Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 1383 2001 SLD 1383 2001 PLD 607
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 13, 10, 27, 15, 16, 17, 28, 24, 26, O1, 14,19, 20, 32 and 33 of 2000 decided on 24-04-2001. dates of hearing: 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 16-04-2001.
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J. CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JJ
Aitzaz Ahsan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record (in C.Ps. Nos. 13 and 27 of 2000). M.Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Dr.Amjad Hussain Bokhari, Khurram Hashim, Farrukh Hussain Lodhi, Barrister Akhta

KHAN ASFANDYAR WALI and others

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art.184(3)---National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Preamble---Constitutional petition under. Art.184(3) of the Constitution before Supreme Court--- Maintainability ---Vires of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999--- Constitutional petitions were admitted for hearing as questions raised therein ,(detailed below) were matters of first impression and of great public importance involving Fundamental Rights, as ordained by Art.184(3 , of the Constitution and there was another circumstance that Supreme Court had commented upon in the case of S Yed Zafar Ali Shah and others v General Pervez Mussharaf, Chief Executive of Pakistan and others reported as PLB 2000 SC 869 that "the validity of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 will be examined separately in appropriate proceedings at appropriate stage." Following are the common points emerging from the Constitutional petitions for consideration of the Court: "(i) Whether the impugned Ordinance creates a parallel judicial system in disregard of the provisions of Articles 175, 202 and 203 of the Constitution and is violative of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mehram Ali and others v. Federation and others (PLD 1998 SC 1445)? (ii) Whether section 2 of the impugned Ordinance whereby it deems to have come into force with effect from 1-1-1985 being retrospective contravenes the Fundamental .Right enshrined in _ Article 12 of the Constitution insofar as it creates a new offence of 'wilful default' with retrospective effect? (iii) Whether section 5(r) of the impugned Ordinance which defines `wilful default' negates the. freedom of trade, business or profession as contemplated by Article .18 of the Constitution, which guarantees that subject to such qualifications, if any, as may be prescribed by law, every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation and to conduct any lawful trade or business? (iv) Whether the power vesting in the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau or the Court trying a person for any offence under the impugned Ordinance vide clause (a) of section 12 .and by providing in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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