"\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 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"2011J25_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003ePUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION: A TOOL TO PROTECT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eAdil Hafeez\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eAdil Hafeez\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2012-05-03T16:03:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2012-05-03T16:03:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e2576\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e14687\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eOratier\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e122\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e34\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e17229\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e11.5606\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:DoNotHyphenateCaps/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e0\u003c/w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e3\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003efalse\u003c/w:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003efalse\u003c/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003efalse\u003c/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003efalse\u003c/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotUnderlineInvalidXML/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotShadeFormData/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Compatibility\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:FootnoteLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ShapeLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:AlignTablesRowByRow/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ForgetLastTabAlignment/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutRawTableWidth/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutTableRowsApart/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord97LineBreakingRules/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:SelectEntireFieldWithStartOrEnd/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord2002TableStyleRules/\u003e\r\n  \u003c/w:Compatibility\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:BrowserLevel\u003eMicrosoftInternetExplorer4\u003c/w:BrowserLevel\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" LatentStyleCount=\"156\"\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:LatentStyles\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.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\n /* Page Definitions */\r\n @page\r\n\t{mso-page-border-surround-header:no;\r\n\tmso-page-border-surround-footer:no;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\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\u003c!--[if gte mso 10]\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0in;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-ansi-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-fareast-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-bidi-language:#0400;}\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003c/head\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in;text-justify-trim:punctuation\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003ePUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:\r\nA TOOL TO PROTECT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n-.1pt\u0027\u003eAbdul Sattar Asghar, Registrar, Lahore High Court\u003cspan style=\u0027color:\r\nred\u0027\u003e*\u003c/span\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027font-size:10.0pt;color:red\u0027\u003e*Paper read\r\nat National Judicial Conference, Islamabad, 2011. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eBlack\u0027s Law Dictionary defines public interest\r\nlitigation as a legal action initiated in a Court of Law for the enforcement of\r\npublic interest or general interest in which the public or class of the\r\ncommunity have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights\r\nor liabilities are affected. The concept of public interest litigation provides\r\nopportunity to all the citizens to have inviolable access to justice for the\r\nprotection and enforcement of fundamental human rights to life and liberty.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e2. In a leading public interest litigation case\r\ntitled Muhammad Bin Ismail v. Tan Sri Haji Othman Saat, (1982-2 MLJ 133)\r\nJustice Wan Yahya (Malaysia) laid the dictum as under:-\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;If they (public\r\nauthorities) transgress any law or constitutional directive, then any\r\npublic-spirited citizen, even if he has no greater interest than a person\r\nhaving regard for the due observation of the Law, may move the courts and the\r\ncourts may grant him the appropriate legal remedy in its discretion\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e3. In the constitutionally governed States, judiciary\r\nis provided pivotal role of protection and enforcement of the fundamental\r\nhuman, constitutional and statutory rights. To frame a Constitution for the new\r\nborn State of Pakistan founder of the nation Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah\r\nenvisaged that if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and\r\nprosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well being of the\r\npeople and especially of the poor. After striving hard for constitutional\r\ndevelopment in Pakistan the people of Pakistan were ultimately successful\u0027 in\r\nsecuring fundamental rights under the umbrella of Objectives Resolution in a\r\ndemocratic arrangement through the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan\r\n1973.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e4. In the constitutional scheme the judiciary in\r\nPakistan is entrusted an optimistic role to protect and ensure enforcement of\r\nfundamental rights conferred by Chapter-1 of Part-II of the Constitution.\r\nHowever, during a long history of ups and downs in the constitutional\r\nexperience of Pakistan, enforcement of fundamental rights, rule of law and\r\nsupremacy of the Constitution always remained a challenge before the Superior\r\nJudiciary of Pakistan. While confronting Martial Law regimes for about 26 years\r\nin its history of 64 years during proclamations of emergency and suspension of\r\nfundamental rights when the Constitution was held in abeyance the Supreme Court\r\nhave been struggling despite all odds, to make it possible to protect and\r\nenforce the fundamental rights.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e5. The Judicial system in Pakistan at the Federal,\r\nProvincial and District level throughout has confronted numerous challenges in\r\norder to redress the grievances of the litigant public. For the judiciary in\r\nPakistan it always remained an uphill \u0027task to make justice accessable to the\r\npeople the majority of whom are illiterate and ignorant of their fundamental\r\nrights. The poor social and economic condition of the major segments of the\r\nsociety maintains a gap between the existence of their public and private\r\nrights and the ability to vindicate those rights to their needs. The, legal\r\nservices in Pakistan therefore have not been able to provide ample service to\r\nthe poor segments of the society as compared to those having power to make the\r\nsystem respond to their advantage.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e6. Since decades we are earnestly pursuing\u0027\r\nadversarial justice system in Pakistan at all tiers of the Judicial hierarchy,\r\ndespite being mindful of the changes in new societal development necessitating\r\na march towards gradual shift from mechanical justice to human welfare social justice.\r\nIn the cases of infringement of fundamental rights, even involving a question\r\nof public importance, our superior courts have been earnestly guarding the long\r\nstanding concepts of \u0027other adequate remedy provided by Law\u0027 and \u0027aggrieved\r\nperson\u0027 while assuming the extra ordinary jurisdiction to issue Writs and\r\nOrders under Articles 199 and\u0027 184(3) of the Constitution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e7. When the Supreme Courts in many countries were\r\nmaking efforts to use public interest litigation for the purpose of securing\r\nhuman rights for the common people and to provide justice to the deprived\r\nsections of the society, we were apprehending that such an attempt in Pakistan\r\nmay blur the distinction amongst organs of the State. At that crucial juncture,\r\nto the good-luck of people of Pakistan the principles and the provisions set\r\nout in the Objectives Resolution were made a substantive part of the\r\nConstitution through insertion of Article 2-A. Thus, for the first time in the\r\nconstitutional history of Pakistan a sincere effort was made to set a goal to\r\nachieve the object of Islamic social and economic justice. While utilizing this\r\nimportant tool to activate the object of protection and enforcement of\r\nfundamental rights, the then Hon\u0027ble Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr. Muhammad\r\nHaleem, took an opportunity to render a dynamic constitutional interpretation\r\nin the famous case of \u0026quot;Ms Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan\u0026quot;\r\n(PLD 1988 SC 416) by delivering a landmark Judgment. While interpreting the\r\nterms locus standi, bona fide representation, fundamental rights and public\r\nimportance it laid down cardinal principles of the Supreme Court to exercise\r\npower and jurisdiction under Article 184(3) in public interest litigation. It\r\nalso clarified other various dimensions relating to the concept of public interest\r\nlitigation. Pinpointing the weakness of the existing judicial system based on\r\nadversarial/traditional litigation Hon\u0027ble Chief Justice Mr. Muhammad Haleem\r\naimed-to provide access to justice to all people of Pakistan, based on public\r\ninterest litigation. It was a remarkable contribution to open the doors of\r\nsocial justice system closed to the poor by the inherited/traditional\r\nAnglo-Saxon legal system.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e8. In this leading judgment the Hon\u0027ble Chief Justice\r\nMuhammad Haleem while quoting the pioneering Indian case \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eon \u003c/span\u003epublic interest litigation \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.3pt\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;S.P \u003c/span\u003eGhupta v. V.M. Tarkunde\u0026quot; (AIR\r\n1982 SC 149) also observed that through purposive and creative interpretation\r\nof the Constitution the Indian Supreme Court is succeeded in reaching its\r\nobjective of bringing Justice within the easy reach of the people which has\r\nmade \u0027it possible in India for a bona fide member of the public to bring a case\r\nenforcing the fundamental rights of a class or group of people. The Hon\u0027ble\r\nChief Justice thus dealing with the issue of locus standi maintained that where\r\nthere are violations of fundamental rights of a class or a group of persons who\r\nare unable to seek redress from the Court, then the traditional rule of locus\r\nstandi can be dispensed with, and the procedure available in public interest\r\nlitigation can \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003ebe \u003c/span\u003emade use of, if it\r\nis brought to the notice of the Court by a person acting bona fide.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e9. This judgment also laid the principle that when\r\nfaced with cases of public interest procedural requirements were to be relaxed\r\nin contrast to the dictum laid down in the case of \u0026quot;Ch: Manzoor Elahi v.\r\nFederation of Pakistan\u0026quot; (PLD 1975 SC 66) that ordinarily the forum of the\r\ncourt in the lower hierarchy should be invoked first. In order to combat delay\r\nin the disposal of public interest litigation it was held that procedure rules\r\nin cases seeking the enforcement of fundamental rights should be treated\r\nflexibly as the Article 184(3) did not specify any procedure to be followed\r\nrather nature of the procedure should be judged in light of the purpose i.e.\r\nenforcement of fundamental rights. To reach to the conclusion in this land-mark\r\njudgment the Hon\u0027ble Chief Justice Mr. Muhammad Haleem also took reliance upon\r\nan earlier judgment by Hon\u0027ble Chief Justice Hamood-ur-Rehman in the case of\r\n\u0026quot;Miss Asma Jilani v. Government of the Punjab\u0026quot; (PLD 1972 SC 139)\r\nwherein it was laid down that the law cannot stand still. Nor can the judges\r\nbecome mere slaves of the precedents and that the rule of stare decisis does\r\nnot apply with the same strictness in criminal, fiscal and constitutional\r\nmatters where the liberty of the subject is involved or some other grave\r\ninjustice \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eis \u003c/span\u003elikely to occur by strict\r\nadherence to the rule.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e10. Benazir Bhutto\u0027s case has settled that in the\r\ncases of public importance involving protection and enforcement of fundamental\r\nrights the principle of relaxation of strict procedural requirements is not\r\nrestricted to the matter affecting the rights of a group of people but is also\r\nextendable to the cases involving individual rights of like nature. It can\r\ntherefore be safely said that Benazir Bhutto\u0027s case has opened the doors of the\r\nsuperior courts to the public interest litigation in order to provide access to\r\njustice to all, an internationally recognized human right.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e11. In this way, the Supreme Court of Pakistan\r\nkeeping its solemn Oath to protect and preserve fundamental rights manifested \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003ea \u003c/span\u003enew approach to the interpretation of the\r\nConstitution. Instead of earlier precedents of a restrictive approach the\r\nconcept of bona fide representation seeking enforcement of fundamental rights\r\nof other groups of people was introduced to provide justice to the under\r\nprivileged segments of the society. The foundation Judgment in Ms. Benazir\r\nBhutto\u0027s case has therefore created a new form of litigation in public interest\r\nto protect fundamental rights and to provide justice to the weaker sections of\r\nthe society. It was a first consolidated attempt to lay down the principles of\r\npublic interest litigation in Pakistan furnishing a new approach to the\r\ninterpretation of the Constitution to achieve the goals of equality and social\r\njustice in the under developed democracy of Pakistan.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e12. Following the dictum laid down in Ms. Benazir\r\nBhutto\u0027s case (PLD 1988 SC 416) the Superior Courts in Pakistan have scaled a\r\nremarkable distance in the field of public interest litigation. The parameters\r\non public interest litigation laid down in the said Judgment proved its worth\r\nand stood to the test of time in providing remedy to the wrongs done to the\r\npoor, unprivileged people and weaker segments of the society. A few examples\r\nare enumerated as under:--\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:36.75pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-18.75pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:36.75pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(1)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e? \u003c/span\u003eIn the case of\r\nDarshan Masih v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 513) Hon\u0027ble Chief Justice Mr. Muhammad\r\nAfzal Zullah, taking cognizance of violation of fundamental rights on a\r\ntelegram by some brick-kiln bonded labourers regarding their illegal detention\r\nby Employers with a request to get them released of this practice, found it \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003ea \u003c/span\u003efit case of enforcement of fundamental\r\nrights to be heard by the Supreme Court under the jurisdiction conferred under\r\nArticle 184(3) of the Constitution. The case was heard on successive dates of\r\nhearing using the technique of \u0026quot;rolling review\u0026quot; and ultimately the\r\nnecessary relief was granted.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:36.75pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-18.75pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:36.75pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(2)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e? \u003c/span\u003eIn the case of\r\nIsmail Qureshi v. M. Awais Qasim (1993 SCMR 1788) the Supreme Court opted to\r\nhold an Inquiry \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003einto \u003c/span\u003ethe issue of\r\nstudent politics and taking note of disturbance caused to other students\r\nactivities passed an order banning political activities in the Universities\r\nconverting the proceedings from adversarial to inquisitorial as a matter of\r\npublic interest litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:36.75pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-18.75pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:36.75pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(3)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e? \u003c/span\u003eIn the case of\r\nShehla Zia v. \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.3pt\u0027\u003eWAPDA \u003c/span\u003e(PLD 1994 SC 690)\r\nthe Supreme Court taking cognizance under Article 184(3) of the Constitution\r\nentertained the complaint lodged through a letter regarding violation of\r\nfundamental rights indicting her grievance regarding presence of high voltage\r\ntransmission lines at the grid stations posing serious threats to the health of\r\nthe residents of the locality treated it a violation of fundamental rights and\r\ngranted the appropriate relief in the public interest.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:36.75pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-18.75pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:36.75pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(4)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e? \u003c/span\u003eIn the case of \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eSyed Wasey Zafar v. Government \u003c/span\u003eof \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003ePakistan \u003c/span\u003e(PLD 1994 \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003eSC 621) \u003c/span\u003evarious petitions filed by individual users and Car\r\ndealers of Public Transport Yellow Cab Scheme being aggrieved of various\r\npolicies and directives of the Government violative to the fundamental rights\r\ninvoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article\r\n184(3). The Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the object of the\r\npublic transport scheme throughout the Country held that the case involved a\r\nquestion of public importance. It manifested scope of Article 199 conferring\r\njurisdiction to the High Courts as well as the jurisdiction conferred upon the\r\nSupreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution for the enforcement of\r\nfundamental rights. In this case also an adequate order was passed in the\r\ninterest of public at large.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:36.75pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-18.75pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:36.75pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(5)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e? \u003c/span\u003eIn the case of \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eAl-Jahad Trust v. Federation \u003c/span\u003eof \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003ePakistan \u003c/span\u003e(PLD 1996 \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003eSC \u003c/span\u003e324) it was held that the petitioners had locus standi to lodge\r\npetitions under Article 199 as the constitutional question raised are of great\r\npublic importance as to working of the Judiciary as an independent organ of the\r\nState. Simultaneously, it was held that the Supreme Court can also take suo\r\nmotu cognizance under Article 184 (3) of any matter involving a question of\r\npublic importance with reference to enforcement of fundamental rights.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:36.75pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-18.75pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:36.75pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(6)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e? \u003c/span\u003eIn the case of \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eMalik Asad Ali and others v. Federation \u003c/span\u003eof \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003ePakistan \u003c/span\u003e(PLD \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003e1998 SC \u003c/span\u003e161) it was held that trappings and constraints envisaged\r\nin Article 199 of the Constitution on the exercise of powers by the High Courts\r\nare not applicable on the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the\r\nConstitution. Therefore while dealing with a case under Article 184(3) of the\r\nConstitution\u0027 the Supreme Court by virtue of Article 187(1) of the Constitution\r\nwould be competent to issue direction or order which may be necessary for doing\r\ncomplete justice in the case. It was also held that the applicant under Article\r\n184(3) need not necessarily be an aggrieved person.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:36.75pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-18.75pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:36.75pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(7)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e? \u003c/span\u003eIn the recent\r\ntwo years (from March-2009 to February-2011) the Human Rights Cell established\r\nin the Supreme Court of Pakistan received 1,39,906 complaints. After due\r\nprocess of obtaining reports from concerned public authorities 85,489\r\ncomplaints stands disposed \u0027of with redressal of their grievances. Hon\u0027ble\r\nChief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry also entertained 87 Human Rights cases\r\non judicial side. In 58 cases out of them grievances were redressed. Relief was\r\nalso given in a number of public rights litigation cases including cases of Suo\r\nMotu jurisdiction. Out of those a few famous cases are as under:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.75in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(i)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e???????? \u003c/span\u003eGeneral\r\nSecretary West Pakistan Salt Minors Labour Union (CBA) Khewra v. Director\r\nIndustries and Mineral. Development, Punjab, \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e1994\r\n\u003c/span\u003eSCMR \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e2061\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.75in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(ii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e??????? \u003c/span\u003eMuhammad\r\nFareed v. The State (Suo Motu case against Smoke Emitting Vehicles in Karachi) \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e1996 \u003c/span\u003eSCMR \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e543\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.75in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(iii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e?????? \u003c/span\u003eWattan\r\nParty v. Federation of Pakistan (Steel Mill Case) PLD \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003e2006 SC 69\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.75in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(iv)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e?????? \u003c/span\u003eMoulvi\r\nIqbal Haider v. Capital Development Authority (Mini Golf in Jubilee Park Case)\r\nPLD \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e2006 SC 394\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.75in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(v)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e??????? \u003c/span\u003eHuman\r\nRights \u0027case No.15283-G of 2010 (Action taken on news clipping regarding. Fast\r\nFood Outlet in F-9 Park, Islamabad)\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e13. Bare survey of the above cited Case Law on the\r\npublic interest litigation in Pakistan makes it crystal clear that object of\r\nco-terminous Articles 199 and 184(3) of the Constitution requires enforcement\r\nof fundamental rights in the matters of public importance \u0027through Judicial\r\nReview \u0027of the public actions of the public authorities in the performance of\r\ntheir public duties. Therefore, it may be noted that in exercise of\r\njurisdiction conferred under the above said both the Articles the paramount\r\nconsideration before the High Courts and the Supreme Court should remain the\r\nredressal of the grievances of the poor, unprivileged and weaker sections of\r\nthe society instead of protecting vested interests of the privileged classes\r\nhaving power and resources to attract the flow of justice in their favour in\r\nthe garb of public interest litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e14. Public interest litigation is a valued form of\r\nlitigation to protect the fundamental human, social and economic rights. As a\r\nsequel to the above discussion, salient features of the public interest\r\nlitigation therefore can be summarized as under\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.25in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(i)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e???????? \u003c/span\u003eEnsures\r\naccess to justice.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.25in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(ii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e??????? \u003c/span\u003eMakes\r\npublic authorities accountable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.25in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(iii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e?????? \u003c/span\u003eEnhances\r\ntransparency in public actions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.25in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(iv)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e?????? \u003c/span\u003eFulfils\r\nconstitutional promises.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.25in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(v)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e??????? \u003c/span\u003ePromotes\r\nconfidence in use of Judicial Institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.25in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(vi)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e?????? \u003c/span\u003eAllows\r\nneglected public interests to be attended.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eBasic\r\nCivic necessities and healthy environments etc.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.25in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(vii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e????? \u003c/span\u003eEnsures\r\nprotection to life, liberty, property of the citizens.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.25in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(viii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e????? \u003c/span\u003eEnsures\r\ninexpensive and speedy justice to the poor, unprivileged, weaker people and\r\nsections of the society.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.25in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(ix)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e?????? \u003c/span\u003eMakes the\r\nilliterate people conscious of their fundamental human rights.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.25in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(x)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e??????? \u003c/span\u003eEnforces\r\nRules of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e15. To conclude, it is suggested that in order to\r\nstreamline and enhance the utility of the public interest litigation the\r\nHon\u0027ble Supreme Court may consider to add appropriate rules of procedure\r\nrelating to public interest litigation in the Supreme Court Rules.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eBOOKS \u0026amp; REPORTS CONSULTED\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e????????? \u003c/span\u003eConstitution\r\nof Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e????????? \u003c/span\u003eJudicial\r\nReview of public actions by Mr. Justice (Retired) Fazal Karim.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e????????? \u003c/span\u003ePublic\r\ninterest litigation in Pakistan by Werner Menski and co-authors.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e????????? \u003c/span\u003eHRCP\r\nreport-2010 on Public Interest Litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e????????? \u003c/span\u003eCase\r\nLaw Digests\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\r\n  \r\n\u003c/head\u003e\r\n \r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"