore, implies that the Council will forward its annual\r\nreports which may be deemed to be the interim reports and they will be\r\nconsidered by the two Houses and each Provincial Assembly within six months of\r\ntheir receipt, and whatever objections are raised or explanations are sought or\r\nquestions are asked the Council will, then, submit its final report keeping in\r\nview the objections by the Assembly involving reconsideration by the Council on\r\nthe points raised on matters covered by that annual interim report It will be\r\nthen re\u0026#8209;submitted by the Council as final report, and the Parliament will\r\nenact laws in respect thereof, as provided in Article 230 (4) quoted above,\r\nwithin the next two years. Thus, as provided under Article 227 (2). it is the\r\nbusiness of the Legislature only to enact and promulgate laws in conformity\r\nwith the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Qur\u0027an and Sunnah but a\r\nglance through the legislative history reveals that the authority of the\r\nParliament or the Provincial Assembly as envisaged under the Islamic Provisions\r\nin Chapter IX, has seldom been exercised. This, at least, is certain by their\r\nworking during 1962\u0026#8209;1977 as no law appears to have been brought in\r\nconformity with Islamic Injunctions, in the light of the reports of the Council\r\nsubmitted to the Government of Pakistan which, again, appears to have been\r\nseldom laid before the National and Provincial Assemblies.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eGeneral Muhammad Zia\u0026#8209;ul\u0026#8209;Haque\r\nin September, 1977, reconstituted the Council. All provisions relating to the Council\r\nremained the same and intact, except that its maximum number of members was\r\nincreased from 15 to 20 and the condition for the appointment of its Chairman\r\nthat he shall be a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court or the\r\nSupreme Court, was amended by him in or about September 1982 (P.O. No. 13 of\r\n1982) as he felt uneasy and found it difficult to get along smoothly, with a\r\njudge. (I was then the Judge of the High ours of Sindh. and also Chairman of\r\nthe Council.) Now any person from amongst the members of the Council can be\r\nappointed Chairman of the Council. However, during his period, too, no annual\r\nreports of the Council were laid before the Majlis\u0026#8209;e -Shoora nominated by\r\nhim. In fact, the Council was denied permission in writing to send its various\r\nreports to the members of the Majlis\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Shoora The Law of Pre\u0026#8209;emption,\r\nQanun\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Shahadat and the Law of Qisas and Diyat and Ihtiram\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Ramazan\r\nOrdinance drafted by the Council and vetted by the Ministry of Law were,\r\nhowever, laid, discussed and passed by the Majlis\u0026#8209;e- Shoora.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe newly elected National\r\nAssembly and the Provincial Assemblies in 1985, after lifting of the Martial\r\nLaw and Revival of the Constitution, and so onward in 1988, 1990 and 1993, no\r\nreport of the Council is reported to have been laid;\u0026quot; for discussion and\r\nenactment\u0026quot; before the Assemblies; except once in 1996 on the personal\r\nrequest of Maulana Fazlur Rahman (then M.N.A), Secretary General of Jamiat\r\nUlema\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Islam as reported in the Press. This report, too, was\r\nsimply laid in the House, but not discussed at all. \u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eWith this short resume one can\r\nvery well ascertain the attitude of the Government and the National and\r\nProvincial Assemblies and; also the Senate towards the enforcement of Islam in\r\nPakistan. And particularly after 1993. the wheel turned the other way round:\r\nSecularization moved ahead. Islam has been no more on the agenda. Council of\r\nIslamic Ideology has been politicized inasmuch as the General Secretary of a\r\npolitical party, which happened to be an ally of the ruling party was appointed\r\nthe Chairman of the Council.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eARTICLES\r\n203(c) TO 203(h): FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoBodyText style=\u0027margin-right:0in\u0027\u003eOn or about Ist of January, 1978,\r\nGeneral Muhammad Zia\u0026#8209;ul\u0026#8209;Haq made a public announcement that the\r\nSuperior Courts of Pakistan will be empowered to strike down any law repugnant\r\nto the Qur\u0027an and Sunnah, as void. But, perhaps, on second thought, instead of\r\nconferring general jurisdiction on the High Courts and the Supreme Court to\r\nimplement that announcement four Shariat Benches in all the four High Courts\r\nand one Appellate Shariat Bench in the Supreme Court were established\u0026#8209; by\r\na Presidential Order promulgated on 10th February. 1979, with powers to declare\r\nas void, any law as defined, if found repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as\r\nlaid down in the Holy Qur\u0027an and Sunnah of the Prophet. After nearly 15 months,\r\na separate Court for the purpose called \u0026quot;Federal Shariat Court\u0026quot; came\r\ninto being and for that purpose a Constitution Amendment Order was promulgated\r\non 26th June, 1980, and a new Chapter 3\u0026#8209;A was added to the Constitution.\r\nThe Federal Shariat Court was, thus, constituted comprising of one Judge from\r\neach of the four High Courts as members thereof and retired Judge of the\r\nSupreme Court as its Chief Justice. After about a year, it was found expedient\r\nthat three Ulema of traditional learning and well versed in Islamic law; be\r\nalso included in the said Federal Shariat Court as members thereof. Later on,\r\ntwo Ulema with similar qualifications were also included in the Shariat\r\nAppellate Bench of the Supreme Court, to make the entire set\u0026#8209;up workable\r\nand acceptable to the people.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eCRITICAL STUDY OF THE\r\nPROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION RELATING TO FEDERAL. SHARIAT COURT:\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(i) Article 203\u0026#8209;A provides\r\nthat the provisions of Chapter 3\u0026#8209;A pertaining exclusively to the Federal\r\nShariat Court shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the\r\nConstitution. It means that in case the provisions of Chapter 3\u0026#8209;A come\r\ninto conflict with any other provisions of the Constitution, the provisions\r\ncontained to Chapter 3\u0026#8209;A will prevail and override any other provision of\r\nthe Constitution to the extent of inconsistency. All powers enumerated in\r\nChapter 3\u0026#8209;A are thus vested in the President of Pakistan.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(ii) Article 203\u0026#8209;B(c)\r\ndefines \u0026quot;law\u0026quot; which means and \u0026quot;includes any custom or usage\r\nhaving the force of law but does not include the Constitution, Muslim Personal\r\nLaw; any law relating to the procedure of any Court or tribunal or, until the\r\nexpiration of ten years from the commencement of this Chapter, any fiscal law\r\nor any law relating to the levy and collection of taxes and fees or banking or\r\ninsurance practice and procedure\u0026quot;. It is, thus, apparent that the scope of\r\nthe jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court is restricted. It cannot examine the\r\nprovisions of the Constitution, notwithstanding their \u0027repugnance to the\r\nInjunctions of Islam as laid down in the Qur\u0027an and Sunnah. So, was the\r\nposition relating the Muslim Personal Law. The Muslim Family Laws Ordinance\r\npromulgated by General Ayub Khan during Martial Law and made effective since\r\n15th July 1961, could not be challenged in the Federal Shariat Court even if\r\nany provision \u0027thereof was repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. All laws\r\nrelating to the procedure of any Court or Tribunal are also beyond the purview\r\nof the Federal Shariat Court. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the Federal\r\nShariat Court stood barred from examining any fiscal law or an), law relating\r\nto the levy and collection of taxes and fees or banking or insurance practice\r\nand procedure. However, this bar relating to fiscal law was provided in the\r\nConstitution for a period of ten years from the commencement of Chapter 3\u0026#8209;A\r\nwhich came to an end on 25th June, 1990. The bar was, thus, lifted\r\nautomatically, on expiry of the period fixed in the Constitution. It Was only\r\nthen that the Federal Shariat Court on having acquired the jurisdiction, to\r\nexamine fiscal law was able to pronounce its most renowned judgment, inter\r\nalia, on banking interest, holding it to be Riba, as prohibited in the Holy\r\nQur\u0027an and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(iii) The Federal Shariat Court\r\nwas also debarred, as, aforesaid, to entertain, a Shariat petition wherein any\r\nprovision in the Muslim Personal Law was challenged on the ground of its\r\nrepugnancy to the Injunctions of Islam. However, in 1979. the then Shariat\r\nBench of the High Court of Peshawar headed by its able and under present Chief\r\nJustice Mr. Justice Abdul Hakim Khan, gave a judgment on the provisions of\r\nsection 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, relating to succession of\r\nan orphan grandson, declaring the same to be repugnant to the Injunctions of\r\nIslam as laid down in the Holy Qur\u0027an and Sunnah. The case was reported as Mst.\r\nFarishta v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1980 Peshawar 47). The Government filed\r\nan appeal in the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court which set aside\r\nthe said judgment, holding that the Federal Shariat Court had no jurisdiction\r\nto examine Muslim Personal Law. And that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance,\r\n1961, fell within the domain related to Muslim Personal Law. The decision is\r\nreported in (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 120). It may be added that dozens of\r\npetitions have been filed, at intervals, in the Federal Shariat Court,\r\nchallenging the various provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance and some\r\nother statutes relating to the Muslim Personal Law but they were all dismissed\r\nsummarily during all these years in view of the judgment of the Shariat\r\nAppellate Bench of the Supreme Court, as the said judgment was binding on the\r\nFederal Shariat Court. Fortunately; the point was again agitated in or about\r\n1993 before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court in another case,\r\nchallenging in an appeal some provision of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance\r\n1961. This time the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court had become\r\nwiser by the inclusion of the two Ulema as ad hoc members of the Shariat\r\nAppellate Bench. The Bench reviewed the judgment in Farishta\u0027s case. The\r\nSupreme Court, however, remanded the case in appeal to the Federal Shariat\r\nCourt. The case is reported in PLD 1994, SC 507.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eNow, therefore, the curbs on\r\nexamining the provisions of Muslim Personal Law stand removed, with certain\r\nlimitations, by virtue of the above judgment of the Supreme Court and in my\r\nhumble view now any citizen of Pakistan will be at liberty to file Shariat\r\nPetition challenging the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance on the\r\nground of their repugnancy to the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy\r\nQur\u0027an and Sunnah. The present position is that not only the case in which the\r\nSupreme Court reviewed its earlier judgment as remanded to the Federal Shariat\r\nCourt for reconsideration and fresh decision, some other petitions have also\r\nbeen filed challenging several provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance\r\n1961 which are pending decision for the last several years before the Federal\r\nShariat Court.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(iv) However the bar to examine\r\nany provisions of the Constitution or any procedural law relating to Court or\r\nTribunal still continues. It would, therefore, be advisable to redefine the\r\nterm \u0026quot;law\u0026quot; so as to bring within the jurisdiction of the Federal\r\nShariat Court to provisions of the Constitution and laws relating to the\r\nprocedure of any Court or Tribunal. It will be further advisable to delete the\r\nwords \u0026quot;Muslim Personal Law\u0026quot; from its definition in order to avoid any\r\nambiguity or confusion which may arise from the latter judgment of the Supreme\r\nCourt on the possibility of reinterpretation in future by another Bench of the\r\nSupreme Court. The last phrase of this definition clause \u0026quot;or until the\r\nexpiration of ten years from the commencement of this Chapter, any fiscal law\r\nor any law relating to the levy and collection of taxes and fees or, banking or\r\ninsurance practice and procedure\u0026quot; may be deleted, as having become\r\nredundant due to expiry of time fixed therein. These steps if taken will help\r\nto establish supremacy of the Holy Qur\u0027an and Sunnah through the Federal\r\nShariat Court and also of the Parliament which is to ultimately implement the\r\ndecision of the Federal Shariat Court by means of the re\u0026#8209;enactment of a\r\nlaw or any provision thereof, to bring it in conformity with Islamic\r\nInjunctions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(v) Article 203\u0026#8209;C provides\r\nthat the Federal Shariat Court shall consist of not more than eight Muslim\r\nJudges, including the Chief Justice, to be appointed by the President. The\r\nChief Justice shall be a person who is, or has been or is qualified to be Judge\r\nof the Supreme Court or who is or has been a permanent Judge of High Court. Of\r\nthe Judges, not more than four shall be persons, each one of whom is or has\r\nbeen or is qualified to be a Judge of High Court and not more than three shall\r\nbe Ulema who are well\u0026#8209;versed in Islamic Law. The Chief Justice and a\r\nJudge shall hold office for a period not exceeding three years, but may he\r\nappointed for such further term or terms as the President may determine. It was\r\nfurther provided that serving Judge of a High Court shall not be appointed to\r\nbe a Judge of Federal Shariat Court for a period exceeding two years except\r\nwith his consent and, except, where the Judge is himself the Chief Justice,\r\nafter\u0027 consultation by the President with the Chief Justice of the High Court.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(vi) The appointment of a Judge\r\nof the Federal Shari\u0027at Court including the Chief Justice is purely temporary.\r\nThe term of office will not exceed 3 years at one point of time; it may beg for\r\na lesser period say, for one year or two or till further order. He \u0026quot;spay\r\nbe removed at the whim of the appointing authority i.e. the President, e.g. Mr.\r\nJustice Salahuddin, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, was appointed as the\r\nfirst Chief Justice of the Federal Shari\u0027at Court for one year only. His term\r\nof office was not extended. Justice Sardar Fakhr\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Alam of Peshawar\r\nHigh Court, now Chief Election Commissioner, was appointed Chief Justice to\r\nreplace immediately the Chief Justice Sheikh Aftab Hussain (now deceased). till\r\nfurther orders. Sardar Sahib was removed from Chief Justiceship only after few\r\nmonths. He, however, continued to be a Judge of the Federal Shari\u0027at Court to\r\ncomplete his term of office for two years. In my own case, on my retirement as\r\nSenior Pusine Judge of the High Court of Sindh in June, 1990 I had gone outside\r\nPakistan and joined International Islamic University, Malaysia, as Full\r\nProfessor of Shari\u0027ah Law. I was then offered by the President Ghulam Ishaq\r\nKhan to come back and head the Federal Shariat Court. I was, thus, appointed\r\nits Chief Justice but for one year only. The term was extended for another year\r\nbut probably due to my delivering Judgment on Riba, my term was no more\r\nextended. So, I could serve the Shariat Court only for two years.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(vii) So, far as the appointment\r\nof a serving Judge of a High Court or Supreme Court as a Judge or Chief Justice\r\nof Federal Shariat Court his term \u0026#8209;of office could not exceed two years\r\nexcept with his consent. Now by virtue of the famous Judgment of the Supreme\r\nCourt in the Judges\u0027 Case delivered on 20th March, 1996, it is no more possible\r\nfor the appointing Authority to transfer any serving Judge of High Court or\r\nSupreme Court to the Federal Shari\u0027at Court for whatever period it may be,\r\nexcept with his consent. As you know, Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid. the Chief\r\nJustice of the Sindh High Court, and Mr. Justice Khalil\u0026#8209;ur\u0026#8209;Rehman\r\nKhan, the \u0026quot;would be\u0026quot; Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, were\r\ntransferred to the Federal Shariat Court during Benazir Bhutto\u0027s premiership,\r\nthough for a period of two years, but without their consent. So the provision\r\nof law relating to the appointment of serving Judges of the High Court was\r\ngenerally used as a measure to get rid of \u0026quot;undesirable\u0026quot; Chief Justice\r\nand Judges of the High Court. Earlier, in November 1992, Mr. Justice Muhammad\r\nIlyas Khan of the Lahore High Court, who was next to Chief Justice Mian Mahboob\r\nAhmed, and was likely to be the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court on Mian\r\nMahboob Ahmed\u0027s going to Supreme Court, was transferred as Judge of Federal\r\nShariat Court during Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif\u0027s premiership: But when Mr.\r\nMuhammad Nawai Sharif was compelled to say good\u0026#8209;bye to his high office of\r\npremiership of \u0027the country and the reins of power came into the hands of\r\nBenazir Bhutto the tables were turned in favour of Mr. Justice Muhammad Ilyas\r\nKhan .who was appointed as a Judge of Supreme Court, and was then appointed as\r\nthe Acting Chief Justice of Lahore High Court in place of Mr. Justice Mehboob\r\nAhmed who was appointed to be the Judge of the Federal Shariat Court. Mian\r\nMehboob Ahmed not having accepted the appointment as a Judge of the Federal\r\nShariat Court was deemed to have retired from his high office of Chief Justice\r\nof the Lahore High Court, as provided under sub\u0026#8209;Article (5\u0026#8209;C) of\r\nArticle 203\u0026#8209;C(4)\u0026amp;(5). There are several other cases as to how serving\r\nJudges of the High Court of Lahore, Peshawar, Sindh and Balochistan were made\r\nto serve unwillingly as Judges of the Federal Shariat Court under the orders of\r\nGeneral Muhammad Zia\u0026#8209;ul\u0026#8209;Haque and Ghulam Ishaque Khan. Federal\r\nShariat Court, thus, became a dumping ground for the serving Judges who were\r\nconsidered to be \u0026quot;undesirable\u0026quot; by the President or the Prime Minister\r\nof the country. Thanks to Almighty Allah that this process of victimization of\r\nserving Judges came to an end by virtue of the Supreme Court\u0027s Judgment on 20th\r\nMarch, 1996.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(vii) On top of it, was provided\r\nunder sub\u0026#8209;Article 4\u0026#8209;B of Article 203\u0026#8209;C that the President\r\nmay, at any time, by order in writing\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(a) modify the term of\r\nappointment of a Judge;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(b) assign a Judge to any other\r\noffice; and\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(c) require a Judge to perform\r\nsuch other functions as the President may deem fit and pass such other order as\r\nhe may consider appropriate.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn this clause and clause (4\u0026#8209;c),\r\n\u0026quot;Judge\u0026quot; included Chief Justice. However, while holding any other\r\noffice assigned to him under clause (4\u0026#8209;b), he shall be entitled to the\r\nsame salary, allowances and .privileges as are admissible to the Chief Justice\r\nor as the case may be, Judge of the Court. To give an example of the victim of\r\nthese provisions of law, Sheikh Aftab Hussain, a Senior Judge of the Lahore\r\nHigh Court and the Chief Justice of Federal Shariat Court, while on\u0027 an\r\nofficial trip to Sudan in or about September/October 1984 was removed from the\r\noffice of Chief Justiceship of Federal Shariat Court and was made an Advisor to\r\nthe Ministry of Religious Affairs. This position for a man like Shaikh Aftab\r\nHussain, or for that matter any other Chief Justice, was highly derogatory and\r\nso he totally refused to accept that position and submitted his resignation to\r\nPresident General Ziaul Haque.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eI would, therefore, humbly\r\nsuggest that Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, while\r\nbringing amendments in the Constitution relating to Judiciary, must not lose\r\nsight of the present terms and conditions of the appointment of the Judges and\r\nChief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court. Sub\u0026#8209;Article (4\u0026#8209;B), (4\u0026#8209;C),\r\nand (5) of Article 203\u0026#8209;C must be deleted to restore the dignity and\r\nhonour of the Judges and Chief Justice of Federal Shariat Court. Moreover,\r\ntheir terms of appointment, privilege and pension should be rationalized with\r\nthe Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court, as also recommended by the\r\nChief Justices Committee in 1992, of which I was a member, as Chief Justice\r\nFederal Shariat Court.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(ix) Regarding Ulema Judges, it\r\nis necessary to mention that in the case of Federal Shariat Court not more than\r\nthree Ulema who are well -versed in Islamic Law would be appointed in the\r\nFederal Shariat Court (203\u0026#8209;C (3\u0026#8209;A)). It is further provided that\r\nnot more than 2 Ulema will be appointed as ad hoc members of the Shariat\r\nAppellate Bench. It is noticeable that only one Aalim Judge is working in the\r\nFederal Shariat Court for the last seven years. I emphasize that two more Ulema\r\nJudges should be appointed in Federal Shariat Court as soon as possible. \u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(x) Ad hocism in the matter of\r\nappointment of Judges of Supreme Court has been done away with by virtue of the\r\nJudgment of the Supreme Court dated 20th March, 1996. It will be in the fitness\r\nof things if the Ulema members of the Shariat Appellate Bench are also made\r\npermanent Judges of the Supreme Court; they must serve as full time Judges of\r\nthe Supreme Court like other Judges. with full devotion and loyalty to Shari\u0027ah\r\nin the Supreme Court. If the Registrar of the Supreme Court is required to\r\nsubmit a chart of the actual sitting days of the Ulema members of the Shariat\r\nAppellate Bench, I am sure it will not exceed two to three weeks a year. With\r\nthe result that the appeals against the decisions of the Federal Shariat Court\r\n\u0027are lying dormant for years together in the Shariat Appellate Bench of the\r\nSupreme Court. This, to my mind, is a vital reason for delays in Justice in the\r\nmatter of Shariatization of Pakistan Laws. It is also necessary that the\r\nqualifications of Ulema Judges should be mentioned in the Constitution and\r\ntheir age of retirement should be in accordance with Judges of the High Court\r\nand Supreme Court, to make the whole set up workable, efficient and\r\nmeritorious.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eA New Approach:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(xi) And, last but not the least,\r\nthere are a number of suggestions which may revolutionize the whole process of\r\nIslamization through Federal Shariat Court, which is a composite Court of all\r\nFederating Units of Pakistan. These suggestions are summarized as under:\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(a) The provisions relating to\r\nCouncil of Islamic Ideology, for its ineffectiveness, and due to the existence\r\nof Federal Shariat Court, be deleted. This will avoid unnecessary duplication\r\nof the work of Islamization of laws and save expenditure. Moreover, the\r\nexamination of \u0026quot;Existing Laws\u0026quot; i.e. up to 14\u0026#8209;8\u0026#8209;1973 as\r\nprovided under Article 227(1) of the Constitution has already been completed by\r\nthe Council.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(b) The functions of the Federal\r\nShariat Court may be expanded so as to include some of the functions of\r\nadvisory nature of the Council which may be assigned to the Federal Shariat\r\nCourt. The present staff recruited by the Council may be absorbed in the\r\nFederal Shariat Court. Those who are working in the council on deputation may\r\nbe sent back to their parent departments.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(c) The provisions relating to\r\nthe Shariat Appellate Bench in the Supreme Court should be deleted. The ad hoc\r\nUlema members of the Shariat Appellate Bench who have been appointed from\r\namongst the Judges of the Federal Shariat Court should be sent back to the\r\nFederal Shariat Court.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(d) The Federal Shariat Court\r\nshould be constituted in two permanent Benches, i.e.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(1) The Federal Shariat Court, on\r\nits Original Side, will hear Shari\u0027ah petitions and also advise a House, a\r\nProvincial Assembly, the President, or a Governor, on any question referred to\r\nthe Shariat Court as to whether or not a proposed law is or is not repugnant to\r\nthe Injunctions of Islam. This function is currently being performed by the\r\nCouncil of Islamic Ideology under sub\u0026#8209;clause (b) of clause (1) of Article\r\n230 of the Constitution, and is suggested to be included in the functions of\r\nthe Federal Shariat Court, as already stated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(2) The Federal Shariat Court\r\n(Appellate Side) will hear Shari\u0027ah Appeals arising out of the decisions of the\r\nOriginal Side Bench of the Federal Shariat Court.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(e) The minimum number of the\r\nJudges of the Federal Shariat Court, including Chief Justice, should be fixed\r\nas not less than eleven. Out of whom three shall, at least, be Ulama Judges.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(f) The present appellate\r\njurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court to hear criminal appeals against the\r\nJudgments of the Sessions Courts in Hudood Cases should be transferred to the\r\nHigh Courts of respective provinces. This will speed up the disposal of the\r\ncriminal appeals and will make justice less expensive. The Judges of the\r\nFederal Shariat Court will then find more time to be devoted to Shari\u0027ah\r\npetitions. The relevant provisions in the Hudood laws may accordingly be\r\namended.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(g) The Revisional jurisdiction\r\nof the Federal Shariat Court as conferred on it under Article 203\u0026#8209;DD\r\nshould, however, continue with it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIt is hoped that these steps, if\r\ntaken, will make the creation of the Federal Shariat Court purposeful for which\r\nit was originally conceived.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"