| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 542 2016 SLD 542 2016 PLD 269 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 72 and 73 of 2015, decided on 26th January, 2016. Date of hearing: 26th January, 2016.
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN AND TARIQ PARVEZ, JJ
Asaf F. Vardag, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both petitions)/ Nemo for
Respondents (in both cases).
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 72 and 73 of 2015, decided on 26th January, 2016. Date of hearing: 26th January, 2016.
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN AND TARIQ PARVEZ, JJ
Asaf F. Vardag, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both petitions)/ Nemo for
Respondents (in both cases).
Justice RAJA JILALUDDIN and another
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Human Rights, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 184(3)
(a) Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009-- ----Art. 60(8)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 184(3)---Gilgit-Baltistan Supreme Appellate Court---Chief Judge and Judges, office of---Fixed tenure of office---Question of public importance---Scope--Constitutional petition under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution filed by (serving) Chief Judge and Judge of Gilgit-Baltistan Supreme Appellate Court challenging the Constitutionality of their fixed tenure of office provided under Art.60(8) of the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---Maintainability-Petitioners had alleged violation of their personal rights i.e. individual Fundamental Rights---Present case did not involve any question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental right conferred by Chap. I of Part II of the Constitution, thus jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art.184(3) of the Constitution could not be invoked--- Constitutional petitions were dismissed accordingly. Present issue related to the personal rights of the two petitioners (serving Chief Judge and Judge of Gilgit-Baltistan Supreme Appellate Court) in respect of office they were holding. For the purpose of qualifying the test of "question of public importance", the issue involved in a matter before the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution must belong and should concern the public at large, the State or the nation. If the proposition/matter involved the alleged violation of the Fundamental rights of an individual or a group of individuals, how so large it might be, but had no concern and effect on the public, then it could not be termed as "question of public importance". Abdul Wahab v. HBL 2013 SCMR 1383 ref. Person who had been appointed as Chief Judge and Judge of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan in terms of Article 60(5) of the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 ("the Order"), his term of office had to be governed under Article 60(8) of the Order. In no manner such appointment would attract the original jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution because no question of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492