| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 521 1991 SLD 521 1991 PLD 509 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Shariat Appeal No. 18 of 1989, decision dated: 20-02-1991.
JUSTICE NASIM HASAN SHAH, CHAIRMAN, JUSTICES SHAFIUR RAHMAN, AND MAULANA MUHAMMAD TAQI USMANI, MEMBERS
Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record No. 1 Nemo No. 2.
Shariat Appeal No. 18 of 1989, decision dated: 20-02-1991.
JUSTICE NASIM HASAN SHAH, CHAIRMAN, JUSTICES SHAFIUR RAHMAN, AND MAULANA MUHAMMAD TAQI USMANI, MEMBERS
Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record No. 1 Nemo No. 2.
NUSRAT BAIG MIRZA
VS
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)------Art. 203-D---Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, R. 14---Office Memorandum No.8/9/72-TRV, dated 31-8-1973---Provisions of the Constitution itself are immune from the scrutiny of the Federal Shariat Court and not the laws made on the authority of any provision of the Constitution.In the present case Federal Shariat Court was moved under Article 203-D of the Constitution to challenge the Office Memorandum No.8/9/72 T.R.V. dated 31-8-1973 and Rule 14 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, prescribing the quota system in filling the vacancies under the Federal Government and Provincial Government of Sindh, on the ground that they were repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. [p. 511] A The Federal Shariat Court held that the laws protected under the Constitution enjoy the same protection as is given to the Constitution itself in Art. 203-B(c) and, since the Federal Shariat Court had no jurisdiction to examine any provision of the Constitution, those laws are also immune from its scrutiny. Held, it were the provisions of the Constitution itself that were immune from the scrutiny of the Federal Shariat Court and not the laws made on the authority of any provision of the Constitution. A test of repugnancy i.e. Injunctions of Islam was prescribed. This empowerment had its own inhibitions and limitations, and, but for these, it transcended all constitutional protections and safeguards. For example all laws, but not the Constitution, Muslim Personal Law, and law relating to the procedure of any Court or Tribunal or, any fiscal law or law relating to the levy and collection of taxes and fee or banking or insurance practice and procedure" could be tested on this standard - "notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution. To apply this test of repugnancy to the Constitution or a provision thereunder was one thing and to apply this test to any other law, validated, continued or protected under the Constitution was another. The first was prohibited, the second was not. In view of the non-obstante clause appearing in…
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