"\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=\"./2002J9_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eTHE ROLE OF LAWYERS AND JUDGES IN UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW\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\u003e3\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2002-04-03T10:07:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2003-01-03T07:03:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e3682\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e20992\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eoratier\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e174\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e41\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e25779\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 /* Font Definitions */\r\n@font-face\r\n\t{font-family:Tahoma;\r\n\tpanose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;\r\n\tmso-font-charset:0;\r\n\tmso-generic-font-family:swiss;\r\n\tmso-font-pitch:variable;\r\n\tmso-font-signature:553679495 -2147483648 8 0 66047 0;}\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\np.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText\r\n\t{margin-top:0in;\r\n\tmargin-right:1.65in;\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@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\u003cscript language=\"JavaScript\"\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\nfunction NoSelect()\r\n{\r\n{alert(\"OOoops! You are not authorized to copy the TEXT.......!\")}\r\n}\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nfunction noRightClick()\r\n{if (event.button==2)\r\n{alert(\"The Data is Copyright Property of PLD \u0026 PakistanLawSite.com\")}\r\n}\r\ndocument.onmousedown=noRightClick; \r\ndocument.onselectstart=NoSelect;\r\ndocument.onkeydown= Stopit; \r\ndocument.onkeypress = Stopit; \r\ndocument.onkeyup = Stopit; \r\nfunction Stopit()\r\n{alert(\"Copyright (C) 2000  LawOnLine  All Rights Reserved\");\r\nwindow.open (\u0027http://www.pakistanlawsite.com\u0027);} \r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/script\u003e\r\n\u003cscript src=\"../../../nc.js\" type=\"text/javascript\" \u003e\u003c/script\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\u003eTHE ROLE OF LAWYERS AND JUDGES\r\nIN UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW\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\u003cb\u003e[\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma\u0027\u003ePaper presented m a seminar \u0027Role of\r\nLawyers and Judges\u0027 held at Karachi on 26th August, 1919 under the Chairmanship\r\nof Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan, organised\r\nby Legal Aid Centre (LHRLA). Karachi.\u003c/span\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\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\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=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eMr. Justice\r\nRasheed A. Razvi, Judge, High Court of Sindh\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\u003eIt is always manifold task for\r\nthe Bar and the Bench to uphold the Rule of Law, particularly in a country like\r\nPakistan, where the period of Constitutional deviations is larger than the\r\nperiod when people of this country have enjoyed their Constitutional and other\r\nrights. The history of lawyers struggle and judiciary\u0027s resistance to submit\r\nitself to arbitrariness and absolutism of the rulers of Pakistan is full of\r\nlandmark events. There may he few exceptions amongst the legal fraternity where\r\nfew lawyers had indeed defended a situation contrary to the Rule of Law, which\r\nmay have created a bad name for them within their community, but, over all, the\r\nBar has always stood for and has upheld the rule of law. Likewise, in the\r\njudiciary. there may be few decisions for which one may perhaps argue and label\r\nthem to be an obstacle in the way towards supremacy of law; but, the superior\r\nCourts in Pakistan have, to a great extent, always resolved in favour of the\r\nrule of law. In the words of former Chief Justice of Pakistan, Dr. Nasim Hasan\r\nShah, J. (as his lordship then was), \u0026quot; ... ...It can be said that\r\nthroughout the 50 years of Pakistan\u0027s existence as a sovereign State, the\r\nhighest Courts in the land have, despite being confronted with one crisis after\r\nanother, succeeded in finding legal solutions for the delicate problems coming\r\nup before them. They have also succeeded in keeping the ship of State on an\r\neven keel, bringing the assurance to troubled minds that they were under a rule\r\nof law and not under arbitrary governance. This task, the Judiciary is\r\ncontinuing to discharge with steadfastness and resolution. Indeed the outlook\r\nfor Pakistan to be governed by the Rule of Law today appears to be brighter\r\nthan it has ever looked before.\u0026quot; (Role of the Judiciary in Maintaining\r\nRule of Law in Pakistan, PLD 1997 Journal 92).\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\u003e2. In this presentation, I would\r\nlike to highlight the joint efforts of the Lawyers made under the banners of\r\nthe Bar Associations and Bar Councils and the role of Judges in the capacity of\r\njudiciary as a whole. Although from the topic of this Seminar it looks that the\r\nemphasis has been laid on the individual role of lawyers and Judges in\r\nupholding the rule of law, my endeavour would be to look into their acts, deeds\r\nand efforts as a body and not as an individual. While referring to the term\r\n\u0026quot;Rule of Law\u0026quot;. I would like to confine myself to the definition given\r\nby a Full Bench of Sindh Court in Sharaf Faridi\u0027s case (PLD 1989 Kar. 404); in\r\nwhich the Rule of Law has been defined as the \u0026quot;universal obligation of\r\nevery civilised country. It means supremacy of Law as opposed to the arbitrary\r\nauthority of the Government . ... ...This supremacy guarantees three concepts,\r\n(i) absence of arbitrary power, (ii) equality before law and (iii) rights of\r\ncitizens.\u0026quot; In that case, reference was made to Surah\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Nisa,\r\nVerse 135, Surah\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Rehman, Verses 7, 8 and 9 and Surah\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Maidah,\r\nVerse 9 of the Holy Qur\u0027an. While anticipating the question its to what is law,\r\nI would refer to the observation of another former Chief Justice of Pakistan \r\nHamoodur Rehman, J. (as his lordship then was) in the case of Asma Jilani IV.\r\nGovernment of Punjab and another (PLD 1972 SC 139 at 159) where it was said:\r\n\u0026quot;So far as a Judge is concerned, if a definition is necessary all that he\r\nhas to see is that the law which he is called upon to administer is made by a\r\nperson or authority legally competent to make laws and the law is capable of\r\nbeing enforced by the legal machinery. This, in my view, brings in the notion\r\nboth of legitimacy and efficacy.\u0026quot; With all this in mind I will venture, in\r\nbrief, about these two important institutions.\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\u003e3. Reverting to the question of\r\nthe struggle of the Bar Associations, 1 may say without any fear of\r\ncontradiction that these Bar Associations were always found very vocal, valiant\r\nand heroic, even during the struggle against the British imperialism. One such\r\ninstance is reflected in the case \u0026quot;in re: Hurbuxrai and another (AIR .1931\r\nSindh 33) where the Karachi Bar Association and the Larkana Bar Association\r\ncame forward to defend two lawyers from Sindh against whom proceedings for\r\nmisconduct under section 16 of the Sindh Civil Courts Acts were initiated. The\r\ncharge against them was that they proposed and seconded a resolution in a\r\nspecial meeting of the Larkana Bar Association expressing sympathy with the\r\ncall of Satyagraha. It was observed by a Division Bench that \u0026quot;one cardinal\r\nprinciple a practising pleader wishing to remain on the roll has to remember is\r\nthat those who live by the law, should keep the law and not encourage others in\r\nits breach by publicly extolling and glorifying persons sentenced and by\r\nshowing hearty sympathy towards a seditious and disloyal movement.\u0026quot;\r\nHowever, this stringent view was never followed by the superior Courts after\r\nindependence. Naturally, in pre\u0026#8209;Partition days, the act of voicing\r\nsympathy with freedom movement was treated as seditious; still, our history is\r\nfull of such instances when the Bar Associations rose to the full expectations\r\nof the masses. I would leave this discussion here and would like to revert back\r\nto the role of lawyers after emergence 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\u003e4. As I have already observed\r\nabove, the people of this country were kept deprived of their rights for quite\r\nit long period. Our country has witnessed imposition of three Martial Laws and\r\nthe abrogation of two Constitution. The Constitution of 1972 was kept in abeyance\r\nfor more than 8 years. During all this period, the role of lawyers in their\r\ncapacity as members of their respective Bar Associations is highly laudable.\r\nDuring the movements for restoration of democracy and Constitution, the Bar\r\nAssociations always resolved in favour of Rule of Law. These Bar Associations\r\nalso extended full legal support to the political workers who were victims of\r\nthe authoritative rule. Their cases were \u0026quot;conducted gratis by the members\r\nof the Bar. One such instance could be found in the case of Mir Abdul Baqi\r\nBaloch v. Government of Pakistan and. others (PLD 1968 SC 313). In recent\r\ntimes. it has become the recognised practice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan\r\nand High Courts to invite members of the legal fraternity and institutions like\r\nPakistan Bar COui,6l, Provincial Bar Councils and Supreme Court Bar Association\r\nto render assistance in matters touching independence of judiciary and other\r\nquestions of public importance. One such instance is the famous case of Al\u0026#8209;Jehad\r\nTrust (PLD 1996 SC 324). In the short time available to me, it is very\r\ndifficult to highlight the role of Karachi Bar Association, Sindh High Court\r\nBar Association, Lahore High Court Bar Association, Balochistan and Peshawar\r\nHigh Court Bar Associations and other Associations as well as all the five Bar\r\nCouncils of Pakistan who all had stood for the Rule of Law despite all odds.\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\u003e5. In so far as the role of\r\nJudges with reference to the Rule of Law is concerned, their real test\r\ncommenced when, on 27\u0026#8209;10\u0026#8209;1954, the Legislative Assembly was\r\ndissolved. It was challenged by the then Speaker, Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan,\r\nbefore the Chief Court of Sindh (now the High Court). Accordingly, writs of\r\nmandamus and quo warranto were issued through which the petitioner\u0027s office was\r\nrestored as Chairman of the Constituent Assembly [see Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan v.\r\nFederation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1955 Sindh 96)]. An appeal was filed by\r\nthe Federation of Pakistan before the Federal Court against the said judgment\r\nof the Sindh Chief Court which was unfortunately allowed and the judgment was\r\nset aside. Consequently, the writs of mandamus and quo warranto were recalled\r\nby the Federal Court on the technical ground that since section 223\u0026#8209;A of\r\nthe Government of India Act, 1935 did not receive the assent of the Governor- General,\r\nit was not a law and the Chief Court of Sindh had no jurisdiction to issue the\r\nwrits. (see Federation of Pakistan and others v. Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan (PLD\r\n1955 FC 240)). Thereafter, the Constitutional history of Pakistan is full of\r\nturbulences. The first Constitution of Pakistan that came into force in the\r\nyear 1956 lived a very short life of only two years. In October, 1958, the\r\nfirst Martial Law was imposed and thereby the first Constitution of 1956 was\r\nabrogated. The Martial Law was accepted by the Courts on the basis of the\r\ninfamous theory pf law of necessity propounded by Hans Kelson. The cases of\r\nDosso PLD 1958 SC 533 and Mehdi Ali Khan PLD 1959 SC 387 upheld the concept of\r\nlaw of necessity. In the first case. it was held, that \u0026quot;Even Courts lose\r\ntheir existing jurisdiction and can function only to the extent and in the\r\nmanner determined by the new Constitution.\u0026quot; The writ of Habeas Corpus\r\nissued by the Balochistan High Court was recalled. (See Dosso and another v.\r\nThe State and others (PLD 1957 Quetta 91). In the second case, i.e., Mehdi Ali\r\nKhan, the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958 was accepted as a valid piece\r\nof legislation. The petition filed to seek enforcement of fundamental rights\r\nwas declared to have abated on promulgation of the Order, 1958\u0026#8209;The view\r\nlaid down in the case of Dosso was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of\r\nMian Iftikharuddin and another v. Muhammad Sarfaraz and another (PLD 1961 SC\r\n585). It was held that the Martial Law Regulation No.72 had excluded\r\njurisdiction of the Courts with respect to the functions of the Central\r\nGovernment under the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952.\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\u003e6. After promulgation of the new\r\nConstitution in the year 1962 by General Muhammad Ayub Khan, the writ\r\njurisdiction of the High Courts was restored to a limited extent. It was a\r\nConstitution enacted not to extend rights to the people or to extend authority\r\nto the legislators but to limit the same. On 12\u0026#8209;6\u0026#8209;1962, the Removal\r\nof Difficulties (Appointment of Ministers) Order, 34 of 1962 was promulgated by\r\nthe President, which came up for consideration in the writ jurisdiction before\r\na Full Bench of the erstwhile Dacca High Court. The Order 34 of 1962 was held\r\nvoid and inoperative in toto. (Muhammad Abdul Haq v. Fazl\u0026#8209;ul\u0026#8209;Quader\r\nChowdhry and others (PLD 1963 Dacca 669). The appeal filed against the decision\r\nof the Dacca High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the\r\ndecision of the Dacca High Court was upheld on all points (see Fazl\u0026#8209;ul\u0026#8209;Quader\r\nChowdhry and others v. Muhammad Abdul Haq (PLD 1963 SC 486). It was observed by\r\nthe then Chief Justice of Pakistan, A.R. Cornelius, J. (as his lordship then\r\nwas): \u0026quot;If the Constitution is altered on a desire to extend to wishes of\r\ncertain person and that in a substantial manner, would clearly be an erosion, a\r\nwittling away of its provision, which it would be the duty of the superior\r\nCourts to resist in defence of the Constitution.\u0026quot; This was a decision\r\nthrough which the superior Courts exercised their authority under the writ\r\njurisdiction to consider the legality and vires of an enactment or a piece of\r\nlegislation. . Another precedent is that of a Full Bench decision, again of\r\nDacca High Court, in Sirajul Haq Patwari v. S.D.O., Chandpur and others (PLD\r\n1966 Dacca 331), where section 57 of the Electoral College Act, 1964, was\r\ndeclared ultra vires.\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\u003e7. The superior Courts started\r\nupholding fundamental rights even in the matter of political parties, In the\r\ncase \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma\u0027\u003eof \u003c/span\u003eSaiyyed Abul A\u0027ala\r\nMaudoodi and others v. The Government \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma\u0027\u003eof\r\n\u003c/span\u003eWest Pakistan and others PLD 1964 SC 673, the Notification declaring\r\nJamaat\u0026#8209;e\u0026#8209;Islami an unlawful association was held to be illegal and\r\nviolative \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma\u0027\u003eof \u003c/span\u003ethe Fundamental\r\nRight of freedom of association guaranteed under the Constitution of 1962. The\r\nreasoning given in the case of Saiyyed Abul A\u0027ala Maudoodi was again reiterated\r\nby the majority in the case of Mrs. Rowshan Bijaya Shoukat Ali Khan (PLD 1966\r\nSC 286) and the writ \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma\u0027\u003eof \u003c/span\u003ehabeas\r\ncorpus issued by the Dacca High Court was upheld. The Judges felt the need to\r\ndraw distinction between the rights of 3t individual with those cases where the\r\nuse of public authority was involved. The Superior Courts were found more\r\nsensitive to the individual rights, particularly in the cases \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma\u0027\u003eof \u003c/span\u003eillegal and unauthorised\r\ndetention. One such precedent is the case of Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish\r\nKashmiri (PLD 1969 SC 14). In that case, it was held that the initial onus is\r\non the detaining authority to justify the legality of detention, thus upholding\r\nthe right of liberty of it citizen as guaranteed by the Constitution. This view\r\nwas reiterated\u0026#8209;by another Full Bench of the Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court in the\r\ncase \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma\u0027\u003eof \u003c/span\u003eMuhammad Azam Malik\r\n(PLD 1989 SC 266).\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\u003e8. There are numerous judgments,\r\nwhich one can quote to support the proposition that the Judiciary had played\r\nvery significant role in upholding the Rule of Law. Earlier, I. have referred\r\nto the Law \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma\u0027\u003eof Necessity, and,\r\ntherefore, it is inescapable to cite the case of Asma Jilani PLD 1972 SC 139\r\nwhere the Supreme Court did not approve the principle of the Law of Necessity,\r\nwhich was held to be a principle of condonation and not legitimization (see\r\npage 2(17). It was observed by Yaqub Ali, J. (as his lordship then wits) that\r\n\u0026quot;a person who destroys the national legal order in an illegitimate manner\r\ncannot he regarded as a valid source of law\u0026#8209;making. May he, that oat\r\naccount of his holding the coercive apparatus of the State, the people and the\r\nCourts are silenced temporarily, but let it be laid down firstly that the order\r\nwhich the usurper imposes will remain illegal and Courts will not recognize his\r\nrule and act upon them as DE JURE.\u0026quot; (See page 243). But only after a lapse\r\nof 5 years, this view wits dissented from in the case of Begum Nusrat Bhutto v.\r\n\u0027The Chief of Army Staff PLD 1977 SC 657, and the Martial Law was again\r\nvalidated on the Doctrine of Necessity. However, the powers of Judicial Review,\r\nas provided tinder Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973, were kept intact.\r\nOne of the reasons for validating the Doctrine of Necessity, as noted by the\r\nthen Chief Justice of Pakistan was that \u0026quot;the Court would like to state in\r\nthe clear terms that it has found it possible to validate the extra\u0026#8209;Constitutional\r\naction of the Chief Martial Law Administrator not only for the reason that he\r\nstepped in to save the country at a time \u0027of grave national crisis and\r\nConstitutional break\u0026#8209;down, but also because of the solemn pledge given by\r\nhim that the period of Constitutional deviation shall be of as short a duration\r\nas possible, and that during this period all his energies shall be directed\r\ntowards creating conditions conducive to the holding of free and fair\r\nelections, leading to the restoration of democratic rule in accordance with the\r\ndictates of the Constitution. The Court, therefore, expects the Chief Martial Law\r\nAdministrator to redeem his pledge, which must be construed in the nature of a\r\nmandate from the people of Pakistan, who have, by and large, willingly accepted\r\nhis administration as the interim Government of Pakistan.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e9. Recently, in the case of Shaikh Liaquat Hussain PLD 1999 SC 504, it\r\nwas observed by the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, Ajmal Mian, J., that\r\n\u0026quot;Acceptance of the Doctrine of Necessity......turned out to be detrimental\r\nto the evolution and establishment of a democratic system in the country\u0026quot;\r\nand that the Military Courts was held violative of the Constitution, IP73. It\r\nwas further observed that \u0026quot;the present Constitution of the Islamic\r\nRepublic of Pakistan, 1973, does not admit the imposition of Martial Law in any\r\nform.\u0026quot; (See paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said judgment). The view of the\r\nFull Bench of the Sindh High Court in the case of Sharaf Faridi PLD 1989\r\nKarachi 404, was upheld by the Supreme Court \u003c/span\u003eof Pakistan in the case \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma\u0027\u003eof Al\u0026#8209;Jehad Trust case PLD 1996 SC\r\n324 and reiterated in the case of Sh. Liaquat Hussian that \u0026quot;the right of \u0027\r\naccess to impartial and independent Court/Tribunal is a \u003c/span\u003efundamental\r\nright of every citizen. The existence of this right is dependent on the\r\nindependence of judiciary.\u0026quot; (See also Azizullah Memon\u0027s case PLD 1998 SC\r\n161). These judgments have given a new scope to the right to life and liberty\r\nas enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution, 1973,.which now includes right\r\nto fair and public trial under an independent judiciary. This obviously\r\nincludes right to innocence and fair opportunity to defend. It will not be out\r\nof place to refer here to another decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan,\r\nnamely Sardar Farooq Ahtxted Leghari\u0027s case PLD 1999 SC 57 through which\r\nsuspension of fundamental rights as a result of imposition of emergency in the\r\ncountry was held to be ultra vires of the Constitution.\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\u003e10. During the period 1977 to\r\n19$5, Pakistan remained under the rigid and oppressive laws of the third\r\nMartial Law, imposed by Gen. Muhammad Zia\u0026#8209;ul\u0026#8209;Haque. In 1981, a new\r\nConstitutional set up was introduced through the Provisional Constitution\r\nOrder, 1981 (P.C.O.), which was meant to strengthen the anti\u0026#8209;Constitutional\r\nrule. After the promulgation of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977, the\r\nConstitution of 1973; which had been held in abeyance since 1977, was, for all\r\npractical purposes, abrogated. Despite these deviations from the Constitution,\r\nthe superior Courts continued giving relief to individuals. I may refer here to\r\nfew decisions of the High Courts pertaining to that period, namely:\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(i) Asfandyar Wali v. The State\r\nPLD 1978 Peshawar 38;\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(li) Mumtaz Ali Bhutto and others\r\nv. Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector 1, Karachi and 2 others PLD 1979\r\nKarachi 574;\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) Syed Essa Noori v. Deputy\r\nCommissioner, Turbat and 2 others PLD 1979 Quetta 188; \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) Satar Gul and another v.\r\nMartial Law Administrator, Zone \u0026quot;B\u0026quot; N.\u0026#8209;W. F. P. Peshawar and 2\r\nothers PLD 1979 Peshawar 119;\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) Saleh Muhammad v. Presiding\r\nOfficer, Summary Military Court, Karachi and 2 others PLD 1980 Karachi 26;\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) Israr Ahmad v. President,\r\nSummary Military Court, Sanghar and 6 others PLD 1981 Karachi 47; 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(vii) Mst. Akhtar Nasim v.\r\nMartial Law Administrator, Zone \u0027C\u0026quot; Karachi and others PLD 1982 Karachi\r\n130.\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\u003e11. Another major contribution of\r\nthe judiciary in Pakistan for the rule of law was to promote and encourage\r\npublic interest litigation. The earlier concept of aggrieved person or party\r\nwas modified to a great extent thereby shifting the importance of a person to\r\nthat of cause. \u0026quot;After all the law is not a closed shop\u0026quot;, was observed\r\nby Muhammad Haleem, J. (former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) in the case\r\nof Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan and another PLD 1988 SC 416. In\r\nthe same decision, it was further observed that if the adversary procedure is\r\nrigidly followed, then the enforcement of Fundamental Rights would become self\u0026#8209;defeating\r\nas it will not then be available to provide access to justice to all. This\r\nconcept was further developed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of\r\nDarshan Masih alias Rehmate and others v. The State PLD 1990 SC 513. This has\r\nmade access to justice more possible and convenient as any person could come to\r\nthe Court to seek enforcement of Fundamental Rights of others. This practice\r\nhas led to the decisions in the cases of Al\u0026#8209;Jehad Trust (supra) and Malik\r\nAsad Ali PLD 1998 SC 161 and Shehla Zia PLD 1994 SC 693. It has now established\r\nthe concept of Probono Publico in Pakistan. \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e12. Today\u0027s topic has a very wide scope and it could not be concluded\r\nin one sitting. There are cases, which require lengthy discussion, and,\r\ntherefore, it is absolutely difficult to survey all of them in this brief\r\nsession. I am mindful of the time limit and the fact that other speakers have\r\nto follow me. All of you must be eagerly awaiting the speeches of today\u0027s Chief\r\nGuest, Mr. Klaus Bohloff, President International Bar Association and Hon\u0027ble\r\nMr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, who not\r\nonly has vast knowledge and experience in respect of the topic but is also a\r\ngreat contributory towards the restoration of Fundamental Rights and Rule of\r\nLaw. I have discussed the role of the two institutions giving emphasis to the\r\nperiod ending f985 when the Constitution of 1973 was restored but after\r\nmaterial changes in it by virtue of introduction of the 8th Amendment. The\r\nstruggle of the Bar and Bench continued there after and gave new perspective to\r\nthe meaning and scope of the term \u0026quot;Rule of Law\u0026quot;. A need was felt that\r\nthe rule of law could only sustain when there is an independent judiciary. It\r\nwas so pronounced in a land mark judgment of a Full Bench of Sindh High Court\r\nin Sharaf Faridi\u0027s case (supra). Few other decisions which need mention and\r\nwhich I\u0027m not able to discuss for constraint of time are:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003eHaji Saifullah PLD 1989\r\nSC 163;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003eMehram Ali PLD 1998 SC\r\n1445;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e* \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003eGhulam Mustafa Khar PLD\r\n1989 SC 26;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003eWukala Mahaz PLD 1998\r\nSG 1263;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\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* \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003eAzim Malik\u0027s case PLD 1989 SC 266;\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*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003eRaeesa\r\nFarooqui 1994 SCMR 1283;\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*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003eBenazir\r\nBhutto\u0027s case PLD 1988 SC 416;\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*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003eSyed\r\nQaim Ali Shah 1992 SCMR 2192;\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*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003eMian\r\nNawaz Sharif PLD 1993 SC 473\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*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003eAl\u0026#8209;Jehad\r\nTrust (commonly known as the Judges\u0027 case) and many more.\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 wish I could have more time to\r\ndiscuss few of these cases which have established the foundation of\r\nindependence of the judiciary in Pakistan, without which one cannot dream for\r\nthe rule of law. I may add here that without an independent and a strong Bar,\r\ncontinuance of the rule of law could not be guaranteed. Likewise, easy access\r\nto justice to all is also the most important ingredient of the rule of law.\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\u003e13. To end my submissions, I\r\nwould like to point out how people from abroad look at our superior Courts. I\r\nwould like to quote here a couple of passages from the book \u0026quot;Judging the\r\nState\u0026quot; (Cambridge University Press -South Asian Studies) by Puaula. R. New\r\nBerg who observed: \u0026quot;The judiciary has faced difficult jurisdictional\r\nproblems as it has medicated conflicts among institutions that derive their\r\nauthority from diverse and some times incompatible soures. Equally difficult\r\nthe Courts have decided that the conflicts between citizens and the State when\r\nthe Government is not empowered by the citizenry, when neither rights nor\r\nobligations are clear or fully known and when punitive sanction precede\r\nreasoned Government judgment and actions. When Courts have helped to create\r\nconditions for democracy by acting as bulwarks for the citizenry against the\r\nState, the idea of democracy has taken on anti State character\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;a\r\nform that the Courts, themselves state institutions, find discomfitting\u0026quot;.\r\nShe goes on to say, \u0026quot;The Courts have given the polity a vocabulary with\r\nwhich to speak when political has been neither accurate nor reliable. When\r\nconcepts of rights, autonomy and sovereignty are unclear\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;when the\r\npolity has sound its leaders incapable of articulating palatable and workable\r\nvision\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;the judiciary has, if only temporarily and expediently,\r\nhelped to define a context for political debate\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\u003eOnce again I would like to\r\nexpress my sincere thanks to the organizers for extending this opportunity.\r\nThank you for your greater patience and forbearance.\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\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\u003eMR. JUSTICE ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN,\r\nJUDGE, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHROE\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\u003eMr. Justice Ali Nawaz Chowhan has\r\nserved as District and Sessions Judge in different important Districts;\r\nSecretary, Government of the Punjab, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department;\r\nChairman, Punjab Service Tribunal; and Joint Secretary/D.G. Federal Ombudsman\r\nSecretariat, Islamabad.\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\u003eHe did his LL.B. from Punjab\r\nUniversity. He got the Diploma in Shari\u0027 ah and Law from Institute of Shari\u0027ah;\r\nInternational Islamic University; Islamabad; International Islamic University\r\nMadina Munawara, Jamia Ummal Qura Makka and Diploma in Criminal Justice. He got\r\nDiploma in Criminal Justice and Narcotics Control from Department of Technical\r\nand Economic Cooperation Bangkok and Japan International Cooperation Agency. He\r\nhad training in Administrative Law from Columbia University New York, U.S.A.;\r\nJudicial College, Reno Nevada, U.S.A.; National Institution of Public\r\nAdministration, Lahore; Federal Judicial Academy Islamabad and Pakistan Cabinet\r\nDivision.\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 Chowhan has visited\r\nas a Scholar/Thomas Jefferson Fellow/taught and accepted assignments etc. at\r\nvarious Universities and Organizations in United States, Sweeden, East Africa,\r\nEngland and Canada.\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 Chowhan was member of\r\nthe Government\u0027s Committee on \u0027Inexpensive and Speedy Justice\u0027. He was invited\r\nby the Ombudsman of Sweden as Scholar. He was Member of the International Bar\r\nAssociation, U.K.; Rawalpindi Bar Association; Lahore High Court Bar\r\nAssociation and Islamabad Bar Association. He was Director Human Rights in the\r\narea where he acted as a District Judge and was Vice\u0026#8209;President of the\r\nSociety/Mission for Leprosy in Pakistan at Rawalpindi. He has been frequently\r\ninvited to speak on electronic media and otherwise on legal topics inter alia\r\nin the area of Criminal Justice, Narcotics Control, Police Laws, Constitution\r\netc.\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 Chowhan has authored\r\nArticles on American Constitution; Inexpensive and Speedy Justice; Procedural\r\nReforms; Justice; Role of Islamic Law in Pakistani Judicial System; Police and\r\nCitizens;\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\u003eFederal Shariat Court; Islamic\r\nLaw and Human Rights Judicature in Tracheotomy of Power.\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"