Supreme Court of Pakistan Annual Report 2002

Supreme Court of PakistanAnnual Report 2002

THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 4

Supreme Court of PakistanAnnual Report 2002

c©2003 National Judicial (Policy Making) CommitteeThis Annual Report is published by the Secretariat of the

Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan.

This report can be viewed at the Supreme Court website http://www.scp.com.pk as well as at the Law and Justice Commission of

Pakistan webste http://www.ljcp.com.pk. Comments and suggestions may be sent to the Secretariat of the Law and Justice Commission

of Pakistan, Supreme Court Building, Islamabad.


Contents

1 FOREWORD BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN 1

2 THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN AND ITS ORGANISATION 52.1 The Supreme Court as the Court of the Last Resort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1.1 The Apex Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.1.2 The Guardian Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.1.3 Final Arbiter of the Law and the Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.1.4 Action in Aid of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.1.5 Financial Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 Jurisdiction of the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2.1 Original Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2.2 Appellate Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2.3 Advisory Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2.4 Review Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2.5 Appellate Jurisdiction against Judgements of Federal Shariat Court . . . . . 72.2.6 Power to Transfer Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2.7 Decision of the Supreme Court binding on other Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2.8 Issue and Execution of Process of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2.9 Rule Making Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3 Role and Functions of the Chief Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.4 Seat of the Court and Branch Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.4.1 The Principal Seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.4.2 The Branch Registry at Lahore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.4.3 The Branch Registry at Karachi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.4.4 The Branch Registry at Peshawar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.4.5 The Branch Registry at Quetta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.5 Supreme Court Composition 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.5.1 The Chief Justices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.5.2 The Judges of the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.5.3 Ad-Hoc Members, Shariat Appellate Bench . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.5.4 Attorney General for Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.5.5 Registrar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.6 Organisation Chart of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182.7 Bio Data of Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan . . . . . . . . . 202.8 Judges of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3 SIGNIFICANT JUDGEMENTS OF THE COURT DURING THE YEAR 2002 333.1 Sheikh Rashid Ahmad v. Majid Nizami, Editor-in-Chief, The Nation and Nawa-e-

Waqt and Another (PLD 2002 SC 514) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333.2 United Bank Limited v. Farooq Brothers and Others (PLD 2002 SC 800) . . . . . . 353.3 Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Ameer Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan and others v. General Pervez

Musharraf, Chief Executive and others (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 853) . . . . . . . 38

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: i

3.4 Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan and others(PLD 2002 SC 939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.5 Pakistan Muslim League (Q) and others v. Chief Executive of the Islamic Republicof Pakistan and others (PLD 2002 SC 994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.6 Watan Party through Punjab President Ladies Wing Tasneem Shaukat Khan v. ChiefExecutive/President of Pakistan, and Another (PLD 2003 SC 74) . . . . . . . . . . 52

3.7 Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan and Others(PLD 2003 SC 82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4 JUDICIAL ACTIVITY AND STATISTICS 614.1 Court Performance During the Year 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614.2 Distribution of Work: The Principal Seat of the Court and Branch Registries . . . . 62

4.2.1 Statement of Court Sessions, 2002 at Principal Seat, Islamabad . . . . . . . 624.2.2 Branch Registry, Lahore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644.2.3 Branch Registry, Karachi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654.2.4 Branch Registry, Peshawar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654.2.5 Branch Registry, Quetta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4.3 Statistics on the Institution and Disposition of Cases During the Year 2002 . . . . . 674.3.1 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of cases at Islamabad

(1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674.3.2 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Lahore

(1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694.3.3 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Karachi

(1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704.3.4 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Peshawar

(1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714.3.5 Statement regarding Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Quetta

(1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724.3.6 Consolidated Statements for the Principal Seat and Branch Registries . . . . 734.3.7 Average Monthly Institution and Disposal During the Year . . . . . . . . . . 764.3.8 Some Visible Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774.3.9 Trend of Pending Cases Over the Last Ten Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784.3.10 Trend of Institution of Cases Over the Last Ten Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794.3.11 Trend of Disposal of Cases Over the Last Ten Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804.3.12 Comparative Graph of Cases Filed, Decided and Pending . . . . . . . . . . . 814.3.13 Analysis of the Pending Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824.3.14 Pending Balance According to Age of Cases as on 31-12-2002 . . . . . . . . . 844.3.15 Data for the Last Five Decades: Increase in Institution of Cases as Compared

to Increase in the Number of Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

5 SOCIAL OBJECTIVES AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF JUDGES 935.1 Judges of Supreme Court Nominated to Various Committees, Tribunals, University

Syndicates and other Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935.2 International Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

5.2.1 Visits Abroad by Chief Justice of Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: ii

5.2.2 “Legal and Institutional Framework for the Protection of Environment inPakistan” By Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan . . . . . . . 96

5.2.3 Concluding Remarks of Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistanat the Inaugural Session of South Asian Judicial Colloquium on Access toJustice at New Delhi on 1-3 November 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5.2.4 SAARC Chief Justices’ Conference at Jaipur, India from 20-22 September2002 (Judicial Review and Environment Talk Points)—Remarks by the ChiefJustice of Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

5.2.5 Speeches of Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan Duringthe Year 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

5.2.6 Visits Abroad by Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . 1065.3 The Supreme Court and the Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

6 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THEHIGH COURTS 111

7 THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COUNCIL 115

8 THE COURT REGISTRY 1198.1 Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198.2 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198.3 Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1208.4 Staff Welfare Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

9 FINANCING FOR THE SUPREME COURT 1259.1 Expenditure During the Last Financial Year 2001–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1259.2 Budgetary Allocation for the Year 2002–2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1269.3 The Share of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Federal Budget . . . . . . . . . 131

10 LEGAL RESEARCH AT THE SUPREME COURT 13510.1 The Supreme Court of Pakistan Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13510.2 Information Technology at the Supreme Court and Web Presence . . . . . . . . . . 136

10.2.1 Court Automation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13610.2.2 The Growing Website of the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

11 THE COURT BUILDING 14311.0.3 Building Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14311.0.4 Main Central Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14311.0.5 Judges Chambers Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14311.0.6 Administration Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

12 JUDICIAL HIERARCHY OF PAKISTAN 14712.1 Strength of Judges and Administrative Staff Within the Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . 147

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: iii

13 INFORMATION ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 15113.1 Advocates on the Rolls of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15113.2 Current Strength of Attorney General’s Office and Offices of the Advocates General

in the Provinces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

14 FORMER CHIEF JUSTICES, JUDGES AND REGISTRARS 15514.1 Former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15514.2 Former Judges of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15614.3 Former Registrars of Federal Court and Supreme Court of Pakistan . . . . . . . . . 160

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: iv

1 FOREWORD

(In the name of Allah, Most Beneficent, Most Merciful)

It is my proud privilege to present to the people of Pakistan the Annual Report of the SupremeCourt for the year 2002. A strong feature of this year’s report is the detail that has been providedalong with the enhanced analysis through which the data has been scrutinized. The purpose isto present to the reader not only the achievements of the Court during the year 2002, but alsoto highlight some of the core problems that continue to beset, and even haunt, the legal systemof Pakistan. As the Court grapples with these problems, by stretching to the limit the resourcesprovided, the reader of this report—whether legal expert, researcher or interested citizen—is invitedto share his or her ideas with the Court for the solution of the problems facing the legal systemof Pakistan. The reader will find that the Court is always ready to listen to such ideas and toimplement them if found suitable.

As I contemplate my term as Chief Justice, I am amazed at the variety of measures that areunderway for strengthening the legal system of Pakistan. The processes for strengthening the systemhave now been institutionalised in the shape of the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee(NJPMC) in which all the Chief Justices of the Superior Courts are participating to harmonise andformulate judicial policy. The tasks facing the NJPMC are the setting of performance standardsfor the entire legal system as well as for each category of Court, the building and strengtheningof institutional capacity through training programmes and by improving the service conditions of,and facilities for, the judiciary and finally by erecting a vast system of automated judicial statisticsthat will provide accurate and meaningful data for adopting corrective measures and formulatingsound judicial policy. Concrete first steps in all these areas have already been taken and they areexpected to bear fruit in the near future. This Annual Report that I present to you today is alsopart of this comprehensive strategy.

I am convinced that the measures we have initiated will soon bring inexpensive, swift and timelyaccess to justice for the people of Pakistan. In working towards this goal the Supreme Court willcontinue to strengthen the tried and time-tested methods of delivering justice. The central pillarof all systems of justice is the qualified and competent judge. Pakistan has been fortunate in thisrespect, and today it gives me enormous pleasure to say that I am in the midst of competentcolleagues who are second to none. It is with their dedication and hard work that the lofty goalswe have chosen for ourselves will be achieved.

The problems that the legal system of the country faces today provide a tremendous challengeand are by no means simple or transient. One of the most prominent problems is the rising crest oflitigation riding the bulging waves of population and enhanced commercial activity. As comparedto this dynamic growth, the number of Judges of this Court is static, and despite their unendingefforts there is a natural physical limit to what can be achieved. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court is


well aware of all such problems and continually searches for timely solutions to them, for solutionsmust be found.

As we look back at the year 2002, once again a record number of 13847 cases were filed. Tothis figure, if the previous balance of 13070 pending cases is added, it yields a figure 26917 thatthe Court faced during the year 2002. This figure alone speaks volumes about the enormity of theproblem. In order to understand the situation better we have to look, even though momentarily, atsome of the figures from the past. In the years 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 respectively,the following cases were instituted: 34, 487, 2019, 3853, 5300, 11,702. Perhaps, this conforms tothe rate of increase in population. A graphical representation within the report narrates a moredetailed story. Whatever the message within these figures, the Court is occupied with the adoptionof strategies to overcome the problem and the problem will be resolved not only for the SupremeCourt, but for the rest of the country as well where the picture is more or less similar.

Despite this pressure of rising litigation, the Supreme Court continued to accord importance,during the year 2002, to cases of national importance. The time devoted to these cases naturallyaffected the time allocated to other cases. Summarised versions of a few such significant judgementshave been included in this Report. To deal with these important cases as well as all the other casesa Full Court meeting was held to carve out strategies from among a number of options availableto the Court. It has been my endeavour to implement these plans and strategies well in time sothat swift, inexpensive and effective justice is provided to the people of Pakistan at their doorstep.Accordingly, larger benches of 11 Judges, 7 Judges, 5 Judges and 4 Judges had to be constituted.At the Principal Seat, the sittings of the Court lasted for 44 weeks. At Lahore, it was 24 weeks, atKarachi 14 weeks, at Peshawar 10 weeks and at Quetta the sittings were for 12 weeks. Collectively,the Court disposed of 9547 cases during the year 2002. On the whole, the rotation of Judges andsound management, the performance of the Court has been excellent.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate everyone who participates in the activity of theCourt, in particular my brother Judges. I also acknowledge the very efficient services rendered bythe Registrar and the Court staff in processing the cases before the Court. I wish to thank theSecretariat of the Law and Justice Commission for providing the necessary support to the NationalJudicial (Policy Making) Committee for bringing out this report.

(Sh. Riaz Ahmad)Chief Justice of Pakistan


THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

AND ITS ORGANISATION


THIS PAGE BLANK


2 THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN AND ITS

ORGANISATION

2.1 The Supreme Court as the Court of the Last Resort

2.1.1 The Apex Court

The Supreme Court of Pakistan is the apexCourt in the judicial hierarchy of the coun-try. The Court comprises the Chief Justice and16 Judges. The Constitution contains elabo-rate provisions on the composition, jurisdic-tion, powers and functions of the Court. Thequalifications for and mode of appointment ofJudges, the age of their retirement, the groundsand procedure for their removal from office andthe terms and conditions of service of Judgesare also dealt with. The Constitution furtherprovides for the independence of the Judiciaryand its separation from the Executive. Conse-quently, institutional and judicial independenceprevails in the country.

2.1.2 The Guardian Court

Establishing a system of trichotomy of power,the Constitution assigns the Supreme Court aunique responsibility of maintaining harmonyand balance between the three pillars of theState; namely, the Legislature, the Executiveand the Judiciary. The purpose is to ensurethat the state organs perform their respectivefunctions under the stipulated limits and con-straints. As guardian of the Constitution, theCourt is required to preserve, protect and de-fend this basic document.

The multiple roles of the Court include theresolution of conflicts and disputes, be theyamong governments (Federal/Provincial) or be-tween governments and individuals or individ-uals inter se. The Court is also a custodian and

upholder of citizens’ rights, liberties and free-doms. Seen in this context, the Court occupies apivotal position in constitutional dispensation,by playing the role of unifying and integratingthe nation, its regions, institutions, communi-ties and citizens.

2.1.3 Final Arbiter of the Law and theConstitution

The Supreme Court is the court of ultimatejurisdiction in the land. It is the final ar-biter of the law and the Constitution. Its or-ders/decisions are binding on all other courtsin the country.

2.1.4 Action in Aid of the SupremeCourt

Under the Constitution, all executive and ju-dicial authorities throughout the country arebound to act in aid of the Supreme Court (Art.190).

2.1.5 Financial Autonomy

The Supreme Court enjoys financial autonomyin as much as the Chief Justice of Pakistanis authorised to reappropriate funds within itsbudgetary allocation. He can create and up-grade/downgrade posts in the Court establish-ment. The Supreme Court is also empoweredto make its own rules of practice/procedure asalso for recruitment of its administrative staffand their terms and conditions of service.


2.2 Jurisdiction of the Court

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decidematters in its original, appellate, review and ad-visory jurisdictions.

2.2.1 Original Jurisdiction

1. The Supreme Court has exclusive originaljurisdiction in any dispute between anytwo or more Governments, where “Gov-ernments” means the Federal Governmentand the Provincial Governments.

2. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, theSupreme Court pronounces declaratoryjudgements.

3. Where the Supreme Court considers thata question of public importance, with ref-erence to the enforcement of any of theFundamental Rights conferred by Chap-ter 1 of Part II of the Constitution, isinvolved, it has the power to make anorder of the nature mentioned in Article184.

2.2.2 Appellate Jurisdiction

1. Subject to Article 185, the Supreme Courtshall have jurisdiction to hear and deter-mine appeals from judgements, decrees,final orders or sentences of a High Court.

2. An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Courtfrom any judgement, decree, final order orsentence of a High Court—

(a) if the High Court has on appeal re-versed an order of acquittal of an ac-cused person and sentenced him todeath or to transportation for life orimprisonment for life; or, on revision,has enhanced a sentence to a sentenceas aforesaid; or

(b) if the High Court has withdrawn fortrial before itself any case from anycourt subordinate to it and has in such

trial convicted the accused person andsentenced him as aforesaid; or

(c) if the High Court has imposed any pun-ishment on any person for contempt ofthe High Court; or

(d) if the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the court offirst instance was, and also in disputein appeal is, not less than fifty thou-sand rupees or such other sum as maybe specified in that behalf by Act of[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] and thejudgement, decree or final order ap-pealed from has varied or set aside thejudgement, decree or final order of thecourt immediately below; or

(e) if the judgement, decree or final or-der involves directly or indirectly someclaim or question respecting propertyof the like amount or value and thejudgement, decree or final order ap-pealed from has varied or set aside thejudgement, decree or final order of thecourt immediately below; or

(f) if the High Court certifies that the caseinvolves a substantial question of lawas to the interpretation of the Consti-tution.

3. An appeal to the Supreme Court from ajudgement, decree, order or sentence ofa High Court in a case to which clause(2) does not apply shall lie only if theSupreme Court grants leave to appeal(Art. 185).

Under Article 212 (3): An appeal to theSupreme Court from a judgement, decree,order or sentence of an AdministrativeCourt or Tribunal shall lie only if theSupreme Court, being satisfied that thecase involves a substantial question of lawof public importance, grants leave to ap-peal.


2.2.3 Advisory Jurisdiction

1. If, at any time, the President considersthat it is desirable to obtain the opinionof the Supreme Court on any question oflaw which he considers of public impor-tance, he may refer the question to theSupreme Court for consideration.

2. The Supreme Court shall consider a ques-tion so referred and report its opinion onthe question to the President (Art. 186).

2.2.4 Review Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court shall have power, subjectto the provision of any Act of [Majlis-e-Shoora(Parliament)] and of any rules made by theSupreme Court, to review any judgement pro-nounced or any order made by it (Art. 188).

2.2.5 Appellate Jurisdiction againstJudgements of Federal ShariatCourt

Article 203-F of the Constitution confers on theSupreme Court, appellate jurisdiction againstfinal decisions of the Federal Shariat Court un-der Article 203D, i.e., determining whether ornot any law or provision of law is repugnant tothe injunctions of Islam. Such Appeal is heardby the Shariat Appellant Bench of the SupremeCourt consisting of three Muslim Judges of theSupreme Court and not more than two Ulemaappointed by the President to attend sittings ofthe Bench as ad hoc Members.

2.2.6 Power to Transfer Cases

The Supreme Court may, if it considers it expe-dient to do so in the interest of justice, transfer

any case, appeal or other proceedings pendingbefore any High Court to any other High Court(Art. 186A).

2.2.7 Decision of the Supreme Courtbinding on other Courts

Any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to theextent that it decides a question of law or isbased upon or enunciates a principle of law, bebinding on all other courts in Pakistan (Art.189).

2.2.8 Issue and Execution of Process ofthe Supreme Court

Subject to clause (2) of Article 175, theSupreme Court has the power to issue direc-tions, orders or decrees for doing complete jus-tice in any case or matter pending before it,including an order for securing the attendanceof any person or the discovery or production ofany document. Any such direction, order or de-cree is enforceable throughout Pakistan, and ifa question arises as to which High Court shallgive effect to a direction, order or decree of theSupreme Court, the decision of the SupremeCourt on the question is final (Art. 187).

2.2.9 Rule Making Powers

Article 191 says that subject to the Constitu-tion and law, the Supreme Court may makerules regulating the practice and procedure ofthe Court. Accordingly, the Supreme CourtRules, 1980 have been framed.


2.3 Role and Functions of the Chief Justice

The Chief Justice of Pakistan is appointed bythe President under Article 177 of the Con-stitution. He provides leadership to the Court.Among other functions and responsibilities, theChief Justice of Pakistan:

• Is consulted by the President for appoint-ment of Judges of the Supreme Court aswell as Chief Justices and Judges of HighCourts. In the absence of sound reasons tothe contrary, to be recorded by the Pres-ident/Chief Executive, his opinion as tothe fitness of a person for judgeship is ac-cepted.

• Appoints:

– with the approval of the President,ad hoc Judges of the Supreme Courtfrom among the retired Judges ofthe Supreme Court, who retired lessthan three years prior to such ad hocappointment; and

– with the approval of the Presidentand consent of the Chief Justice ofthe High Court concerned, ad hocJudges of the Supreme Court fromamong the serving Judges of theHigh Courts who are qualified for ap-pointment as Judges of the SupremeCourt.

– Federal Review Board consisting ofa Chairman and two other persons,each of whom is or has been a judgeof the Supreme Court or a HighCourt, for reviewing orders made un-der a law providing for preventivedetention.

– an arbitrator to determine any ques-tion arising as to whether any con-ditions imposed on any ProvincialGovernment are lawfully imposed, orwhether any refusal by the Federal

Government to entrust functions isunreasonable with respect to broad-casting and telecasting.

• Administers oath:

– to the President of Pakistan;

– to the Auditor General of Pakistan;

– to the Judges of the Supreme Court;and

– to the Chief Election Commissioner.

• Nominates:

– a Judge of the Supreme Court toact as Chief Election Commissioner,during the absence of the Chief Elec-tion Commissioner; and

– Judges of the Supreme Court to var-ious bodies of the Bar, e.g., Dis-ciplinary Committees and Syndi-cates/Governing Bodies of universi-ties.

• Is ex-officio Chairman of:

– Law and Justice Commission of Pak-istan;

– National Judicial (Policy Making)Committee;

– Governing Body, Access to JusticeDevelopment Fund;

– the Supreme Judicial Council;

– the Federal Judicial Academy; and

– Al-Mizan Foundation.

• Exercises:

– administrative powers to ap-point/remove officers/staff of theCourt and upgrade/downgradeposts.


– financial powers to sanction ex-penditure and re-appropriate fundswithin the budgetary allocation ofthe Court.

• Prepares the Court Roster and consti-tutes benches of the Court to hear cases.

• Heads benches constituted for hearing ofimportant cases.

• Presides over Full Court Meetings andleads in taking important policy decisions.

• Supervises and directs the Court adminis-tration and acts as intermediary betweenthe Court and the judicial system.

• Initiates internal Court operation poli-cies.

• Supervises caseflow management.

• Assigns Judges to specialised work and re-sponsibilities to assist and aid the ChiefJustice in formulating policies of courtmanagement.

• Deals with cases of leave of the Judges.

• Prescribes working hours of the Courtand business in chambers and Court hol-idays.

• Conducts judicial conferences and studiesto plan for improvement of the system ofadministration of justice.

• Oversees pre-service and in-service train-ing courses of the judges of the sub-ordinate courts in the Federal JudicialAcademy.


Full Court Meeting

2.4 Seat of the Court and Branch Registries

The Constitution of Pakistan provides thatthe Principal Seat of the Court shall be at Is-lamabad and the Court may, from time to time,sit in such other places as the Chief Justice ofPakistan, with the approval of the President,may appoint (Art. 183). Today, the Court withits Principal Seat at Islamabad, has BranchRegistries at all the four provincial headquar-ters. The Branch Registries at Lahore, Karachi,Peshawar and Quetta have been established forthe convenience of the public and for providingjustice at the doorstep.

The Main Registry of the Court remainedat Lahore in a borrowed wing of the LahoreHigh Court for a period extending a little over25 years, from October, 1949 to November,1974, after which the Main Registry was movedto Rawalpindi. At Rawalpindi, the Main Reg-istry was housed in what was then called “EastPakistan House.” The Main Registry was latermoved to the Supreme Court Building at Islam-abad.

2.4.1 The Principal Seat

At the Principal Seat, Islamabad, the followingmatters are dealt with:

Original Jurisdiction

1. Constitution Petitions under Article184(3) of the Constitution for enforce-ment of Fundamental Rights.

2. Constitution Petitions under Article186(A).

Appellate Jurisdiction

1. Civil and criminal petitions under Article185(3) of the Constitution.

2. Civil and criminal appeals under Article185(2) (d)(e) and (f) of the Constitution,against the judgements and orders of:

(a) All the High Courts;

(b) The Rawalpindi Bench, Lahore HighCourt.

3. Appeals and petitions under Article203(F) of the Constitution arising out ofjudgements of the Federal Shariat Courtof Pakistan.

4. Civil petitions for leave to appeal underArticle 212(3) of the Constitution arisingout of judgements of the Federal ServiceTribunal as well as all the Provincial Ser-vice Tribunals.

2.4.2 The Branch Registry at Lahore

When the Main Registry was moved toRawalpindi in 1974, a Branch Registry was es-tablished at Lahore in a borrowed wing of theLahore High Court. Later, the Old State BankBuilding located at Nabha Road was acquiredand renovated to house the Branch Registry.The new building has three courtrooms, ChiefJustice Chamber, six other Chambers, library,conference room, Bar room and Registry Of-fices. A Rest House for lodging Judges duringCourt sessions has also been acquired, which issituated on Aikman Road GOR-I, Lahore.

All petitions instituted in the Branch Reg-istry are heard at Lahore, subject to any spe-cial order by the Court. Petitions, appeals andmiscellaneous applications are instituted in theBranch Registry arising out of judgements anddecisions of:—

1. Lahore High Court excluding those of theRawalpindi Bench;

2. The Federal Shariat Court Lahore;

3. The Federal Service Tribunal Lahore; and

4. The Punjab Service Tribunal.


All appeals by leave of the Court, or directappeals, presented in the Registry, are trans-ferred to the Main Registry for registration,printing of record and hearing.

2.4.3 The Branch Registry at Karachi

This Registry was established on 14th October,1957 in a borrowed wing of the High Courtof Sindh. The Registry remained housed, forsome time, in Karachi Development Author-ity (KDA) Rest House, Stadium Road opposite,PTV Centre and later the old State Bank build-ing situated at M.R. Kayani Road, was acquiredand renovated to house the Registry. This build-ing had initially been inaugurated by the fatherof the nation, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammed AliJinnah. The Registry shifted to its new locationon 20th February, 1997. The new building has 2courtrooms, Chief Justice Chamber and 5 otherChambers, besides a library, conference room,Bar room and Registry Offices. Rest House forlodging Judges during Court sessions has alsobeen acquired, which is situated in Bath Island,Clifton, Karachi.

All petitions instituted in the Branch Reg-istry are heard at Karachi, subject to any spe-cial order by the Court. All petitions in whichleave to appeal is granted are transferred to theMain Registry for registration as appeal. Sim-ilarly, direct appeals filed in the Registry arealso forwarded to the Main Registry. The workdone in the Branch Registry is as follows:—

Petitions, appeals and miscellaneous appli-cation are instituted in the Branch Registryarising out of judgements and decisions of:

1. Sindh High Court;

2. Federal Shariat Court Karachi;

3. Federal Service Tribunal Karachi; and

4. Sindh Service Tribunal.

As a special case, it has been provided thatthe cases which may be instituted and heardat the Branch Registry at Quetta may also be

instituted and heard at the Branch Registry atKarachi due to the shortage of Advocates-on-Record at Quetta.

2.4.4 The Branch Registry at Peshawar

The Registry at Peshawar was established on28th October, 1960 in a borrowed wing of thePeshawar High Court and is still housed inthe same building. A site (old Radio Pakistanbuilding) located on Khyber Road has beenacquired for the Registry and necessary reno-vation/repair work is underway. The foundationstone of the Peshawar Branch Registry buildingwas laid on 17th November 2001. A Rest Housefor lodging Judges during Court sessions hasalso been acquired, which is situated on Khy-ber Road, Peshawar.

All petitions instituted at the Branch Reg-istry are heard at Peshawar, subject to any spe-cial order by the Court. All appeals, by leave ofthe Court, are transferred to the main Registryfor registration, printing of record and hearing.

The following work is undertaken at theBranch Registry:—

Petitions and miscellaneous applications areinstituted at the Branch Registry. These peti-tions and applications arise out of judgementsand decisions of:

1. Peshawar High Court;

2. Federal Shariat Court, Peshawar;

3. Federal Service Tribunal, Peshawar; and

4. N.W.F.P Service Tribunal.

2.4.5 The Branch Registry at Quetta

The Registry was established on 19th Novem-ber, 1978 in a borrowed wing of the High Courtof Balochistan, and is still functioning there.Efforts are, however, being made to acquire apermanent site for the Registry. A Rest Housefor lodging Judges during Court sessions hasalso been acquired, which is situated on Share-e-Zarghoon, Quetta.


All petitions instituted in the Branch Reg-istry are heard at Quetta, subject to any specialorder. All petitions in which leave to appeal isgranted are transferred to the Main Registryfor registration as appeals. The work done inthe Branch Registry at Quetta is as follows:—

Petitions, appeals and miscellaneous appli-cations are instituted in the Branch Registryarising out of judgements and decisions of:

1. Balochistan High Court;

2. Federal Shariat Court, Quetta;

3. Federal Service Tribunal, Quetta; and

4. Balochistan Service Tribunal.


L to R (sitting): Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Mr. JusticeSheikh Riaz Ahmad (Chief Justice of Pakistan), Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq,Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal

L to R (standing): Mr. Justice Falak Sher, Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Mr. JusticeAbdul Hameed Dogar, Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal, Mr. Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza,Mr. Justice Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar

2.5 Supreme Court Composition 2002

2.5.1 The Chief Justices

Mr. Justice Irshad Hasan Khan 26-01-2000 06-01-2002 (Retired)Mr. Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri 07-01-2002 31-01-2002 (Retired)Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad 01-02-2002

2.5.2 The Judges of the Court

Mr. Justice Ch. Muhammad Arif 04-11-1997 09-01-2002 (Retired)Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh 04-11-1997Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui 04-02-2000Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry 04-02-2000Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq 04-02-2000Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas 04-02-2000Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal 28-04-2000Mr. Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah 28-04-2000Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal 28-04-2000Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza 28-04-2000Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar 28-04-2000Mr. Justice Tanvir Ahmed Khan 27-09-2000Mr. Justice Sardar Muhamamd Raza Khan 10-01-2002Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday 10-01-2002Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi 10-01-2002Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar 10-01-2002Mr. Justice Falak Sher 07-09-2002Mr. Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari 07-09-2002(Ad-hoc-Judge)

2.5.3 Ad-Hoc Members, Shariat Appellate Bench

Mr. Justice Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani 10-03-1997 (Relinquished on 24-05-2002)Mr. Justice Allama Dr. Khalid Mehmood 29-05-2002Mr. Justice Dr. Rashid Ahmed Jullundhari 29-05-2002

2.5.4 Attorney General for Pakistan

Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan 24-10-2001

2.5.5 Registrar

Mr. Muhammad Amin Farooqi 08-07-1999


2.6 Organisation Chart of the Supreme Court

Chief Justice of PakistanMr. Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad

Judges of the Supreme CourtMr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh

Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain SiddiqiMr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry

Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad FarooqMr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas

Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad AjmalMr. Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah

Mr. Justice Javed IqbalMr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza

Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed DogarMr. Justice Tanvir Ahmed Khan

Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza KhanMr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman RamdayMr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz AbbasiMr. Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar

Mr. Justice Falak SherMr. Justice Karamat Nazir BhandariMembers Shariat Appellate Bennch

Mr. Justice Dr. Allama Khalid MahmoodMr. Justice Dr. Rashid Ahmad Julundhri

RegistrarMr. Muhammad Amin Farooqi

Additional RegistrarMr. Budha Khan

Deputy RegistrarAdministration

Mr. Nurul Hussain Khan

Deputy RegistrarMiscellaneous

Mr. Sohail Ahmad Babar

Deputy RegistrarJudicial

Mr. Aziz Ahmad

Deputy RegistrarKarachi

Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Memon

Deputy RegistrarLahore

Mr. Pervez Ahmad

Assistant RegistrarAdministration

Mr. Muhammad Afzal

Assistant RegistrarGeneral/ProtocolMr. Khalid Naseem

Data ProcessingManager

Mr. Muhammad Aslam Lashari

Assistant RegistrarMiscellaneous

Mr. Talat Farooq Lone

Assistant RegistrarCivil

Mr. Muhammad Aslam

Assistant RegistrarPrinting

Mr. Muhammad Zulqarnain Shauq

Assistant RegistrarCriminal

Mr. Muhammad Iqbal

Assistant RegistrarImplementationMr. Yameen Sohail

Assistant RegistrarCoordination

Mr. Muhammad Bashir Janjua

Assistant RegistrarPeshawar

Mr. Zubair Sabir

Officer InchargeQuetta

Mr. Aurangzeb Khan


Chief Justice of Pakistan


2.7 Bio Data of Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan

Name: Mr. Justice Sheikh Riaz AhmadFather’s Name: Late Sh. Manzoor AhmadDate of birth: 9th March, 1938Educational Qualification: B.A., LL.B.Date of enrolment as pleader: 16th August, 1960Date of enrolment asan Advocate of High Court: 25th September, 1962Date of enrolment asan Advocate of Supreme Court: February 1968

• Practised at the Bar for 14 years and worked as Legal Advisor to the Standard CharteredBank, Family Planning Department, Government of West Pakistan, University of the Punjab,Taken-over industries, like Ravi Rayon, Ittehad Chemicals and WAPDA;

• Brought on the State list in 1963 to represent the Province of West Pakistan in the High Courtand the Supreme Court of Pakistan: conducted many cases on the constitutional, criminal aswell as civil sides;

• Worked as a Part-time Lecturer in the Punjab University Law College, Lahore from 1969 to1974;

• Appointed as Assistant Advocate General Punjab on 24th January, 1974;

• Worked exclusively in the Supreme Court of Pakistan from November, 1974 to May 1980and represented not only the Province of Punjab, but also other provinces and the FederalGovernment, while conducting cases of Constitutional importance;

• Appointed as Advocate General Punjab on 27th of May, 1980, i.e., the Principal Law Officerof the Government of Punjab: worked in this capacity up to 2nd of March, 1984;

• Ex-officio Chairman, Punjab Bar Council from 1980 to 1984;

• Appointed as a Judge of the Lahore High Court on 3rd of March, 1984;

• Member of the Punjab University Law College Committee since 1980;

• Appointed as Chairman, Board of Governors of the Quaid-e-Azam Law College;

• As a Judge of the Lahore High Court appointed as Chairman of Tribunal to hold an enquiryinto the Badshahi Mosque incident at Lahore;

• Chairman of the Enrolment Committee of the Punjab Bar Council for enrolment of Advocates;

• Member of the Committee constituted by the Government of Punjab to run the affairs ofIslamia College, Civil Lines, Lahore;

• Member of the Executive Council of Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad;


• Member of the Syndicate Agriculture University, Faisalabad;

• Member of the Board of Governors, Government College, Lahore;

• Member of the Syndicate of Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad;

• Member of the Judicial Commission appointed to probe into the cause of the air crash ofC-130 aircraft at Bahawalpur wherein General Zia-ul-Haq and others were killed;

• Appointed as Member of the Election Commission of Pakistan from 1993 to 1996;

• Held the office of Federal Secretary, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Government ofPakistan, Islamabad;

• Elevated as ad-hoc Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1995;

• Attended the Commonwealth Law Officers Conference at Malta in 1994;

• Attended the International Conference on the Criminal Law held in Rio de Generio, Brazil in1995;

• Appointed as Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court from June, 1997 to November, 1997;

• Elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in November, 1997;

• Attended Training Programme organised by the Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute,Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada in December 2001;

• Nominated as Chairman of Federal Review Board in June 2000;

• Participated in the World Bank Conference on Legal and Judicial Reforms at WashingtonD.C., U.S.A. in June 2000;

• Participated in the Fourth Worldwide Common Law Judiciary Conference held in Vancouver,British Columbia, Canada from May 5-9, 2001;

• Participated in the Conference on Judicial Independence (the Act of Settlement Conference)held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from May 9-11, 2001;

• Participated in the delegation from the Pakistan Judiciary on a study tour of London, Wash-ington, Philadelphia and San Francisco etc. in connection with the Legal Reforms Projectfor Strengthening of Institutional Capacity for Judicial and Legal Reforms organised by theAsian Development Bank from 27 April to 3 June, 2001;Participated in the delegation fromthe Pakistan Judiciary to the Peoples’ Republic of China from 2-10 September, 2001 to studythe Judicial System of China;

• Attended the Global Judges Symposium on Sustainable Development and Rule of Law heldat Johannesburg, South Africa from 18th to 20th August, 2002. During this visit, he alsoattended Envirolaw International Conference 2002 at Durban, South Africa.


• Participated in the 9th SAARC Law and 6th Chief Justices Conference held at Jaipur, Ra-jhastan, India from September 20 to September 22, 2002 to discuss Judicial Review and theEnvironment.

• Attended South Asian Judicial Colloquium on Access to Justice held at New Delhi, India,from 1st to 3rd November, 2002.

• Ex-officio Patron, Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;

• Appointed as the Chief Justice of Pakistan with effect from 1st February, 2002;

• Ex-officio Chairman of:

– Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, federal statutory institution responsible forsystematic reforms/modernisation of legal system and administration of justice;;

– National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee, which is a body responsible for the formu-lation of judicial policy and for strengthening the institutional capacity of the judiciary;

– Governing Body, Access to Justice Development Fund;

– the Supreme Judicial Council;

– the Federal Judicial Academy, an institution for training of judicial officers/court staff;

– Al-Mizan Foundation, a body for the welfare of the retired Judges of the SuperiorsCourts, retired/serving Judges of subordinate court and court staff.

– Supreme Judicial Council.


2.8 Judges of the Supreme Court

Mr. Justice Munir A. SheikhPassed LL.B from Punjab University in 1962; enrolled asAdvocate, High Court in 1964; served as Deputy Attor-ney General from 28th October 1981 to 10th March 1987.Elevated as Judge, Lahore High Court in 1987 and of theSupreme Court in 1997.

Mr.Justice Nazim Hussain SiddiquiPassed LL.B. from University of Hyderabad and LL.M.from University of Karachi; practised law from 1961to 1967. Appointed Civil Judge, promoted as SeniorCivil Judge, Addl.District and Sessions Judge. Served(twice) as Registrar, High Court of Sindh, SpecialJudge Customs (thrice), Special Judge Anti-Corruption,Banking Court, Labour Court; Chairman, CommercialCourt and Drug Court; Member, Supreme AppellateCourt/Tribunal, Appellate Insurance Tribunal; Member,Board of Governors, Agha Khan University, Indus ValleySchool; Chairman, IBA, Karachi. Elevated Judge, HighCourt of Sindh in 1992 and appointed Chief Justice in1999. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 4th Febru-ary, 2000; serving as Chairman, Central Zakat Counciland Member, Selection Board, Q.A. University. VisitedFrance.

Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad ChaudhryPassed LL.B. from Law College, Hyderabad University in1973; enrolled as Advocate in 1974, and Advocate of the HighCourt in 1976 and of the Supreme Court in 1985. ElectedMember, Bar Council in 1983. Appointed Advocate-Generalfor Balochistan in 1989. Elevated as Additional Judge, HighCourt of Balochistan in 1990 and confirmed in 1993. Ap-pointed as Chief Justice, High Court of Balochistan in 1999.Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court 4th February, 2000; Chair-man, Enrolment Committee of Pakistan Bar Council andChairman, Provincial Review Board for the Province ofBalochistan.


Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad FarooqPassed LL.B from University Law College, Lahore in 1960;enrolled as Advocate in 1961; elected Secretary, District BarAssociation, Abbottabad in 1962. Qualified Provincial CivilService (Judicial) Examination in 1967 and served as CivilJudge, Senior Civil Judge, and Additional District and SessionsJudge; promoted as District and Sessions Judge in 1977. At-tended the 1st Advanced Course in Shariah at the Institute ofShariah and Legal Profession, Islamabad and the Islamic Uni-versity, Madina, Saudi Arabia; Served as Registrar, PeshawarHigh Court from January 1988 to September 1989. Elevatedas Judge, Peshawar High Court in 1991. Attended course onAlternate Dispute Resolution in San Francisco (USA) in 1998.Appointed as Chief Justice, Peshawar High Court in May 1999.Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan on 4th Febru-ary, 2000.

Mr. Justice Rana BhagwandasPassed M.A. (Islamic Studies) in 1966, LL.B. in 1965 andLL.M. in 1981 from the University of Karachi, authored thesison “Law of Contempt of Court” and secured 2nd position inthe examination. Appointed Civil Judge and Magistrate 1stClass in 1967; promoted as District and Sessions Judge in1979; served as Judge, Sindh Labour Court, Karachi from 1980to 1983; Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sukkur from 1983 to1988; District and Sessions Judge, Khairpur, Karachi East andSukkur from 1988 to 1991; served as Member, Inspection Team,High Court of Sindh from 1991 to 1992 and Registrar, from1992 to 1994; elevated as Judge, High Court of Sindh in 1994;served as Election Tribunal, Member/Chairman Service Tri-bunal for Subordinate Judiciary in Sindh. Elevated as Judge,Supreme Court on 4th February 2000.


Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad AjmalPassed M.A. (Economics) in 1963; LL.B. from Law College,University of Peshawar in 1965; enrolled as a Pleader in1965, Advocate High Court in 1968 and Advocate SupremeCourt in 1976. Elected Secretary, High Court Bar Asso-ciation, Peshawar in 1975 and as Vice President of thesame Association in 1979. Visiting Lecturer at ProvincialCivil Service Academy, NWFP, Peshawar in 1972; LawOfficer, Assistant Advocate-General, Additional Advocate-General and Deputy Attorney-General from 1980 to 1991.Appointed as Additional Judge, Peshawar High Court in1991 and confirmed in 1993. Served as Chairman, NWFPBar Council Tribunal, Labour Appellate Tribunal and Mem-ber, Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Review Board,Election Tribunal and Syndicate, University of Engineeringand Technology, Peshawar. Appointed as Chief Justice, Pe-shawar High Court on 6th January, 2000. Elevated as Judge,Supreme Court on 28th April 2000.

Mr. Justice Syed Deedar Hussain ShahPassed LL.B. from Sindh University in 1965; enrolled as Ad-vocate in 1967 and as Advocate of the High Court in 1974.Elected Member, District Council and remained as suchfrom 1979 to 1983 and again from 1987 to 1991. Served asMember, Syndicate Sindh Agricultural University. Electedas Member, Provincial Assembly of Sindh for the period1988 to 1990 and again from 1990 to 1993. Elevated asJudge, High Court of Sindh in 1994. Appointed Chief Jus-tice, High Court of Sindh on 4th February, 2000. Elevatedas Judge, Supreme Court on 28th April, 2000.

Mr. Justice Javed IqbalPassed his M.A. (Political Science) in 1969 and LL.Bfrom Punjab University in 1968; Master of InternationalLaw (Australia); qualified in Islamic Fiqh and ShariahCourse from International Islamic University, Islamabad.Appointed as Member, National Industrial RelationsCommission in 1988. Elevated as Additional Judge, HighCourt of Balochistan in 1993 and confirmed in 1995. Ap-pointed as Chief Justice, High Court of Balochistan on4th February, 2000. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Courton 28th April, 2000.


Mr. Justice Hamid Ali MirzaPassed LL.B. from University of Sindh in 1961; enrolledas an Advocate in 1961; joined the Provincial JudicialService in 1973 as Senior Civil Judge and Assistant Ses-sions Judge; promoted as District and Sessions Judge in1983. Elevated as Judge, High Court of Sindh in 1995;nominated as Member, Election Commission of Pakistanin 1996. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 28th April2000.

Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed DogarPassed LL.B. from Law College, Punjab University in1969; enrolled as Advocate in 1970 and practised law for25 years. Elected as President, District Bar Association,Khairpur. Completed the 3rd Lawyer’s Course in Shariahfrom the International Islamic University, Islamabad in1991. Appointed as Judge, High Court of Sindh in April1995; elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 28th April,2000.

Mr. Justice Tanvir Ahmed KhanPassed LL.B. in 1965 and LL.M. in 1967 from UniversityCollege London (University of London); called to the Barfrom Hon’ble Society of Lincoln’s Inn. Remained as Sec-retary Pakistan Society, University of London from 1964to 1969. Participated in the World Peace Through LawConference in Holland in 1969. Enrolled as an Advocateof the High Court in 1970 and of the Supreme Court in1977; Visiting Lecturer in the University Law College, La-hore from 1972 to 1977. Elevated as Judge, Lahore HighCourt in 1988 and Supreme Court on 27th September,2000.


Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza KhanBorn in District Abbotabad in the year 1945; obtained M.A.in Economics from the Punjab University, while studying atthe Forman Christian College, Lahore; passed his LL.B. in1967; joined the PCS (Judicial Branch) in 1968; promotedas Senior Civil Judge in 1976, as Additional District andSessions Judge in 1979 and was then District and SessionsJudge, D.I. Khan; left for the USA 1965 to study the Amer-ican legal system; visited Tokyo, Japan in 1999 to attend acourse on “Corruption Among Public Officials”; elevated tothe Bench on 14th December, 1993 as Additional Judge, Pe-shawar High Court and confirmed as Judge Peshawar HighCourt in June, 1995; elevated as Chief Justice of PeshawarHigh Court for which he took the oath on 28th April, 2000;elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan andtook the oath on 10th January, 2002.

Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman RamdayBorn in Lahore on 13th January, 1945; studied at GordonCollege, Rawalpindi where he was President of the MinervaClub and Editor of the “Gordonian”; participated activelyin debates winning many prizes; was Secretary of the Pun-jab University Law Society and also Editor of Al-MIZAN ;joined the legal profession as an Advocate in 1969 and in1976; was appointed Assistant Advocate General for theprovince of Punjab; elevated to the Bench of the LahoreHigh Court in October, 1988 and as Judge Supreme Courtof Pakistan on 10th January, 2002.

Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz AbbasiBorn in Murree in the year 1943; graduated from thePunjab University and passed his LL.B. in 1969; obtaineddiploma in labour laws in 1973; joined the legal professionin 1973 and became an Advocate of the Supreme Courtin 1981; was appointed Assistant Advocate General in1985; taught different law subjects in many respected in-stitutions from 1987 to 1991; was elevated as Judge ofthe Lahore High Court in 1992; was Chariman of theTribunal constituted under Anti-Terrorist Act, 1977; waselevated as Judge Supreme Court of Pakistan on 10-01-2002.


Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad KhokharBorn in Lahore in the year 1945; after obtaining his LL.B.degree he joined the Bar and practised for 21 years; wasDeputy Attorney General (Senior) from 24-07-1990 to 23-07-1990; was elevated as Judge Lahore High Court on 10-12-1996; served as Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice andHuman Rights from 01-01-2000 to 09-01-2002; during hiscareer, he has visited many countries—People’s Republic ofChina, U.K., Canada, U.S.A., Singapore and Manila—onstudy tours; on 10-01-2002, he was elevated as Judge of theSupreme Court of Pakistan.

Mr. Justice Falak SherBorn in September, 1943; he graduated from the Punjab Uni-versity (Government College, Lahore) in 1964 and passed hisLL.B. in 1966; is a Barrister-at-Law from the Gray’s Inn andwas called to the Bar in England in 1972; joined the legal pro-fession in 1966 becoming an Advocate of the High Court in1969 and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1975;was appointed Legal Adviser to the British Ministry of Healthand Social Security, but gave up the office to pursue legal prac-tice; taught at the Punjab University Law College for over adecade and has also been a guest speaker at the Administra-tive Staff College, Lahore; was elevated as Judge of the LahoreHigh Court on 11th March, 1987 and as Chief Justice of theLahore High Court on 14-07-2000; on 6th September, 2002, hewas elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Mr. Justice Karamat Nazir BhandariBorn at Eimanabad, District Gujranwala on 18th August,1941; graduated from Government College, Lahore in 1961 andobtained his LL.B. degree from Punjab University Law Col-lege in 1963; enrolled as Advocate West Pakistan High Courtin 1965 and as Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1971,during this period, he held different offices within the Bar Asso-ciation and was appointed Assistant Advocate General, Punjabin 1979; has taught law courses and acted as examiner for vari-ous law subjects; was appointed as Additional Judge of LahoreHigh Court in 1994 and as Judge of the Lahore High Court in1996; was elevated as Ad-hoc Judge of the Supreme Court ofPakistan on 7th September, 2002.


Mr. Justice Allama Dr. Khalid MahmoodBorn on 17th October, 1925; graduated from the Punjab Uni-versity in 1942 and obtained Masters degrees from the sameUniversity in Arabic, Islamic Studies and Persian in the years1946, 1951 and 1953 respectively; obtained a Masters degreein Theology in 1969 from the University of Birmingham andwent on to complete his doctoral degree (Ph.D.) from the sameUniversity in the same discipline; has been head of the Arabicand Persian departments in institutions in Pakistan as well asin the United Kingdom; has a number of books to his credit,among these are: Athaar al-Tanzeel, Athaar al-Hadeeth, Athaaral-Tashree and Athaar al-Ihsan; was elevated to the SupremeCourt of Pakistan in the year 2002.

Mr. Justice Dr. Rashid Ahmad JullundhriBelongs to Lahore; graduated from Jaami‘a Abbasiyya, Univer-sity of Bahawalpur and obtained his Masters degree in Arabicfrom al-Azhar University, Cairo; obtained his doctoral degree(Ph.D.) in 1968 from the University of Cambridge, England;has held the position of Professor at the Allama Iqbal OpenUniversity and the University of Balochistan, Quetta and theposition of Director at the Institute of Islamic Research, Islam-abad and the Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore; from 1983to 1985, he was Senior Fulbright Fellow at the Universities ofChicago and Harvard in the United States of America. He hasa number of papers and books to his credit, among these ishis dissertation on Qur’anic Exegesis and Classical Tafsir ; waselevated to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the year 2002.


THIS PAGE BLANK


Significant Judgements of the Supreme CourtDuring the Year 2002


THIS PAGE BLANK


3 SIGNIFICANT JUDGEMENTS OF THE COURT DUR-

ING THE YEAR 2002

The judgements listed below are summarised versions of the complete judgements. Some ofthe detailed judgements are available on the website of the Supreme Court of Pakistan,http://www.scp.com.pk.1

3.1 Sheikh Rashid Ahmad v. Majid Nizami, Editor-in-Chief, The Na-tion and Nawa-e-Waqt and Another (PLD 2002 SC 514)

Present: Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J.,Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal, and SyedDeedar Hussain Shah, JJ.

The judgement elaborates the meaning ofArticle 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan inthe context of the enlargement of the free-dom of the Press after §4 of the Constitution(Fourth Amendment) Act (LXXI of 1995) sub-stituted the words “commission of” for the word“defamation.”

Mian Muhammad Ajmal, J.—The appellantinstituted a suit for recovery of Rs.3,00,00,000as damages against the respondents for publish-ing defamatory statements of one Mr. NaveedMalik in their dailies “The Nation” and “Nawa-e-Waqt” on 22nd, 23rd, 25th, 30th July and 2ndof August, 1987. The suit was contested by therespondents on both legal and factual premises.The suit was transferred by the Lahore HighCourt from the Court of Senior Civil Judge,Lahore to the Court of District Judge, Lahore,who recorded evidence of the parties and af-ter hearing the learned counsel for the parties,partly decreed the suit vide his judgment dated9-6-1991 directing the respondents to pay a sumof Rs. 30,00,000 as damages to the appellant.Feeling aggrieved, both the parties filed appealsbefore the Lahore High Court. The appellant’sappeal was for enhancement of the quantum ofdamages, while that of the respondents was forsetting aside the judgment of the trial Judge

and for the dismissal of the suit. A DivisionBench of the Lahore High Court comprisingMr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh and Mr. JusticeKhalid Paul Khawaja heard both the appealsand recorded dissenting judgments dated 10-11-1994. Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh partly ac-cepted the appeal of the appellant and modifiedthe decree passed by the trial Court. A decreefor Rs. 30,00,000 was passed against defendantNo.1 and a decree for Rs. 20,00,000 was passedagainst defendant No.2. As such the decretalamount was enhanced from Rs. 30,00,000 toRs. 50,00,000. Mr. Justice Khalid Paul Khawajadismissed the suit of the appellant alongwith hisR. F. A. No. 164 of 1991 and accepted R. F. A.No. 106 of 1991 tiled by the respondents. Dueto a difference of opinion between the learnedJudges of the Division Bench, the matter wasreferred to the Chief Justice in terms of section98 of the Code of Civil Procedure for nomina-tion of a third Judge to express his opinion.

The reference was sent to Mr. Justice IjazNisar. The two points of reference were:

(a) Whether the fundamental right of free-dom of the Press granted by Article 19of the Constitution of the Islamic Repub-lic of Pakistan, 1973 provides protectionto appellants in relation to publication ofnews items in question against any claimfor damages.

1For research and reference the usual reporters are to be consulted.


(b) If the answer to the above point is inthe negative, whether in the facts and cir-cumstances of the case the plaintiff evenotherwise is not entitled to claim damagesfor publication of the news items by the ap-pellants.

The learned Judge vide his judgment dated27-3-1996 concurred with the findings arrivedat by Mr. Justice Khalid Paul Khawaja, andheld that the suit titled by the appellant mer-ited dismissal as did his appeal for enhancementof damages. Accordingly, he dismissed the ap-peal. The appeal filed by the respondents wasaccepted, and the judgment and decree passedby the trial Judge in favour of the appellant wasset aside.2

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed thepresent appeals under Article 185(2) of theConstitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973. An objection raised by the respondentsabout the appeal being time-barred was consid-ered by the Court and as the two appeals arosefrom the same judgement, delay with respect toCivil Appeal No. 1952 of 1996 was condoned.

Learned counsel for the appellant submittedthat the Referee Judge could not pronounce thejudgment, he should have referred the matterback to the Division Bench, after recording hisopinion on the points referred to him, and hecould not go beyond the reference. Further, ashis client’s prestige and reputation were badlybruised, his suit should be decreed. In addition,he contended that the amended Article 19 of theConstitution did not confer unbridled powerson the Press to publish any false or defama-tory material in the newspaper to damage thereputation of any citizen of the country. It wasalso argued that the material was maliciouslypublished by the respondents in order to ma-lign and humiliate the appellant in the eyes ofpublic-at-large.

Learned counsel for the respondents con-tended that the statements issued by Mr.

Naveed Malik were published in the newspaperin good faith in public interest and there was nomalice in such publication nor was such malicealleged in the suit nor evidence was producedto that effect. He maintained that the appellantdid not even contradict any of these statementswhen such an opportunity was offered to him bythe respondents. Though the allegations againstthe appellant were made by Mr. Naveed Malikand not by the respondents, he was exoneratedby the appellant and the respondents were suedfor damages for publishing Mr. Naveed Malik’sstatements. The statements by Mr. Naveed Ma-lik were made in good faith, as is customary forpublic figures, and no damage was caused to thereputation of the appellant. Learned Counselargued that the Press has been provided protec-tion under Article 19 of the Constitution as theword “defamation” in the Article was replacedby the words “commission of” through section4 of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act(LXXI of 1975). This amendment is not with-out any significance, as after substitution of theword “defamation” by words “commission of,”the scope of freedom of Press has been enlarged.

After considering these arguments, theCourt, distinguishing the present case from theauthority cited, did not accept the argumentthat the learned Referee Judge could not pro-nounce the judgment and could not go beyondthe points referred to him. The Court alsoobserved that where statements and counter-statements are made by political leaders andthese are usually published in the newspapersin good faith and in the interest of the pub-lic, the presumption of malice is excluded andburden of proving malice in fact lies on theplaintiff. The allegations made by Mr. NaveedMalik were published in the newspapers, whichcould only be controverted by the appellantas he alone had knowledge of the correctnessor otherwise or the allegations made againsthim. Since he refused to issue any contradiction,

2The detailed reasoning of the learned Judge is recorded in the judgement of the Supreme Court.


the statements were to be deemed correct andthe respondents could not be held responsible.In the wrong of defamation, the law presumesmalice in the sense of a wrongful act done inten-tionally by publishing defamatory matter, butwhere there is a lawful excuse for the publica-tion of such matters, as in the case of privi-leged communication or of fair comments upona matter of public interest, the onus is upon theplaintiff to establish the fact of malice in orderto maintain the action. The burden of provingexpress malice both by extrinsic and intrinsicevidence lies on the plaintiff to show that thepublications were actuated by some indirect orimproper motive.

Mr. Naveed Malik appeared as D.W.6, andhe not only reiterated the allegations made inhis statements, but also owned the allegationsmade by him, which were published in the press.In such circumstances, it was necessary thatMr. Naveed Malik be arrayed as a party, as thecause of action arose from the publication ofhis statements. The exoneration of Mr. NaveedMalik by the plaintiff suggests that he let freehis political rival, but targeted the respondentswho published the statements in good faith andin public interest. The respondents had givenample opportunities to the plaintiff to rebut orcontradict the allegations but that offer was notaccepted by the plaintiff.

The Court elaborated that Article 19 of theConstitution guarantees the freedom of Press,

yet it does not give licence to the Press topublish any material that may harm or causedamage to the reputation of a person, and suchfreedom is subject to legitimate restrictions im-posed under the law. Although the scope offreedom of the Press has been enlarged, afterthe omission of the word “defamation,” it doesnot grant a license to the Press to publish ma-terial that may harm or cause damage to thereputation, honour and prestige of a person.As the law implies legitimate restrictions, thePress is not free to publish anything they de-sired. The Press is bound to take full care andcaution before publishing any material, and tokeep themselves within the bounds and ambitof the provisions of the Article.

It was held that “[i]n such peculiar circum-stances, we are of the view that the plaintiff hasfailed to substantiate his claim by not proving[ ] actual malice on the part of the respondents.Accordingly, both [ ] appeals fail and the suitof the appellant stands dismissed. There shallbe no order as to costs. Before parting with thejudgment, we would like to observe again thatthe Press is not free to publish anything whichis prejudicial to the interest of any person orwhich may harm the reputation of anybody,and it must take due care and caution beforepublishing any such matter in the press and itshould verify the correctness of such mattersfrom the concerned quarters.”

3.2 United Bank Limited v. Farooq Brothers and Others(PLD 2002 SC 800)

In the Supreme Court of Pakistan(Shariat Review Jurisdiction).

Present: Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad,C.J., Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Mr. JusticeQazi Muhammad Farooq, Mr. Justice Dr. Al-lama Khalid Mahmood, Mr. Justice Dr. AllamaRashid Ahmed Jullundhari.

Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J.—The United BankLtd. filed Civil Shariat Review Petition No. 1of 2000 under Article 188 of the Constitutionof the Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeking re-view of judgement dated 23rd December, 1999passed by the Shariat Appellate Bench of theSupreme Court in Shariat Appeals No. 11 to 19


of 1992 whereby judgement dated 14th Novem-ber, 1991 of the Federal Shariat Court was af-firmed and it was declared that Riba in all itsforms and manifestations is prohibited by theHoly Quran and the Sunnah.

In the year 2001, two miscellaneous applica-tions (No. 1480 & 1485 of 2001) were filed in theabove review petition with a composite prayerfor suspension of the operation of the judgementand extension of time for its implementation.After hearing the Federal Government and theparties concerned the Supreme Court extendedthe period for implementation of the judgementtill 30th June, 2002.

Civil Shariat Review Petition No. 1 of 2001was then filed by Muhammad Iqbal Zahid andothers seeking review of the order dated 14thJune, 2001 with the prayer that the said or-der be reviewed and recalled and the FederalGovernment be directed to promulgate the Or-dinance on Riba, which is stated to have beenframed to bring all laws in conformity with Is-lamic Injunctions.

At the commencement of the hearing ob-jection to the constitutionality of the appoint-ment of Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmood and Dr.Rashid Ahmed Jullundhri, ad hoc members ofthe Shariat Appellate Bench, was raised. It wasurged that their inclusion in the Shariat Ap-pellate Bench was unconstitutional and illegal.The Court observed that the question of ap-pointment of ad hoc members of the Benchcannot be raised collaterally. Furthermore, boththe learned ad hoc members, being recognisedscholars, were on the panel of Ulema and theirappointment met the requirements of Article203F(3)(b) of the Constitution. The objectionwas repelled.

In the course of the hearing of these reviewpetitions, the Court had the advantage of hear-ing the arguments of the learned counsel fromboth sides and also those of Mr. MakhdoomAli Khan, learned Attorney General for Pak-istan. After hearing the arguments, the Courtobserved that the Federal Shariat Court had

not at all dealt with the question of the applica-bility or otherwise of the prohibition of Riba tonon-Muslims, yet surprisingly the Shariat Ap-pellate Bench proceeded to hold that the prohi-bition applied to non-Muslims, which was notan issue before it. On this score also, the Courtobserved, the Shariat Appellate Bench ought tohave remanded the case to the Federal ShariatCourt to determine this question.

It was urged before the Court that the term‘Qarz’ is confined to a type of transaction thatis made in the name of Allah in the form of“Sadaqa,” “Khairaat,” i.e., almsgiving. It wasalso argued before the Court that the presentsystem of bank accounts and investments in var-ious schemes of the government does not involveany transaction of loan, debt or Riba and dealswith investment simpliciter. While entering intosuch transactions, the investor has no compul-sion and he acts voluntarily in investing hismoney for purposes of security as well as earn-ing of profit and, therefore, the receipt of profitby such a person in the circumstances, partic-ularly when there is no element of exploitation(‘zulm’), which is a sine qua non in a transac-tion of Riba, cannot be termed as Riba. In thisbehalf, the cases of pensioners and widows werebrought to the notice of the Court, and it wasurged that the continuance of the present daybanking system and the government sponsoredsavings schemes as well as the transactions thatlack the ingredient of ‘Qarz’ involving ‘zulm’(exploitation and oppression) as envisaged bythe Holy Quran and the Sunnah, was in thelarger interest and welfare of the people. It wasalso urged that in case the judgement is imple-mented, it would lead to chaos and anarchy inthe country and a duty is cast on an IslamicState to take all steps that are necessary in thepublic interest and the welfare of the people toavoid such chaos and anarchy.

The Court, quoting the Shariat AppellateBench at length on the issue of fiscal ques-tions relating to inflation and indexation, ob-served that in the face of the observations of


the Shariat Appellate Bench and the findingof the Federal Shariat Court on the questionof indexation, the Shariat Appellate Bench, be-fore striking down any law, ought to have re-manded the case to the Federal Shariat Courtto decide the issues of inflation and indexa-tion afresh, which according to the Bench itselfrequired elaborate discussion, research, furtherstudy and in-depth analysis of the papers andresolutions of international seminars. In thiscontext, the Court also noted that the def-initions of “Ra’sul Maal,” i.e., the principalamount, which is liable to be returned in atransaction of “Qarz,” must be redefined keep-ing in view the scope of its intrinsic value inrelation to inflation so that there should be noexploitation as regards the equities of the par-ties.

The Court noted the following contentionsof Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque before the FederalShariat Court:

(i) That the Banks in Pakistan are workingwithin the framework of Banking instru-ments prescribed by the State Bank, withthe approval of Council of Islamic Ideol-ogy, as valid Islamic Instruments.

(ii) That there is considerable juristic opinionavailable to the fact that an increase tooffset inflation has legal justification andcannot be counted as riba; and

(iii) That there is juristic opinion available tothe fact that bank interest does not fall inthe category of prohibited riba (interest).According to his opinion, banks partici-pate in the procedural processes of the so-ciety/community, make productive labourpossible, increase social wealth, and takeonly a fraction of the profit that accruesto them and this is not riba.

These contentions, the Court observed, werenot resolved on the ground that the learnedcounsel who had raised the same did not sendthe texts in support thereof, and in this view of

the matter, it was all the more necessary for theShariat Appellate Bench to have remanded thecases to the Federal Shariat Court for giving aclear verdict after considering all the relevantmaterial.

In conclusion, the Court observed, that acase for review of the impugned judgement wasmade out as there were errors floating on thesurface of the record. The Court found no forcein the contention that the submissions madein support of the review petition amount to aplea for rehearing of the case. Consequently, theCourt had the following to say in paragraphs 18to 20 of the judgement:

18. In the light of the foregoing discus-sion, we are of the considered view that theissues involved in these cases require to be re-determined after thorough and elaborate re-search and comparative study of the financialsystems which are prevalent in the contempo-rary Muslim countries of the world. Since theFederal Shariat Court did not give a definitefinding on all the issues involved the determi-nation whereof was essential to the resolutionof the controversy involved in these cases, itwould be in the fitness of things if the matter isremanded to the Federal Shariat Court, whichunder the Constitution is enjoined upon to givea definite finding on all the issues falling withinits jurisdiction.

19. Resultantly, Civil Shariat Review Peti-tion No. 1 of 2000 filed by the United Bank Ltdis allowed, the judgement dated 23rd December,1999 passed by the Shariat Appellate Benchof this Court in Shariat Appeals No. 11 to 19of 1992 and the judgement dated 14th Novem-ber, 1991 of the Federal Shariat Court passed inShariat Petitions No. 42-I + 45-I of 1991 etc. areset aside and the cases are remitted to the Fed-eral Shariat Court for determination afresh inthe light of the contentions of the parties notedabove and the observations made, which aregermane to the controversy. Besides the pointsraised before this Court, the parties would be atliberty to raise any other issue relevant to these


cases and the Federal Shariat Court may also,on its own motion, take into consideration anyother aspect which may arise or may be foundrelevant for determination of the issues involvedherein.

20. Before parting with the Order, we wouldlike to record our deep appreciation for the valu-able assistance rendered by the learned counselfor the parties and the learned Attorney Gen-eral for Pakistan and their associates.

The Judgement was announced on 24thJune, 2002 at Islamabad.

3.3 Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Ameer Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan and othersv. General Pervez Musharraf, Chief Executive and others(PLD 2002 Supreme Court 853)

A number of pertitions were filed under Article184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan challeng-ing the legality of the Referendum Order, 2002with the common prayer that the ReferendumOrder be declared illegal, ultra vires the Con-stitution and violative of the law laid down inSyed Zafar Ali Shah v. General Prvaiz Mushar-raf, Chief Executive of Pakistan.3 The Courtdisposed of the petitions on 27th April, 2002through a Short Order. The concluding portionof the Short Order was reproduced in the de-tailed judgement of the Court,4 and is quotedbelow from the detailed judgement.

Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C. J., Munir A.Sheikh, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, QaziMuhammad Farooq, Mian Muhammad Ajmal,Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, Hamid Ali Mirza,Abdul Hameed Dogar and Muhammad NawazAbbasi, JJ.

Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C. J.—The above petitionswere disposed of on 27th April, 2002 througha Short Order. The concluding portion of theShort Order is worded thus:—

8. The above Constitution petitions havebeen titled in this Court under Article 184 (3)of the Constitution challenging the legality andvires of the Referendum Order on the Con-stitutional plane as well as on the touchstoneof the verdict of this Court in Syed Zafar Ali

Shah’s case. Dr. Farooq Hasan, learned Advo-cate Supreme Court appearing in support ofConstitution Petition No. 15 of 2(102) vehe-mently contended that despite the validation ofthe Proclamation of Emergency and the Pro-visional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999. the1973 Constitution still remains the supreme lawof the land as laid down in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’scase, and the powers of the present Govern-ment are strictly circumscribed in the afore-said case. According to the learned counsel, atpresent the grundnorm of the country beingthe 1973 Constitution and the judgment of thisCourt in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case, the viresof the Referendum Order have to be examinedon the touchstone of the relevant provisions ofthe Constitution as well as the law laid downin Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case. In all these pe-titions, a common prayer has been made thatthe Referendum Order be declared illegal, ultravires the Constitution and violative of the lawlaid down in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case.

9. In Constitution Petition No. 15 of 2002filed by Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Amir Jamaat-i-Islami and Constitution Petition No. 22 of 2002filed by Syed Zafar Ali Shah, a composite, dec-laration has been sought to the effect:

• That the Chief Executive has unlawfullyoccupied and taken over the position of

3PLD 2000 SC 869.4PLD 2002 SC 853.


the President of the Islamic Republic ofPakistan in violation of the judgment ofthis Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case;

• That Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Tarar stillcontinues to be the President notwith-standing the Chief Executive’s Order 3 of2001;

• That writ in the nature of quo warrantobe issued against the Chief Executive: and

• That the holding of referendum for elec-tion to the office of the President be de-clared illegal, unconstitutional and viola-tive of the judgment of this Court in SyedZafar Ali Shah’s case.

10. Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Ad-vocate Supreme Court, Mr. Abdul HafeezPirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Courtand Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, AdvocateSupreme Court, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the Federation and Mr. MakhdoomAli Khan, learned Attorney-General for Pak-istan appearing on Court’s notice, have urgedthe following points:—

(i) The controversy raised in these petitionshas to be looked into with reference toa long history of the constitutional crisesPakistan has been going through eversince its coming into existence and theground realities prevailing in the countryparticularly in the aftermath of the eventsof 12th October, 1999, as recognised andvalidated by this Court in Syed Zafar AliShah’s case;

(ii) General Pervez Musharraf is firmly com-mitted to and bound by the direction ofthis Court given in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’scase regarding the holding of elections inOctober, 2002, which is clearly establishednot only from his statements within andoutside the country, but also from the pro-visions of Article 4(2) of the ReferendumOrder;

(iii) The holding of elections in October, 2002as promised and reiterated before thisCourt by the learned counsel for the Fed-eration and the learned Attorney-General.for Pakistan is a step in aid of the tran-sition or the transformation, as it wouldlead to the road towards democracy andrebuilding of the institutions of the State,which is a great need of the hour;

(iv) The transition and transformation of anextra-Constitutional set up into a demo-cratic dispensation is the most troubledpath and the gap cannot be covered withjust one jump;

(v) General Pervez Musharraf, eversince theassumption of power, has been perform-ing his functions and duties in accordancewith the mandate given to him by thisCourt in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case andhas been striving to transform the Armyrule into a democratic set up as envisagedin the aforesaid case;

(vi) It has been explicitly stated in the Pream-ble to the Referendum Order that it hasbeen made and promulgated in pursuanceof the Proclamation of Emergency of the14th day of October, 1999 and the P.C.O.No. 1 of 1999 and in exercise of all otherpowers enabling the Chief Executive andPresident of the Islamic Republic of Pak-istan in that behalf;

(vii) In the peculiar constitutional history ofPakistan, referendum is a valid means ofelection to the office of President in Pak-istan. It has also been resorted to in var-ious other countries for the purpose. Areferendum is nothing but an appeal tothe people of Pakistan, who are the polit-ical sovereign of the country;

(viii) A nexus between the law, i.e., the Ref-erendum Order and the objects intendedto be achieved through it, i.e., the de-clared objectives of the Chief Executiveand transition and transformation to the


democratic set up, is clearly establishedin the present case. The Preamble to theReferendum Order, inter alia, provides asunder:

And whereas, since at that juncture theinstitutions of State stood seriously weak-ened and the democratic and moral authorityof the Government of the day stood gravelyeroded, the Chief Executive of Pakistan an-nounced a 7–Point Agenda on 17th October,1999, stating his objectives to rebuild na-tional confidence and morale; strengthen theFederation, remove inter-provincial dishar-mony and restore national cohesion; revivethe economy and restore investor confidence;ensure law and order and dispense speedyjustice; depoliticize State institutions; devo-lution of power to the grass-roots level; andensure swift and across the board account-ability;

And whereas the Chief Executive of Pak-istan has emphasised that, inter alia, appro-priate measures will be taken for good gover-nance, economic revival, poverty alleviationand political restructuring;

And whereas it is imperative to consolidatethe measures taken by the Chief’ Executiveof Pakistan for the reconstruction of the in-stitution of State for establishing genuine andsustainable democracy to ensure good gover-nance for an irreversible transfer of power tothe people of Pakistan;

And whereas it is essential to combat ex-tremism and sectarianism for the security ofthe State and tranquillity of society;

And whereas it is in the supreme nationalinterest to obtain a democratic mandate fromthe people of Pakistan through Referendumfor General Pervez Musharraf to continue tobe the President of Pakistan.

(ix) The reform agenda launched by the ChiefExecutive, being in the interest, welfareand prosperity of the people of Pakistan,its achievement and continuity are essen-tial for the public good;

(x) The Referendum Order does not, in anymanner, derogate from the parametersof the extra-Constitutional measure val-idated by this Court in Syed Zafar AliShah’s case nor is it tantamount to con-verting the parliamentary system envis-aged by the Constitution into presidentialform of Government in view of the factthat elections to the National and Provin-cial Assemblies and the Senate of Pakistanwould be held in October 2002 in accor-dance with the Constitutional scheme andgovernments at the Federal and Provinciallevels would be formed accordingly. TheReferendum Order is intra vires the pow-ers given to the Chief Executive by meansof the judgment of this Court in Syed Za-far Ali Shah’s case;

(xi) The Referendum Order has not the ef-fect of amending the 1973 Constitution,therefore, its legality and vires cannot beexamined on the touchstone of the verdictof this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s caseand the constitutional provisions relatingto holding of referendum;

(xii) Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Tarar cannot bedeemed to be continuing to hold the officeof the President of the Islamic Republic ofPakistan and the relief in the nature of is-suance of writ of quo warranto prayed forin Constitution Petitions Nos. 15 and 22 of2002 and against the assumption of officeof President by General Pervez Mushar-raf under Chief Executive’s Order No. 3of 2001, cannot be granted in these pro-ceedings for the following reasons:

(a) The outgoing President continued inoffice under the P.C.O. 1 of 1999 andwas part of the present Governmentfor nearly less than two years;

(b) He had been performing the functionsand duties of the office of President onand in accordance with the advice ofthe Chief Executive of Pakistan under


the new dispensation and was a partyto various legislative and executive ac-tions of the present Government;

(c) He did not launch any protest whenhe ceased to hold office;

(d) After he ceased to hold the office ofPresident, he accepted the retirementbenefits of that office and thus acqui-esced in his ceasing to hold the office;

(e) The petition suffers from laches inas-much as the former President left theoffice on 20th June, 2001 whereas QaziHussain Ahmed filed Constitution Pe-tition No. 15 of 2002 in this Court on2nd April, 2002, i.e., after a lapse ofabout 10 months;

(f) The issuance of writ of quo warrantois discretionary in nature and as heldin Sabir Ali Shah’s case (PLD 1994SC 738), such a writ cannot be issuedin collateral proceedings.

11. We have heard the learned counsel forthe parties at great length. In view of the pecu-liar facts and circumstances of the present case,we are not persuaded to hold that a case forissuing the writ of quo warranto prayed for inConstitution Petitions Nos. 15 and 22 of 2002has been made out. We, therefore, hold that theChief Executive’s Orders Nos. 2 and 3 of 2001have been validly issued by the Chief Executiveof Pakistan in exercise of his powers under theProclamation of Emergency of the 14th day ofOctober, 1999 and the Provisional ConstitutionOrder No. 1 of 1999 as validated by this Court

in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case. Consequently,these petitions qua the issuance of writ of quowarranto are dismissed.

12. As far as the legal status of the Referen-dum Order is concerned, suffice it to say that ithas been issued by the Chief Executive and thePresident of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan inexercise of the powers conferred upon him bythis Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case whilevalidating the Proclamation of Emergency ofthe 14th day of October, 1999 and the Provi-sional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999 and ithas rightly been conceded by the learned coun-sel for the respondents that the said Order doesnot have the effect of amending the Constitu-tion of Pakistan.

13. As regards the grounds of challenge tothe consequences flowing from the holding ofreferendum under the Referendum Order, ap-parently these questions are purely academic,hypothetical and presumptive in nature and arenot capable of being determined at this junc-ture. Accordingly, we would not like to go intothese questions at this stage and leave the sameto be determined at the proper forum at the ap-propriate time. Since no relief can be granted inthese proceedings at this stage, the Constitu-tion petitions are disposed of being premature.

14. In view of our findings in the above peti-tions, no order is required to be passed in CivilPetition for Leave to Appeal No. 512 of 2002,which is disposed of accordingly.

The Court then provided detailed reasonsfor this Short Order.5

3.4 Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan v. Federation of Pak-istan and others (PLD 2002 SC 939)

Constitution Petitions Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, and 12 of2002, decided on 10th April, 2002.

Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J., Qazi Muham-mad Farooq, Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Syed

5The detailed reasons may be examined in PLD 2002 SC 853, 872.


Deedar Hussain Shah and Abdul HameedDogar, JJ.

Sh. Riaz Ahmad C.J.—The appointment ofthree Judges of the Lahore High Court, witheffect from January 10, 2002, was challengedthrough a number of petitions.6

The facts pertain to the number of avail-able vacancies, details of appointments, se-niority position of the elevated Judges andthe incidence of supersession. The assertionsprominently highlighted in the petitions werethat though the names of Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Mr. Justice MuhammadNawaz Abbasi and Mr. Justice Faqir Muham-mad Khokhar appear at Serial Nos. 3, 4 and 13respectively of the seniority list of the Judgesof the Lahore High Court, Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Mr. Justice Muham-mad Nawaz Abbasi superseded the Chief Jus-tice and the senior puisne Judge of the LahoreHigh Court and Mr. Justice Faqir MuhammadKhokhar, who was the Secretary Law Justiceand Human Rights Division at the crucial time,not only superseded the Chief Justice and thesenior puisne Judge, but also eight other Judgessenior to him.

The appointments were challenged mainlyon the following grounds:—

(a) In view of the well-established Constitu-tional convention and the law laid down bythis Court,7 the concerned Constitutionalfunctionaries are bound to elevate Judgesfrom the High Court to the Supreme Courton the basis of their seniority and in theevent of departure from the principle of se-niority they are obliged to record reasonswhich are justiciable. The appointments ofJudges from the Lahore High Court have

been made in violation of the principle ofseniority.

(b) The recommendations made by the judi-cial consultee and the reasons recorded byhim as well as the President of Pakistanfor appointing junior Judges of the LahoreHigh Court and ignoring senior Judges havenot been disclosed or communicated to thesuperseded Judges, which shows that theprocess was not transparent.

(c) The appointments militate against the doc-trine of legitimate expectancy, enunciatedin the aforesaid two cases, on which theprinciple of seniority is essentially based.The Chief Justice and other senior Judgesof a High Court have a legitimate ex-pectancy to be appointed as Judges of theSupreme Court according to their respec-tive seniority and any deviation therefromrenders the appointment invalid and uncon-stitutional.

(d) The appointments have introduced an arbi-trary practice of “pick and choose,” whichis fraught with disastrous consequences as,on the one hand, it will undermine theindependence of judiciary, create an anar-chic situation within the judiciary, lead toan unhealthy competition among Judges ofthe High Court to achieve coveted positionsand out of turn elevations to the SupremeCourt, and, on the other, lead to the pub-lic perception of the Government havingpacked the Supreme Court with pliant andpliable Judges of its own liking.

(e) The fundamental rights of “equality be-fore law” and “equal protection of law” ofthe superseded Judges have been violatedas they have been ignored and superseded

6Four Judges were appointed vide notification No. 1(4)/2001-All dated 26th December, 2001, issued by the Gov-ernment of Pakistan Law, Justice and Human Rights Division. “The appointment of Mr. Justice Sardar MuhammadRaza has not been challenged for the reason that being the Chief Justice he was the most senior amongst the Judgesof the Peshawar High Court.” PLD 2002 SC 939, 947, 948.

7In Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 324) [hereinafter referred to as the Judges’ case] andMalik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 161) [hereinafter referred to as Asad Ali’s case].


without affording them an opportunity ofbeing heard.

(f) The superseded Judges have been disqual-ified from elevation in future and if ele-vated in future they will rank junior in theSupreme Court to the junior Judges whohave superseded them.

(g) The impugned notification is illegal to theextent of two vacancies which had occurredafter the retirement of the Chief Justice ofPakistan in respect of whom he was not thejudicial consultee at all. The Chief Justicecan be a consultee only in respect of thosevacancies which exist or occur during hisown tenure and not those which are to oc-cur after his retirement.

(h) The appointment of Mr. Justice FaqirMuhammad Khokhar is void ab initio be-cause, firstly, he was not qualified for ap-pointment as a Judge of the Supreme Courthaving not performed judicial duties andfunctions for a period of five years and, sec-ondly, being the Secretary Law, Justice andHuman Rights Division, he had played animportant role in the process of appoint-ments in question and as such his appoint-ment offends the principle of natural jus-tice, viz., “no one should be a judge in hisown cause.”

(i) The office of Judge of the Supreme Courthas been devalued by retaining the ChiefJustice of the Lahore High Court and ele-vating his juniors to the Supreme Court.

(j) The main object of the judgments of thisCourt in the Judges’ case and Asad Ali’scase was to make the judiciary independentand self-operative but the same has beendefeated by the impugned appointments;and

(k) The fundamental right of the citizens ofPakistan to have access to an impartial andindependent Supreme Court has been in-fringed by appointment of junior Judges.

The prayer in all the petitions was thatthe impugned appointments, except that of Mr.Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza, be declared asvoid being unconstitutional, and a direction beissued for initiation of the process of appoint-ment against the available vacancies afresh. Ithas been further prayed in Constitution Pe-tition No.8 of 2002 that while making freshappointments the petitioner and other lawyersshould also be considered in view of the provi-sions, of Article 177(2)(b) of the Constitution.

The Federation of Pakistan in its concisestatement did not dispute the factual assertionsin regard to seniority and supersession of theconcerned Judges, but resisted the petitions onthe following pleas:—

(i) The appointments in question were madeby the President of Pakistan strictly in ac-cordance with the letter and spirit of theConstitution, fully adhering to the recom-mendations made by the Chief Justice ofPakistan.

(ii) The petitions are not maintainable as therecommendations of the Chief Justice ofPakistan in the process of constitutionalconsultation in the matter of appointmentof Judges of the Supreme Court are notjusticiable; and

(iii) The principles of legitimate expectancyand natural justice are not attracted.

The Court first addressed C.M.A. No.399of 2002 moved in Constitution Petition No. 1of 2002 and recorded reasons for its dismissal.Through the said C.M.A., it was prayed that onaccount of the importance and sensitive natureof the matter the petition be heard by the FullCourt excluding the newly appointed Judges.The prayer was adopted and joined in by thelearned counsel representing the petitioners inthe connected petitions. The application wasturned down, after hearing learned counsel forthe parties and the learned Attorney-General,with the observation that reasons for its dis-missal will be recorded in the main judgment.


In the main judgement the Court discussed thearguments of the learned counsel and decidedas follows:—

“14. It was rightly argued by Dr. FarooqHasan that there is a clear distinction betweenthe judicial system of the United States andthat of Pakistan. The Supreme Court of Pak-istan works in Benches. All petitions for leaveto appeal and appeals from appellate and re-visional judgments and orders made by a Sin-gle Judge in the High Court are heard by aBench of two Judges of this Court. The peti-tions against acquittal and appeals decided bya Division Bench of the High Court are heard bythree Judges of this Court. However, dependingupon the nature of the controversy involved inany particular case, the Chief Justice has thesole prerogative to constitute a larger Benchconsisting of any number of Judges. The objec-tions raised at the Bar are neither new nor havebeen raised for the first time. Such objectionswere raised in the past in a number of cases butwere repelled by this Court. In any case, it wasconceded by all the learned counsel that it wasthe prerogative of the Chief Justice to consti-tute any Bench with any number of Judges andthe same cannot be questioned. The contentionsraised by the learned counsel for the petitionersare devoid of force and have no merit whatso-ever. The attention of the learned counsel wasdrawn to the Judges’ case, which was decided byfive Judges of this Court, out of whom one wasan ad hoc Judge. Likewise Abrar Hassan’s case,wherein a Judge of this Court was appointed asActing Chief Justice of the High Court of Sindhand the notification of his appointment kept hislien/seniority in this Court, was heard by fourJudges of this Court. As far as Asad Ali’s caseis concerned, it was heard by ten Judges whilefour Judges refused to sit on the Bench. In thecourse of hearing of Asad Ali’s case, an attemptwas made to argue that the other Judges shouldalso sit on the Bench, but it was pointed outthat since four learned Judges of this Court hadrefused to hear the case, therefore, they could

not be forced to sit on the Bench. It is importantto note that Asad Ali’s case revolved around theappointment of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah asthe Chief Justice of Pakistan, who could nothave been appointed as such being junior tothree other Judges. It is further important toobserve here that while laying down that therule of seniority should prevail because a Judgehas legitimate expectancy to become the ChiefJustice, the then Chief Justice, who was juniorto three other Judges, did not opt to step down.That is why at a subsequent stage when theappointment of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah asthe Chief Justice of Pakistan was challenged, alarger Bench was constituted to hear and decidethe said case in a situation when the notificationof appointment of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shahstood suspended and he had been restrainedfrom performing functions as the Chief Justiceof Pakistan. We reiterate here that this Court,not once but on a number of occasions, haslaid down that it is the sole prerogative of theChief Justice of Pakistan to constitute a Benchof any number of Judges to hear any particu-lar case and neither an objection can be raisednor is any party entitled to ask for the con-stitution of a Bench of its own choice. We arefortified in this view by the judgments reportedas Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. State (PLD 1978SC 125), In re: M.A. No.657 of 1996 in Refer-ences Nos. 1 and 2 of 1996 (PLD 1997 SC 80)and Hamid Sarfaraz v. Federation of Pakistan(PLD 1979 SC 991). Similarly, in the matterof constitution of Benches of this Court, it is,inappropriate to raise the question of parochial-ism and provincialism. This was deprecated inHamid Sarfaraz’s case.”

The Court then recorded the arguments oflearned Counsel from both sides and there-after highlighted the background of the Judges’case as well as Asad Ali’s case. Thereafter, theCourt proceeded to deal with the grounds onwhich the appointments of Judges had beenchallenged, as follows:


The Court proceeded to consider the firstcommon contention of the petitioners that ap-pointment of Judges from the Lahore HighCourt has been made in violation of the prin-ciples of seniority and legitimate expectancy:We are afraid the contention is misconceivedand travels beyond the parameters indicated inthe Judges’ case and Asad Ali’s case. In ourconsidered, view, the scope of the principles ofseniority and legitimate expectancy, enunciatedin those cases, is restricted to the appointmentof Chief Justice of a High Court and the ChiefJustice of Pakistan, and these principles neitherapply nor can be extended to the appointmentof Judges of the Supreme Court. It is nowherementioned in those judgments that the prin-ciples of seniority and legitimate expectancyshall also apply in the matter of appointmentof Judges of the Supreme Court. The omissionappears to be intentional and not accidental inview of the line of reasoning in the said judg-ments. In the Judges’ case, while interpretingArticle 193 of the Constitution, it was held thatthere is no Constitutional requirement to ap-point the most senior Judge as Chief Justice ofa High Court whenever a permanent vacancyoccurs, but there is a Constitutional conventionin this context, which has developed by contin-uous usage and practice over a long period oftime, and must be followed in the interest ofthe independence of the judiciary. In Asad Ali’scase, this view was applied with greater force inthe case of appointment of the Chief Justice ofPakistan under Article 177 of the Constitutionon the strength of the Constitutional conven-tion and past practice as well as on the analogyof Article 180 of the Constitution, which pro-vides that in absence of the Chief Justice ofPakistan the most senior Judge of the SupremeCourt shall be appointed as Acting Chief Jus-tice of Pakistan. There exists no Constitutionalconvention or past practice to appoint the mostsenior Judge of a High Court as a Judge of theSupreme Court. The Constitution makers wereaware of the expression “the most senior” used

in Article 180 of the Constitution and in thelight of the well-established principle of inter-pretation of the Constitution and law, the ab-sence of the words, “the most senior” in Article177 for appointment of Judges of the SupremeCourt would show that seniority of a Judge inthe High Court is not a sine qua non for his ap-pointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Iffor the purpose of appointment of Judges in theSupreme Court, the seniority of the judges in-ter se in the High Courts would have been therule, there was no impediment in the way ofthe Constitution-makers to use the expression,“the most senior” in Article 177 of the Constitu-tion. Even. juristically speaking and analyzingthe rationale of the principle of appointment ofJudges in the Supreme Court, it becomes veryclear that the Chief Justice of Pakistan beingthe pater familias of the judiciary of the coun-try is the best Judge to ascertain and gauge thefitness and suitability of the Judges working inthe High Court for appointment as Judges ofthe Supreme Court. We are clear in our mindthat neither the principle of seniority is appli-cable as a mandatory rule for appointment ofJudges in the Supreme Court nor the said rulehas attained the status of a convention.

The Supreme Court then elaborated the roleand functions of the Chief Justice of Pakistanin the process of appointment of the judges ofthe superior Courts as described in detail inthe Judges’ case and then stated that: “Theabove role and functions of the Chief Justiceof Pakistan will become redundant and super-fluous if the rule of seniority is held applica-ble to the appointment of the Judges of theSupreme Court, because in that eventuality theprocess would become automatic and mechan-ical. Such a situation would certainly affectthe self-operativeness and independence of ju-diciary adversely. In addition, the Court statedthat: The mode of appointment of the Judges ofthe Supreme Court, the requisite qualificationsfor appointment and instances of appointmentof retired Judges of the High Court as Judges of


the Supreme Court also exclude the applicationof the principle of seniority. Further, “[i]t is notnecessary that the appointment of the Judgesin the Supreme Court [be] invariably [] madefrom amongst the Judges of the High Courts.An Advocate of the standing of fifteen years inthe High Court, subject to his suitability in theopinion of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, canalso be appointed as a Judge of the SupremeCourt. There are also instances of appointmentof retired Judges of the High Court as Judgesof the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice MuhammadSharif, Mr. Justice Qaiser Khan, Mr. JusticeG. Safdar Shah, Mr. Justice Rustam S. Sidhwa,Mr. Justice Manzoor Hussain Sial, Mr. JusticeMuhammad Ilyas, Mr. Justice Ch. Fazal Karim,Mr. Justice Zia Mahmood Mirza and Mr. Jus-tice Qazi Muhammad Farooq were appointedpermanent Judges of the Supreme Court aftertheir retirement.” The Court laid down that“[t]here are yet two other factors which givethe rule of fitness and suitability an edge overthe principles of seniority and legitimate ex-pectancy. First, the appointment of a Judgeof the High Court as a Judge of the SupremeCourt is a fresh appointment and not a promo-tion and, secondly, supersession of senior Judgesof the High Court is not unprecedented.” A de-tailed chart of such arguments was included toshow that “out of 93 appointments made in thisCourt so far, six being those of ad hoc and Act-ing Judges, the principle of seniority was notfollowed in the case of 9 retired Judges and 25serving Judges.”

The Court stated that: The main and vitalquestion which arises for decision, therefore, iswhether the recommendations of the Chief Jus-tice of Pakistan, in the process of Constitutionalconsultation in the matter of appointment ofJudges of the Supreme Court, are justiciable.This question had arisen in the Judges’ caseas well and was determined with the obser-vation that the recommendations of the ChiefJustice were not justiciable. This question hadagain arisen in Ghulam Hyder Lakho’s case and

was answered in the negative by reiterating thelaw on the subject laid down in the Judges’case. The Court emphasised that: The ratio-nale behind making the recommendations of theChief Justice of Pakistan non-justiciable is mul-tifaceted. The main justification is contained inthe [] observations of Ajmal Mian. J. (as he thenwas) in the Judges’ case that the recommenda-tions are the outcome of subjective satisfactionof the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The other di-mensions are that if the recommendations aremade justiciable the primacy of the opinion ofthe Chief Justice of Pakistan will be under-mined directly or indirectly, embarrassment willbe caused to the judicial consultee as well as therecommendees, independence of judiciary andsmooth working of the Court will be affected,pressure groups will emerge at different levelsand we will go back to the situation prevail-ing before the Judges’ case, which will be moreunsavoury than the one portrayed in these pe-titions.

The next question for determination wasdeemed equally important by the Court. “It re-lates to advance appointment of Judges againstthe anticipated vacancies and has arisen fromthe second common contention of the petition-ers that the Chief Justice of Pakistan, who hadmade the recommendations was not the judi-cial consultee to the extent of two vacancieswhich had occurred after his retirement and assuch appointments against the said vacancieswere void ab initio. It is true that appoint-ments against two anticipated vacancies weremade in advance, but the appointments cannotbe termed as illegal or void as an anticipatedpermanent vacancy can be filled in advance.Reference in this context may be made to theobservations made at page 501 of the judgmentin the Judges’ case. . . .” “No doubt, the words‘in advance’ are not mentioned in Para. 7(iii)of the Short Order in the Judges’ case, but theomission is immaterial inasmuch as in the ab-sence of any inconsistency between the ShortOrder and the detailed reasons, both are to be


read together. The view gets support from the[] observations made in Ghulam Hyder Lakho’scase.

The Court stated that “Appointments inadvance were not made for the first time in thepresent case. Several appointments were madein the past in advance against anticipated va-cancies.” “Last but not the least, the appoint-ments in question had the blessings of the suc-ceeding Chief Justice and judicial consultee Mr.Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, who wasconsulted by the then Chief Justice of Pakistanat the initial stage and before whom all thefour Judges made oath at the final stage i.e.,on 10th January, 2002. The impugned notifica-tion was issued on 26th December, 2001 withan explicit recital that the appointments willtake effect from 10th January, 2002, namely,the day when four vacancies were available Mr.Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri had takenoath as Chief Justice of Pakistan on 7th Jan-uary, 2002, but he did not make any move forwithdrawal of the impugned notification. Hadhe not endorsed the recommendations and theappointments he would have certainly askedfor a back reference or sent his own recom-mendations or refused to administer the oathof office to the appointees. Another notewor-thy circumstance which points to ratification byMr. Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri of theappointments made in advance is that on 31stJanuary, 2002 he had presided over the Bench,which had heard one of the above-mentionedConstitution petitions but had not suspendedthe impugned notification.”

The next common contention addressed bythe Court was “that the senior Judges of theLahore High Court were condemned unheardand even in these petitions notices have notbeen issued to them. It is rather unnecessaryto consider the contention as we have alreadyheld that the recommendations of the judicialconsultee are not justiciable. Be that as it may,the contention is misconceived. The recommen-dations in question were a manifestation of

subjective satisfaction of the judicial consultee,therefore, the principle of natural justice ‘audialteram partem’ was not attracted.” The Courtalso stated that contentions similar in essencewere raised in the case of Ghulam Hyder Lakhoand “were held to be devoid of force.”

As regards the question of notices, the Courtwas of the considered view that issuance of no-tices to the concerned Judges would have donemore harm than good. “This question was con-sidered in the Judges’ case also and it wasclearly held at page 534 of the judgment thatthe principle of natural justice is not violated ifnotice is not issued to the concerned Judges.”The observations in Asad Ali’s case, at page 327of the judgment, were also held to be relevantby the Court.

The Court then took up “the contentionurged by the learned counsel for the petitionersagainst the appointment of Mr. Justice FaqirMuhammad Khokhar who was serving as Sec-retary, Law, Justice and Human Rights Divisionat the time of his elevation to the SupremeCourt. The precise contention is that having notperformed judicial functions as a Judge of theLahore High Court for a period of five years hewas not qualified for appointment as a Judgeof the Supreme Court and his appointment wasalso hit by the cardinal principle of natural jus-tice ‘no one should be a judge in his own cause’on account of the pivotal role of the incumbentof the office of Law Secretary in the processof the Constitutional appointments. This con-tention too is without any substance as it isincompatible with the provisions of Article 177of the Constitution and ignores the law laiddown by this Court in Malik Ghulam Jilani v.Mr. Justice Muhammad Gul (1978 SCMR 110).With regard to experience, Article 177 of theConstitution only provides that a person shallnot be appointed as a Judge of the SupremeCourt unless he has been a Judge of a HighCourt for a period of or for periods aggregatingnot less than five years and does not prohibitappointment of a Judge of a High Court as


a Judge of the Supreme Court who has notworked as a Judge of the High Court for a pe-riod of five years.”

“The disqualification set up by the peti-tioners cannot be read into Article 177 of theConstitution. Mr. Justice Faqir MuhammadKhokhar was appointed as a Judge of the La-hore High Court on 10th December, 1996 andas Secretary Law, Justice and Human RightsDivision on 1st January, 2000. Having held theoffice as a Judge of the Lahore High Court for aperiod of five years he fulfilled the experience-related Constitutional requirement on the eveof his appointment as a Judge of the SupremeCourt. Besides, the issue was addressed andsettled in the case of Justice Muhammad Gulwherein it was held that [] a ‘person in orderto be qualified for appointment as a Judge ofthe Supreme Court must have had experienceof functioning as a Judge of High Court for fiveyears was not correct.’ In that case also Mr. Jus-tice Muhammad Gul was Secretary, Ministry ofLaw and Parliamentary Affairs, Government ofPakistan, at the time of his appointment as aJudge of the Supreme Court and the appoint-ment was challenged through a writ petitionunder Article 199 of the Constitution on theground that he did not fulfil the requirement ofArticle 178(2) of the Interim Constitution, 1972that a person shall not be appointed as a Judgeof the Supreme Court unless he has for a periodof, or for periods aggregating not less than, fiveyears been a Judge of a High Court. The writpetition was dismissed in limine by a DivisionBench of the Peshawar High-Court and the pe-tition for special leave to appeal was dismissedby this Court, inter alia, with the following ob-servations: ‘The phraseology of Article 178(2)of the Interim Constitution does not bear outthe intent attributed to it by the petitioner. Thewords used are he has for a period of, or for pe-riods aggregating not less than five years beena Judge of the High Court. If the authors of theConstitution had so intended they would haveused some other words to indicate that not only

has he held the office of a Judge but also func-tioned or worked as a Judge.’́’

“Article 177(2)(a) of the Constitution is partmateria with Article 178 (2) (a) of the InterimConstitution, therefore, the ratio of the caseof Justice Muhammad Gul is fully applicableto the present case and cannot be termed asa weak precedent as contended by Mr. HamidKhan. Mr. Justice S.A. Nusrat was also serv-ing as Secretary, Ministry of Law and Parlia-mentary Affairs when he was elevated to theSupreme Court. We would, therefore, reiteratethat appointment of a Judge of a High Courtas Secretary Law, Justice and Human RightsDivision cannot stand in his way for appoint-ment as a Judge of the Supreme Court if hehas been a Judge of the High Court for a pe-riod of, or for periods aggregating not less than,five years. The period of his service as SecretaryLaw, Justice and Human Rights Division has tobe counted towards his tenure as a Judge of theHigh Court and not excluded therefrom.”

The Court observed that it was repeatedlysubmitted by the learned counsel for the pe-titioners that the record pertaining to the ap-pointments in question should be made publicto enable them to meet the views of the ju-dicial consultee and the appointing authorityin regard to the concerned Judges. The insis-tence was based on the ground that the saidrecord being a public record, the petitioners asalso the concerned Judges cannot be deprived ofits inspection. The submission was opposed bythe learned Attorney-General and the learnedcounsel for the Federation. “It has already beenheld that the recommendations culminating inthe impugned appointments are not justiciablein the absence of difference of opinion betweenthe President and the Chief Justice of Pakistan.In the face of these findings, the issue of inspec-tion of record has become redundant. In anycase, we are of the view that apart from the el-ement of confidentiality, making the record ofthe impugned appointments public would notbe in the interest of the institution, the judicial


consultee and the concerned Judges for reasonswhich are too obvious to need elucidation. In theJudges’ case also the relevant record was madeavailable pursuant to the order of the Court butwas not perused even by the members of theBench. . . . The learned Attorney-General andthe learned counsel for the Federation have ad-vanced sound and convincing reasons in supportof the proposition that making the record of ap-pointments public would not be in the interestof the judiciary. Disclosure of such record, if ad-verse to a Judge, would indeed block his way forelevation in future. Furthermore, such course ofaction would not only put a Judge under thevestige of a stigma but also militate against thepublic interest and shake public confidence inthe judiciary.”

Two questions remained to be considered.The first question pertained to the severabilityor otherwise of the impugned notification andthe second to the collegium of Judges compris-ing the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court, which isconsulted by the Chief Justice in the process ofappointment of Judges of the Supreme Courtof India. The Court laid down that “The firstquestion need not be determined in view ofthe settled proposition that recommendationsof the judicial consultee are not justiciable. As

regards the second question, suffice it to saythat the consultative process in vogue in Indiacannot be adopted in Pakistan as there existsno provision in our Constitution akin to Arti-cle 124(2) of the Constitution of India on thestrength whereof a collegium of Judges has beenformed in India. . . . It may, however, be ob-served in passing that a practice has emergedover the years that while making recommenda-tion for appointment of a Judge of the SupremeCourt the Chief Justice of Pakistan consults thesenior puisne Judge, as was done in the presentcase.”

“In view of the judgment passed by thisCourt, no order is required to be made in re-spect of the writ petitions summoned from theLahore High Court, which may be returned.The above are the reasons in support of theShort Order, dated 10th April, 2002 of thisCourt whereby these petitions were dismissed.The Short Order reads as under: ‘For reasonsto be recorded later in the detailed judgment,the above petitions are dismissed.’ Before pat-ting with the, judgment we would like to recordour appreciation for the valuable assistance ren-dered by the learned counsel for the parties andthe learned Attorney-General for Pakistan andtheir associates.”

Order accordingly.

3.5 Pakistan Muslim League (Q) and others v. Chief Executive of theIslamic Republic of Pakistan and others (PLD 2002 SC 994)

Constitutional Petitions Nos.29 to 33 of 2002,decided on 11th July, 2002.Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C. J., MunirA. Sheikh, Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, IftikharMuhammad Chaudhry and Qazi MuhammadFarooq, JJ.

Sh. Riaz Ahmad, CJ.—Through these pe-titions the jurisdiction of the Supreme Courtunder Article 184(3) of the Constitution wasinvoked to assail the provisions of Article 8A ofthe Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002

(Chief Executive’s Order No. 7 of 2002), in-serted therein by the Conduct of General Elec-tions (Amendment) Order, 2002, hereinaftercalled the Election Order, whereby a new qual-ification has been added for the eligibility of acandidate to become a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or a Provincial Assembly.It has been provided by the said Article of theElection Order that a person would be ineligibleto contest election if he is not a graduate.


The petitioners, political parties as wellas politicians, challenged the above legislationmainly on the grounds that it is not only vi-olative of the provisions of Articles 17 and 25of the Constitution, but also travels beyond theparameters set by this Court in Syed Zafar AliShah’s case (PLD 2000 SC 869), it is unrea-sonable and irrational in view of the prevailingstate of literacy in the country and tends tocreate an elitist class, curtail the choice and con-sent of the governed and take away the right ofadult franchise and universal suffrage.

The respondents resisted the petitions es-sentially on the following common pleas takenin their written reply/statement.

1. Article 8A of the Election Order has beenvalidly and competently enacted in con-sonance with the parameters laid down inSyed Zafar Ali Shah’s case. It is neitherviolative of the Constitution nor does itamend any salient feature thereof and itwould strengthen and not dismantle theparliamentary form of Government; and

2. With the passage of time and the evolu-tion of civil society great changes occur inthe political, social, economic conditionsof the society. The impugned legislationis aimed at improving the standard of theParliament and other legislative bodiesfor the welfare of the people of Pakistan.

The Court stated the contentions and ar-guments of learned Counsel from both sidesand then gave an outline of Pakistan’s con-stitutional history. The Court concluded fromthis account that “[i]t was necessary to narratethis history briefly as its certain parts distinctlypoint to a political culture, which leaves muchto be desired. It demonstrated utter disregardfor the parliamentary values and deliberate at-tempt to inure the soul of democracy. The es-tablishment of a democratic order and the in-stitutions therein requires utmost responsibilityon the part of the elected representatives of the

people but the record of most of the elected rep-resentatives of the four dissolved National andProvincial Assemblies speaks volumes abouttheir psyche, lack of education and sense of re-sponsibility. It also shows that the political fieldwas dominated by a coterie of individuals repre-senting a special class of vested interests, whichensured that if not they, their kith and kin wereelected as members of the Assemblies. Regard-less of the ideal standards, their main effort wasdirected to have their hegemony in the politi-cal field. There are known cases where throughmanoeuvring and machination one faction de-liberately went to the opposition and the otherto the treasury benches. In the light of whathas been narrated above, it is crystal clear thatthe political scenario in Pakistan is a sad taleof failures on the part of the public represen-tatives. We may not go into the past but the11 years history of the political events is an eyeopener. Four National Assemblies in successionwere dissolved on the ground of misdemeanouron the part of the Government and the partyforming it. The grounds on which the Assem-blies were dissolved and which were upheld bythis Court are sufficient for and necessitate adrastic change in the political culture of thecountry. No doubt it is the privilege of the pub-lic representatives to side with their party inpower but it does not absolve them of their re-sponsibility and look at the degree of responsi-bility that the 13th and 14th amendments werebulldozed and nobody raised his little fingeragainst the proposed legislation. These amend-ments pertained to the Constitutional changesand were not germane to the ordinary law. AConstitutional amendment requires sane think-ing, deliberation and composition, which weretotally absent and none took it seriously. In factwhat was practised in those years was noth-ing but parliamentary dictatorship. A whim ofthe party leader in the House could not havebecome a substitute for the will of the peo-ple or their representatives in the Assemblies.Of course, it cannot be totally attributed to


lack of education but nevertheless it was oneof the most important factors owing to whichthe representatives had allowed themselves tobe driven by their leaders. This Court also owesa duty to the posterity. It is a matter of commonknowledge that changes in the social, politicaland economic fields are not brought about atonce with a magic wand but involve a journeyof thousands of miles, which requires a startwith the first step. . . . It was argued that the im-position of educational qualification would notbring about any change because the kith andkin of the old politicians would reach the As-semblies. Be that as it may, there is somethingknown as generation gap. We are confident thatthe new generation would play their due rolein changing the political culture and enhancingthe prestige and image of the representative in-stitutions in the polity of nations.”

The Court stated that a “change in the po-litical culture with reference to the educationalqualification for members of the Assemblies isalso necessitated by the fact that with the trans-fer of power at the grass-roots level throughimplementation of the devolution plan all thecivic work has been assigned to the chosenrepresentatives at different levels of the LocalGovernment and now the business in the Parlia-ment would mainly be confined to lawmaking.The making of new laws in the light of thechanging circumstances and social and polit-ical values is an uphill task. In this view ofthe matter, it is all the more necessary thatthe public representatives are well-versed withthe modern trends, changing social order andthe events on the international scene. No doubtwisdom is not related with degrees but this isan exception to the rule. Education certainlybroadens the vision, adds to knowledge, bringsabout maturity and enlightenment, promotestolerance and peaceful a coexistence and elimi-nates parochialism. We are convinced that theeducational qualification prescribed for mem-bership of Assemblies will not only raise their

level of competence and change the political cul-ture, but will also be an incentive to education.”

The Court observed that the contention thatthe Government had not done much for educa-tion, especially in the far-flung areas like PATAand FATA, was not supported by any authen-tic data and, therefore, tends to be speculativeand hypothetical. Accordingly, the Court didnot accept it.

The Court then turned to the legal status ofthe Election Order and noted the arguments ofall the learned counsel that the Election Or-der in essence and spirit was an amendmentin the Constitution, which the Chief Execu-tive was not empowered to make in view of thefetters imposed by this Court on his power toamend the Constitution. The Court stated thatthis argument was misconceived inasmuch asthe Election Order did not amend the Constitu-tion, but was a law within the purview of Article62(i) of the Constitution. The Court then statedthat:

“Section 99 of the Representation of thePeople Act, 1976 also deals with the qualifica-tions for membership of the Parliament and ispari materia with Article 62 of the Constitu-tion. A perusal of the Constitutional provisionhighlighted above clearly shows that furtherqualifications in addition to those laid downin Article 62, which deals with the qualifica-tions for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Par-liament) can be prescribed by a law enactedby the lawmaking authority. The Election Or-der having been issued by the Chief Executiveon the strength of the powers conferred on himby this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case isthus a validly promulgated law and does notsuffer from any legal defect or infirmity. It alsodoes not transgress the limits laid down in theaforesaid case as it is linked with the holdingof general election in the country and aims atgood governance which is the hallmark and soulof democracy and the ultimate outcome of gen-eral election.”


It was urged before the Court that the Elec-tion Order was ultra vires Articles 17 and 25 ofthe Constitution. The Court reproduced Article17 of the Constitution and then stated: “Article17 clearly allows a citizen to have the right toform associations or unions subject to any rea-sonable restrictions imposed by law. Similarly,every citizen not being in the service of Pak-istan, has the right to form or be a member ofa political party, subject to any reasonable re-strictions imposed by law in the interest of thesovereignty or integrity of Pakistan. . . . There isno cavil with the proposition laid down by thisCourt that every citizen has a right to contestelection but the principle enunciated thereindoes not confer an unbridled right on every cit-izen to contest an election. The right to contestan election is subject to the provisions of theConstitution and the law and only those citi-zens are eligible to contest election who possessthe qualifications contained in Article 62 andthe law including the law made under Article62(i) and do not suffer from disqualificationslaid down in Article 63 of the Constitution andthe law.”

The Court observed that “Article 25 of theConstitution, which is the equality before lawclause and is equivalent to the ‘due processof law and equal protection of law’ clauses ofthe United States Constitution, has been in-terpreted by this Court in various cases. Theleading judgment on the subject was deliveredin I.A. Sherwani’s case. It was laid down thereinthat under Article 25 all citizens are equal be-fore law and are entitled to equal protection of

law but the State is not prohibited to treat itscitizens on the basis of a reasonable classifica-tion. The concept of reasonable classification,its basis and criteria for classification to avertviolation of Article 25 were also highlighted.The Court held that Article 25 of the Constitu-tion enshrines the basic concept of the religionof Islam. However, this is now known as thegolden principle of modern jurisprudence, whichenjoins that all citizens are equal before law andare entitled to equal protection of law.” TheCourt then proceeded to elaborate the princi-ples laid down in the I.A. Sherwani case withregard to equal protection of law and reason-ableness of classification. The Court felt no needto refer to the plethora of case-law on the sub-ject because the above principles summarize theentire case-law. “Judging the Election Order inthe light of the above principles, we are of theview that the education-related qualification isreasonable and not arbitrary or whimsical be-cause firstly, being a step towards transforma-tion of the political culture it is founded on rea-sonable basis and, secondly, it equally appliesto all the graduates and does not discriminateany graduate or create a class within the grad-uates.”

“The above are the reasons in support ofthe Short Order, dated 11th July, 2002 of thisCourt whereby these petitions were dismissed.The Short Order reads as under: ‘For reasons tobe recorded later, the petitions are dismissed.’ ”

Petitions dismissed

3.6 Watan Party through Punjab President Ladies Wing TasneemShaukat Khan v. Chief Executive/President of Pakistan, and An-other (PLD 2003 SC 74)

Constitutional Petition No.36 of 2002, decidedon 7th October, 2002.

Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J., MunirA. Sheikh, Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Iftikhar

Muhammad Chaudhry and Qazi MuhammadFarooq, JJ.


Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J.—The present petitionunder Article 184(3) of the Constitution of theIslamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks to setaside the amendments made in the Constitutionof Pakistan through the Schedule to the LegalFramework Order, 2002 on the ground of beingillegal and unconstitutional.

2. Mr. Zafarullah Khan, learned AdvocateSupreme Court, in support of the petition,raised the following contentions:—

(i) The Legal Framework Order violates thejudgment of this Court in Syed Zafar AliShah’s case (PLD 2000 SC 869) wherein ithas been unequivocally laid down that ”noamendment shall be made in the salientfeatures of the Constitution, i.e. indepen-dence of judiciary, federalism, parliamen-tary form of Government blended withIslamic provisions”. Only limited powerto amend the Constitution had been con-ferred by this Court upon the Chief Ex-ecutive but the Chief Executive has intro-duced as many as 29 amendments in justone go through the Legal Framework Or-der.

(ii) Amendment of the Constitution all overthe world is not a simple task. The Con-stitution of Pakistan can only be amendedwith a two–third majority of the membersof both the Houses of Parliament. In Aus-tralia and Japan, the Constitution can beamended with absolute majority followedby a popular referendum. In some coun-tries, the amendment of the Constitutiontakes effect after the Party proposing itis out of power and the amendment isalso passed/ratified by the next Party inpower.

(iii) The Legal Framework Order defies theprinciple of division of labour/trichotomyof powers envisaged by the Constitutionof Pakistan.

(iv) The Legal Framework Order by investingvast powers in the President in the name

of checks and balances has done away withthe parliamentary form of government andhas put in place presidential form of gov-ernment.

(v) There are no checks and balances on thePresident of Pakistan under the amendedConstitution and he is not answerable toanyone. Under the new set-up somebodywould be ruling but someone else wouldbe answerable.

(vi) The position of an elected President is en-tirely different vis-a-vis the present Presi-dent inasmuch as the former is elected bya certain party but the present incumbentneither represents any party, nor is a mem-ber of any party and is not responsible toanybody

(vii) The 13th and 14th Amendments were en-forced under the parliamentary systemwhereas the Legal Framework Order hasbeen introduced by an institution, whichdoes not have the mandate for the job.

(viii) Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution envis-ages a subjective test and the assessmentby the authority exercising the power iswhimsical. With Article 58(2)(b) of theConstitution on the statute book, no gov-ernment completed its tenure and themoney spent on holding of five generalelections in just 12 years could well havebeen invested in social welfare sectors suchas education, health, etc.

(ix) Appointment of a Governor under Article101 ’not on the advice of but ’in consul-tation with’ the Prime Minister and theempowerment of the Governor under Ar-ticle 112 on the line of Article 58(2)(b)militate against the concept of federal-ism inasmuch as they adversely affect theprovincial autonomy, a cornerstone of theparliamentary system.

(x) The National Security Council in thebackdrop of the above factors deals thefinal blow on the parliamentary system of


government given its composition, whichincludes five uniformed members plus theopposition leader and the Chief Minis-ters on whom would continue to hang theSword of Damocles in the shape of Gov-ernor’s power to dissolve the Assembly inhis discretion. The Prime Minister wouldbe reduced to a non-entity.

3. We have heard the learned counsel forthe petitioner as well as the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan and Syed SharifuddinPirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, rep-resenting Federation of Pakistan.

4. We need not recapitulate the details butwe may briefly mention here that on the 12thof October, 1999 General Pervez Musharraf,Chief of Army Staff took over the reins ofthe country by dismissing the Government ofMian Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister ofPakistan and also the provincial governmentsin all the provinces. On the 14th of Octo-ber. 1999 General Pervez Musharraf issued theProclamation of Emergency effective from the12th of October, 1999 whereby the Constitu-tion of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan washeld in abeyance and the whole of Pakistanwas brought under the control of the ArmedForces. The Proclamation of Emergency wasfollowed by the Provisional Constitution OrderNo. 1 of 1999 as amended. Seven Constitutionpetitions were filed by various persons in thisCourt under Article 184(3) of the Constitutionassailing the extra-Constitutional step of takingover the affairs of Pakistan by the Armed Forcesof Pakistan and the Chief of Army Staff Gen-eral Pervez Musharraf. All these petitions weredecided on 12th of May, 2000 vide judgmentreported as Syed Zafar Ali Shah v. General Per-vez Musharraf (PLD 2000 SC 869). Needlessto repeat, this Court vide the aforesaid judg-ment validated the extra-Constitutional step onthe touchstone of the doctrine of state necessityand the principle of salus populi est supremalex as embodied in Begum Nusrat Bhutto’scase (PLD 1977 SC 657). This Court came to

the conclusion that sufficient corroborative andconfirmatory material existed to justify the in-tervention by the Armed Forces through extra-Constitutional measure. While validating theextra-Constitutional step this Court held thatthe 1973 Constitution remains the supreme lawof the land subject to the condition that cer-tain parts thereof have been held in abeyanceon account of state necessity. It was further heldthat General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of ArmyStaff/Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Commit-tee, described as Chief Executive is entitled toperform all such acts and promulgate all legisla-tive measures as enumerated below, namely:–

(a) “All acts and legislative measures, whichare in accordance with or could have beenmade under the 1973 Constitution, includ-ing the power to amend it.”

However, this Court placed restrictionsupon the power to amend the Constitutionand laid down that it can be resorted toonly if the Constitution fails to provide a so-lution for attainment of the declared objec-tives of the Chief Executive and the powerwas controlled by the following criteria:—

(b) All acts required to be done for the ordinaryorderly running of the State; and

(c) All such measures as would establish orwould lead to the establishment of the de-clared objectives of the Chief Executive.

To conclude in brief, this Court held thathaving regard to all the relevant factors. a pe-riod of three years was allowed to the ChiefExecutive with effect from the date of the Armytakeover i.e. the 12th of October, 1999 forachieving his declared objectives. It was furtherheld that the Chief Executive shall appoint adate not later than 90 days before the expiryof the period of three years for holding generalelection to the National and the Provincial As-semblies and the Senate of Pakistan. By wayof passing remarks, we may refer to the subse-quent events after the judgment was delivered


by this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case. TheChief Executive decided to take over the officeof the President of Pakistan and then a referen-dum was held. In compliance with the judgmentof this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case, itwas announced that the general election in thecountry would be held on 10th October, 2002,i.e., before the expiry of three years allowed bythis Court to the Chief Executive for restora-tion of democracy and for holding of electionsin the country.

5. The Chief Executive established variousinstitutions to help and guide him and keep-ing in view the rising population of the coun-try and particularly the political culture, cer-tain packages containing Constitutional amend-ments were announced and through lengthy de-bates the opinion of the public, intellectuals,was solicited and as a result thereof, finally,the Legal Framework Order, 2002 was promul-gated. This Order revived Article 58(2)(b) ofthe Constitution, which was incorporated in theConstitution in 1985 through the well-known8th Amendment of the Constitution. Article58(2)(b) of the Constitution conferred powerson the President to dissolve the National As-sembly if the government was not being runin accordance with the Constitution and ap-peal to the electorate was necessary. This powerwas resorted to four times in this country;firstly, by General Ziaul Haq dissolving the Na-tional Assembly and dismissing the governmentof Mr. Muhammad Khan Junejo, secondly, byMr. Ghulam Ishaq Khan while dissolving theNational Assembly and dismissing the govern-ment of Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto in 1990 andthirdly, again by Mr. Ghulam Ishaq Khan whiledissolving the National Assembly and dismiss-ing the government of Mian Nawaz Sharif. Al-though the dismissal of the government of MianNawaz Sharif in 1993 was declared by this Courtto be un-Constitutional but subsequently boththe President and the Prime Minister had to re-sign and as a result of the general election heldin 1993, Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto formed the

government. Her second government was alsodismissed and the National Assembly dissolvedin 1996 by Sardar Farooq Khan Leghari, thethen President of Pakistan. Consequently, freshelections were held and Mian Nawaz Sharif forthe second time formed the government and be-came the Prime Minister. Article 58(2)(b) wasgot repealed by Mian Nawaz Sharif throughthe 13th Amendment of the Constitution. Atthis juncture, it would be necessary to refer tothe validity of the 8th Amendment and Article58(2)(b) of the Constitution; which was debatedin this Court in Mahmood Khan Achakzai v.Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 426).While referring to Article 58(2)(b) and its util-ity in the background of the political cultureof this country, this Court made the followingilluminating observations:—

“57. Much has been said against Article58(2)(b) of the Constitution that it has changedthe shape of the Constitution from Parliamen-tary to Presidential and has concentrated pow-ers in the hands of the President who is notdirectly elected as the Prime Minister. Perusalof the Constitution, as it is, shows that it isnot so and the apprehension is unfounded forthe reason that this provision has only broughtabout balance between the powers of the Pres-ident and the Prime Minister in ParliamentaryForm of Government as is contemplated underParliamentary Democracy. There is nothing un-usual about it and such provisions enabling thePresident to exercise such power can be found invarious Parliamentary and Democratic Consti-tutions like Australia, Italy, India, France andPortugal. In fact Article 58(2)(b) has shut thedoor on Martial Law for ever, which has notvisited us after 1977.”

We can only wish that the then legislatorsand Mian Nawaz Sharif at the helm of affairshad realized the implications of such repeal. Ar-ticle 58(2)(b) was described as a safety valveagainst the imposition of martial law/militarytakeover.


6. Adverting to the Legal Framework Order,as discussed above, Article 58(2)(b) has nowbeen reincorporated in the Constitution. Mr.Zafarullah Khan, learned Advocate SupremeCourt for the petitioner criticized such incor-poration and we drew his attention to the ob-servations made by this Court in MahmoodKhan Achakzai’s case and also apprised him ofthe grave consequences of the repeated militarytakeovers. However, we are constrained to judgethe maintainability of this petition under Arti-cle 184(3) of the Constitution filed by WatanParty. We confronted the learned counsel withthis aspect of the case and the learned coun-sel submitted that Watan Party had filed thispetition through the Punjab President of theLadies Wing, namely, Tasneem Shaukat Khan.We have noted the following paragraph in thebody of the petition:—

“That the petitioner’s party has boycottedthe general elections, which are undemocratic.”

Admittedly, no list of members or office-bearers at the national, provincial or local levelshas been filed. There is nothing on record toindicate that the party has ever had any repre-sentation in the Parliament or in any ProvincialAssembly. It was also admitted that the pattyhad not held the intra-party election mandatedby the Political Parties Order, 2002 (Chief Ex-ecutive’s Order No. 18 of 2002). We asked thelearned counsel to name the office-bearers of theparty in Balochistan but the learned counselcould not give any definite name. In this back-ground, the crucial question seeking an answeris the locus standi and bona fides of the pe-titioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Courtunder Article 184(3) of the Constitution. In ourview, answer to this question is in negative asthe petitioner has no locus standi to file thispetition. Although as held in Manzoor Elahi v.Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1975 SC 66) thequestion raised before the Court under Article184(3) must be one of public importance withreference to the enforcement of FundamentalRights contained in Chapter 1, Part II of the

Constitution. It is true that as held in BenazirBhutto’s case (PLD 1988 SC 416) and AsadAli’s case (PLD 1998 SC 161) the person desir-ing to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court un-der Article 184(3) of the Constitution need notnecessarily be an aggrieved person, neverthelessthe person approaching this Court under theaforesaid provision has to demonstrate that thequestion raised concerns the public at large. Itmay be appropriate to reproduce observationsof this Court in Zulfiqar Mehdi v. Pakistan In-ternational Airlines Corporation (1998 SCMR793), which run as under:—

“The issues arising in a case, cannot beconsidered as a question of public importance,if the decision of the issues affects only therights of an individual or a group of individu-als. The issue in order to assume the characterof public importance, must be such that its de-cision affects the rights and liberties of peopleat large. The adjective ‘public’ necessarily im-plies a thing belonging to people at large, thenation, the State or a community as a whole.Therefore, if a controversy is raised in whichonly a particular group of people is interestedand the body of the people as a whole or theentire community has no interest, it cannot betreated as a case of public importance.”

7. It is worthwhile to mention that all themajor political parties have fielded their can-didates to contest the General Election 2002under the Conduct of General Elections Order,2002 (Chief Executive’s Order No. 7 of 2002)and none of them has come forward with a pe-tition to question any provision of the LegalFramework Order. It is well-known now thatafter the election the National and the Provin-cial Assemblies will meet. The members willelect Speakers, Deputy Speakers, Prime Min-ister, Chief Ministers and the Senators. Theelected Parliament is in immediate sight andobviously the Parliament and not this Courtis the appropriate forum to consider all theseamendments. We may further observe that pro-cedure to amend the Constitution as enshrined


in Article 239, Part XI remains unaltered. TheParliament retains same power to amend theConstitution as it did before the promulgationof the Legal Framework Order.

8. The upshot of the above discussion isthat this petition must be dismissed because

the petitioner has no locus standi to invoke thejurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3)of the Constitution.

Petition dismissed.

3.7 Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan v. Federation of Pak-istan and Others (PLD 2003 SC 82)

Civil Review Petition No. 103 of 2002 in Con-stitutional Petition No. 1 of 2002, decided on28th October, 2002. (On review from the orderdated 10-4-2002 of this Court passed in Consti-tutional Petition No. 1 of 2002).

Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J., Qazi Muham-mad Farooq, Mian Muhammad Ajmal, SyedDeedar Hussain Shah and Abdul HameedDogar, JJ.

Sh. Riaz Ahmad C.J.—This Review Petitionis directed against an order of this Court dated10th of April 2002 whereby the Constitution pe-tition filed by Supreme Court Bar Associationof Pakistan and others assailing the appoint-ment of Judges in the Supreme Court of Pak-istan was dismissed.

2. This Review Petition was fixed for hear-ing on 28th of October, 2002 when a requestfor adjournment was received on behalf ofMr. Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Courtwhich was moved by Mr. Mehmood ul Islam,Advocate-on-Record, stating therein that coun-sel for the petitioner (Mr. Hamid Khan) regretshis inability to appear before this Court onthe said date due to his unavoidable personalobligation and prior commitments. The Benchassembled in the Court to consider the afore-said request for adjournment when surprisinglythe Court noticed the presence of Mr. HamidKhan, Advocate Supreme Court in Court-room,who came at the rostrum and submitted an ap-plication under the caption “STATEMENT ATTHE BAR.” In this application, a reference was

made to a Resolution by the petitioner Asso-ciation and the Pakistan Bar Council claim-ing to be the Apex representative bodies ofthe lawyers, inter alia, asserting that petitionerwith a heavy heart declines to argue the ReviewPetition.

3. The contents of the application constitutegross contempt of this Court by using disparag-ing remarks about the Judiciary through thelanguage which could not have been expectedfrom the pen of the President of the SupremeCourt Bar Association. Suffice it to state thatFull Bench of the Supreme Court comprising 12Judges upheld the taking of oath by Judges ofthe Superior Judiciary under the Oath of Office(Judges) Order, 2000, and most of the lawyersincluding senior lawyers like Mr. Khalid Anwar,Amicus Curie, Mr. S.M. Zafar as well as the rep-resentatives of the Bar arguing the case were ofthe view that the Judges who declined to takeoath did so according to their conscience anda heavy responsibility lay upon the Judges whotook oath for dispensation of justice. The unan-imous verdict of this Court in Zafar Ali Shah’scase was upheld in Review Petition’. It was uni-versally acclaimed and has been described as alandmark judgment. We had heard the mainConstitution Petition for 11 days when Mr.Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court andother counsel had argued the case at length andall the points raised at the Bar were dealt withby this Court in the judgment sought to be re-viewed. We would have proceeded to take actionagainst Mr. Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme


Court, President Supreme Court Bar Associa-tion of Pakistan, but it is always appropriateto exercise restraint. However, we reserve ourright to take the proper action at an appropri-ate stage. Unfortunately, some Members of theBar motivated by malice, extraneous consider-ations and for political reasons or ill-will makeirresponsible statements to tarnish the image ofthe Judiciary which is not at all in the supremenational interest. We would therefore, stronglydeprecate and condemn this attitude on thepart of Mr. Hamid Khan and considering thecontents of this application scandalous, mali-cious and irrelevant, we order that paragraphs(i) and (ii) thereof be struck off. Needless to saythat administration of system of justice restsupon cooperation between the judiciary and theMembers of the Bar being the necessary limbsof the system. We have the highest respect forthe Bar and particularly for those Members whohave shown respect to the Judiciary.

4. In fact, making of such attempts on thepart of the Members of the Bar amounts toabuse of the sacred elected office. Such trendcan neither promote the system nor would ad-vance the cause of the administration of justicein the country. We may further observe that itis because of the judgment in Zafar Ali Shah’scase and oath taken by Judges of the SupremeCourt that a time schedule was given and theregime had to hold elections and to go back tobarracks after restoration of democratic institu-tions. We may further observe that in compli-ance with the judgment of this Court in ZafarAli Shah’s case, elections were held in the coun-try on 10th of October, 2002 and the process oftransferring the power is in progress. We mayfurther observe that Judges had taken oath un-der the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 1999 andthus saved the independence of Judiciary as well

as the system of administration of justice bypreserving the Bar as well. Failing which theCourts would have been replaced by altogethera new system unknown to a civilized society.This aspect of the matter has been discussed atlength in the judgment of this Court in ZafarAli Shah’s case, supra, and the oath was takenin the highest national interest, therefore, wehave deliberately not chosen to proceed againstMr. Hamid Khan in view of the interest of theInstitution, but we reiterate that we reserve ourright to proceed against Mr. Hamid Khan con-temner/signatory of the application referred tohereinabove.

5. Be that as it may, even otherwise nocase for interference is made out on merits be-cause we have gone through the contents ofthe Review Petition and each and every pointcanvassed in the Review Petition has alreadybeen dealt with in the judgment under review.Obviously, in our considered view the learnedcounsel knew this aspect very well and it is toowell known that under the garb of review, thisCourt does not allow the re-hearing of the mat-ter. Knowing fully well the consequence of theinstant Review Petition the learned counsel hasdeliberately declined to argue the case moti-vated by malice, ill-will and extraneous consid-erations. This is high time that counsel like Mr.Hamid Khan and Members of the Bar shouldrealize their responsibilities towards the Courtsand society as a whole because they hail fromthe legal profession which seeks redress of thegrievances of the aggrieved persons from theCourts. If this state of affairs continues thenGod be with us and nothing more could be saidabout it. As a consequence of above this ReviewPetition has nil merit and the same stands dis-missed accordingly.

Petition dismissed.


Judicial Activity and Statistics


THIS PAGE BLANK


4 JUDICIAL ACTIVITY AND STATISTICS

4.1 Court Performance During the Year 2002

The past trend of increase in litigation continued throughout the year 20002. Once again a largenumber of cases, both petitions and appeals, were filed. To deal with the situation the SupremeCourt of Pakistan refined its earlier strategy for clearing the backlog of cases. A Full Court meetingwas convened to review the situation and to adopt strategies and adjust the mechanism for reducingthe mounting pressure of new filings added to the backlog. Accordingly, the Chief Justice constituteddifferent benches varying the number of Judges. Consequently, a substantial number of cases, bothold and new, were disposed of and the pressure was managed adequately.

The measures adopted led to decisions in 9547 cases during the year 2002. The earlier pendingcases prior to this were 13070, but during the year an overwhelming number of 13847 cases werefiled. This trend of increase in the number of cases is in keeping with that in all the provinces ofthe country. The causes may be attributed to the bulging population and an increase in commercialactivity.

At the Principal Seat, Islamabad, against the balance of pending cases from the previous year,a total of 5098 were decided. After 6130 new cases were instituted, the balance of pending cases atthe end of the year was 7915. At Lahore, the Branch Registry, against the previous balance of 5199pending cases, 2534 cases were disposed of. After 5125 new cases were instituted, the balance ofpending cases at the end of the year stood at 7788. At the Karachi Branch Registry 1090 cases weredecided against the previous pending case balance of 276. With 1684 new cases having been filed,the balance of pending cases for the year 2002 stood at 870. At the Peshawar Branch Registry 565cases were decided when the figure for pending cases was 620. The institution of 615 new cases, thebalance of pending cases rose by 50 to reach 670. At the Quetta Registry 92 cases were pending,while 258 cases were decided, but with 293 new cases, the balance of pending cases became 127.The consolidated figures for the Supreme Court, as a whole, reveal that against a pending balanceof 13070, 9547 cases were decided. The institution of 13847 new cases raised the balance of pendingcases for year 2002 to 17370. All these figures reveal the rising pressure of new institutions upon theresources of the Supreme Court. Despite a large number of disposals by the Court at the PrincipalSeat as well as the Branch Registries, the pressure of litigation continued to mount.

The Supreme Court continued to accord importance, during the year 2002, to cases of nationalimportance. A few such significant judgements have been included in this Report. To deal withthese important cases as well as all the other cases, larger benches of 11 Judges, 7 Judges, 5 Judgesand 4 Judges had to be constituted. At the Principal Seat, the sittings of the Court lasted for 44weeks. At Lahore, it was 24 weeks, at Karachi 14 weeks, at Peshawar 10 weeks and Quetta thesittings were for 12 weeks.

The detailed statistics of judicial activity during the year 2002, including the constitution ofbenches, are provided in the tables within this section. An effort has been made, where necessary,to highlight the significance of the tables through graphic representations.


4.2 Distribution of Work: The Principal Seat of the Court and BranchRegistries

4.2.1 Statement of Court Sessions, 2002 at Principal Seat, Islamabad

S.No. Working Period No. of weeks No. of Benches1. 01-01-2002 to 04-01-2002 1 week 42. 07-01-2002 to 11-01-2002 1 week 53. 14-01-2002 to 17-01-2002 4 days 54. 18-01-2002 1 day 45. 21-01-2002 to 24-01-2002 4 days 46. 25-01-2002 1 day 57. 28-01-2002 to 29-01-2002 2 days 58. 30-01-2002 to 31-01-2002 2 days 69. 01-02-2002 1 day 510. 04-02-2002 1 day 611. 06-02-2002 to 08-02-2002 3 days 412. 11-02-2002 to 13-02-2002 3 days 413. 14-02-2002 to 15-02-2002 2 days 314. 18-02-2002 to 21-02-2002 4 days 115. 25-02-2002 to 28-02-2002, 01-03-2002 1 week 116. 04-03-2002 to 08-03-2002 1 week 317. 11-03-2002 to 15-03-2002 1 week 418. 18-03-2002 to 19-03-2002 2 days 3+1(5 Judges Larger Bench)19. 20-03-2002 to 21-03-2002 2 days 4+1(5 Judges Larger Bench)20. 22-03-2002 1 day 521. 26-03-2002 to 29-03-2002 4 days 422. 01-04-2002 to 05-04-2002 1 week 3+1(5 Judges Larger Bench)23. 08-04-2002 1 day 3+1(5 Judges Larger Bench)24. 09-04-2002 1 day 4+1(5 Judges Larger Bench)25. 10-04-2002 to 12-04-2002 3 days 526. 15-04-2002 1 day 527. 16-04-2002 1 day 428. 17-04-2002 to 19-04-2002 3 days 529. 22-04-2002 1 day 3+1(9 Judges Larger Bench)30. 23-04-2002 to 24-04-2002 2 days 2+1(9 Judges Larger Bench)31. 25-04-2002 to 26-04-2002 2 days 1+1(9 Judges Larger Bench)32. 29-04-2002 1 day 4+1(9 Judges Larger Bench)33. 30-04-2002, 02-05-2002, 03-05-2002 3 days 434. 06-05-2002 to 10-05-2002 1 week 335. 13-05-2002 to 17-05-2002 1 week 336. 20-05-2002 to 24-05-2002 1 week 437. 27-05-2002 to 31-05-2002 1 week 438. 03-06-2002 to 05-06-2002 3 days 439. 06-06-2002 to 07-06-2002 2 days 3+1(Sh.A. Bench of 5 Judges)

Continued. . . .


S.No. Working Period No. of weeks No. of Benches40. 10-06-2002 to 14-06-2002 1 week 4+1(Sh.A. Bench of 5 Judges)41. 17-06-2002 to 22-06-2002 6 days 1 (Sh. A. Bench)42. 24-06-2002 to 28-06-2002 1 week 143. 01-07-2002 to 05-07-2002 1 week 244. 08-07-2002 1 day 345. 09-07-2002 to 11-07-2002 3 days 1+1(5 Judges Larger Bench)46. 12-07-2002 1 day 347. 15-07-2002 1 day 248. 16-07-2002 1 day 149. 17-07-2002 to 19-07-2002 3 days 250. 22-07-2002 to 26-07-2002 1 week 551. 06-08-2002 1 day 152. 08-08-2002 1 day 153. 12-08-2002 to 13-08-2002 2 days 154. 15-08-2002 to 16-08-2002 2 days 155. 26-08-2002 1 day 156. 09-09-2002 to 13-09-2002 1 week 657. 16-09-2002 to 20-09-2002 1 week 658. 23-09-2002 to 27-09-2002 1 week 659. 30-09-2002, 01-10-2002 to 02-10-2002 3 days 660. 03-10-2002 1 day 5+1(5 Judges Larger Bench)61. 04-10-2002 1 day 662. 07-10-2002 1 day 4+1(5 Judges Larger Bench)63. 08-10-2002 1 day 5+1(5 Judges Larger Bench)64. 09-10-2002 1 day 665. 11-10-2002 1 day 466. 14-10-2002 to 15-10-2002 2 days 467. 16-10-2002 to 18-10-2002 3 days 568. 21-10-2002 to 25-10-2002 1 week 369. 28-10-2002 1 day 5+1(5 Judges Larger Bench)70. 29-10-2002 1 day 471. 30-10-2002, 31-10-2002, 01-11-2002 3 days 672. 04-11-2002 to 07-11-2002 4 days 673. 08-11-2002 1 day 574. 11-11-2002 to 15-11-2002 1 week 675. 18-11-2002 to 19-11-2002 2 days 676. 20-11-2002 to 21-11-2002 2 days 6+1(5 Judges Larger Bench)77. 22-11-2002 1 day 678. 25-11-2002 to 28-11-2002 4 days 679. 29-11-2002 1 day 580. 02-12-2002 04-12-2002 3 days 181. 09-12-2002 to 13-12-2002 1 week 182. 16-12-2002 to 17-12-2002 2 days 1

Grand Total:— 44 weeks, 3 days


4.2.2 Branch Registry, Lahore

S.No. Working period No. of weeks No. of Benches1. 23-01-2002 & 24-01-2002 2 days 12. 06-02-2002 to 08-02-2002 3 days 23. 11-02-2002 to 15-02-2002 One week 24. 18-02-2002 to 21-02-2002 4 days 15. 25-02-2002 to 01-03-2002 One week 16. 04-03-2002 to 08-03-2002 One week 27. 11-03-2002 to 15-03-2002 One week 28. 18-03-2002 to 22-03-2002 One week 19. 26-03-2002 to 29-03-2002 4 days 110. 01-04-2002 to 05-04-2002 One week 111. 08-04-2002 to 12-04-2002 One week 112. 15-04-2002 to 19-04-2002 One week 213. 22-04-2002 to 26-04-2002 One week 114. 29-04-2002 to 03-05-2002 4 days 215. 06-05-2002 to 09-05-2002 4 days 216. 10-05-2002 1 day 117. 13-05-2002 to 17-05-2002 One week 218. 20-05-2002 to 24-05-2002 One week 219. 27-05-2002 to 29-05-2002 3 days 220. 30-05-2002 to 31-05-2002 2 days 121. 03-06-2002 to 07-06-2002 One week 122. 17-06-2002 to 21-06-2002 One week 323. 24-06-2002 to 28-06-2002 One week 324. 01-07-2002 to 05-07-2002 One week 325. 07-07-2002 to 12-07-2002 One week 226. 15-07-2002 to 19-07-2002 One week 127. 02-12-2002 to 04-12-2002 3 days 328. 09-12-2002 to 13-12-2002 One week 229. 16-12-2002 & 17-12-2002 2 days 2

Grant Total:— 24 weeks, 2 days 50


4.2.3 Branch Registry, Karachi

S.No. Working period No. of weeks No. of Benches1. 21-01-2002 & 22-01-2002 2 days 12. 18-02-2002 to 22-02-2002 One week 23. 25-02-2002 to 01-03-2002 One week 24. 26-03-2002 to 29-03-2002 One week 15. 06-05-2002 to 10-05-2002 One week 16. 13-05-2002 to 17-05-2002 One week 17. 24-06-2002 to 28-06-2002 One week 18. 01-07-2002 to 05-07-2002 One week 29. 08-07-2002 to 12-07-2002 One week 110. 15-07-2002 to 19-07-2002 One week 211. 22-07-2002 to 26-07-2002 One week 112. 12-08-2002 to 16-08-2002 One week 113. 02-12-2002 to 04-12-2002 3 days 214. 09-12-2002 to 13-12-2002 One week 215. 16-12-2002 to 17-12-2002 2 days 216. 23-12-2002 to 27-12-2002 One week 1

Grant Total:— 14 weeks, 2 days 23

4.2.4 Branch Registry, Peshawar

S.No. Working period No. of weeks No. of Benches1. 14-01-2002 & 24-01-2002 2 weeks 12. 25-01-2002 1 day 13. 18-02-2002 to 01-03-2002 2 weeks 14. 17-06-2002 to 24-06-2002 1 week, 1 day 15. 15-07-2002 to 19-07-2002 1 week 16. 14-10-2002 to 17-10-2002 4 days 27. 18-10-2002 1 day 18. 21-10-2002 to 23-10-2002 3 days 29. 24-10-2002 to 25-10-2002 2 days 110. 02-12-2002 to 17-12-2002 2 weeks, 2 days 1

Grand Total:— 10 weeks, 3 days 12


4.2.5 Branch Registry, Quetta

S.No. Working period No. of weeks No. of Benches1. 18-02-2002 to 21-02-2002 4 days 12. 25-02-2002 to 01-03-2002 1 week 13. 04-03-2002 to 08-03-2002 1 week 14. 06-03-2002 to 10-05-2002 1 week 15. 24-06-2002 to 28-06-2002 1 week 16. 21-10-2002 to 25-10-2002 1 week 27. 02-12-2002 to 04-12-2002 3 days 18. 09-12-2002 to 13-12-2002 1 week 19. 16-12-2002 to 17-12-2002 2 days 1

Grand Total:— 12 weeks, 3 days 10


4.3 Statistics on the Institution and Disposition of Cases During theYear 2002

4.3.1 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of cases at Islamabad(1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002)

PETITIONS8

Petitions Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance asBalance on 31-12-2002

C.P. 1440 29099 4349 2692 1657Crl.P. 201 441 642 251 391C.R.P. 179 241 420 160 260Crl.R.P. 39 53 92 39 53Crl.Sh.P. 43 34 77 32 45Crl.S.R.P. 06 – 06 03 03J.S.P. 25 72 97 72 25J.P. 130 460 590 394 196CONST.P. 72 40 112 32 80C.S.R.P. 00 – 00 – 00H.R. 59 01 60 20 40G/T 2194 4251 6445 3695 2750

8Abbreviations provided in the tables below are to be interpreted according to the following table.

ABBREVIATIONS MEANINGC.P. Civil Petition for Leave to AppealCrl. P. Criminal Petition for Leave to AppealCr. R. P. Criminal Review PetitionC.R.P. Civil Review PetitionCrl. SH.P. Criminal Shariat PetitionCrl. S.R.P. Criminal Shariat Review PetitionJ.S.P. Jail Shariat PetitionJ.P. Jail PetitionCONST.P. Constitution PetitionC.S.R.P. Civil Shariat Review PetitionH.R. Human RightsC.A. Civil AppealCRL. A/CRL.As Criminal Appeal/AppealsCRL. SH. A. Criminal Shariat AppealC.S.A. Civil Shariat AppealCrl. O.P Criminal Original PetitionSMR Suo Moto ReviewG.T Grand Total

9This figure breaks up into 2509+400, where 400 cases are from other Registries.


APPEALS

Appeals Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance asBalance on 31-12-2002

C.A. 3602 157610 5178 1259 3919Crl.A. 932 29911 1231 144 1087Crl.Sh.A. 91 04 95 – 95C.S.A. 64 – 64 – 64G/T 4689 187912 6568 1403 5165

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR ISLAMABAD

Cases Opening Institution Total Disposal Pending RemarksBalance as on 31-12-02

Petitions 2194 4251 6445 3695 2750 Increasedby 556

Appeals 4689 1879 6568 1403 5165 Increasedby 296

G/T 6883 6130 13013 5098 7915 Increasedby 1032

10This figure is 1901-325=1576. 325 cases were registered at Islamabad, but institution is shown in Branch Registries11This figure is 470-171=299. 171 cases were registered at Islamabad, but institution has been shown in Branch

Registries as L.G. there.12According to the explanations given in the previous notes, this amount is arrived at through the following

calculation: 2375-496=1879.


4.3.2 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Lahore(1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002)

PETITIONS


C.P. 4622 396113 8583 1600 6983

Crl.P. 420 85814 1278 695 583

C.R.P. 129 135 264 73 191

Crl.R.P. 25 05 30 01 29

J.P. 00 05 05 05 00

Crl.O.P. 00 20 20 20 00

Const.P. 00 03 03 03 00

G/T 5196 4987 10183 2397 7786

APPEALS


C.A. 03 100 103 101 02

Crl.A. 00 38 38 38 00

G/T 03 138 141 139 02

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR LAHORE



Appeals 03 138 141 139 02 Decreasedby 01

G/T 5199 5125 10324 2536 7788 Increasedby 2589

13This figure was 4244, but 283 cases were sent to Islamabad Registry: (4244-283=3961).14This figure was 975, but 117 cases were sent to Islamabad Registry (975-117=858).


4.3.3 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Karachi(1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002)

PETITIONS


C.P. 190 1261 1451 884 567

Crl.P. 43 152 195 136 59

C.R.P. 27 40 67 27 40

Crl.R.P. 01 01 02 01 01

H.R. 11 00 11 00 11

G/T 272 1454 1726 1048 678

APPEALS


C.A. 03 220 223 34 189

Crl.A. 01 10 11 08 03

G/T 04 230 234 42 192

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR KARACHI




G/T 276 1684 1960 1090 870 Increasedby 594


4.3.4 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Peshawar(1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002)

PETITIONS


C.P. 523 429 952 383 569

Crl.P. 92 138 230 132 98

C.R.P. 05 04 09 06 03

Crl.R.P. 00 01 01 01 00

J.P. 00 00 00 00 00

G/T 620 572 1192 522 670

APPEALS


C.A. 00 34 34 34 00

Crl.A. 00 09 09 09 00

G/T 00 43 43 43 00

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR PESHAWAR



Appeals 00 43 43 43 00 ——

G/T 620 615 1235 565 670 Increasedby 50


4.3.5 Statement regarding Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Quetta(1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002)

PETITIONS


C.P. 55 108 163 126 37

Crl.P. 34 60 94 55 39

C.R.P. 00 04 04 04 00

S.M.R. 00 02 02 01 01

J.P. 00 34 34 30 04

G/T 89 208 297 216 81

APPEALS


C.A 01 79 80 34 46

Crl.A. 02 06 08 08 00

G/T 03 85 88 42 46

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR QUETTA


Petitions 89 208 297 216 81 Decreasedby 08


G/T 92 293 385 258 127 Increasedby 35


4.3.6 Consolidated Statements for the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

PETITIONS

Location Balance as Institution Total Disposal Balance ason 01-01-2002 on 31-12-2002

Islamabad 2194 425115 6445 3695 2750

Lahore 5196 4987 10183 2397 7786

Karachi 272 1454 1726 1048 678

Peshawar 620 572 1192 522 670

Quetta 89 208 297 216 81

Total 8371 11472 19843 7878 11965

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Principal Seat

Lahore Registry

Karachi Registry

Peshawar Registry

Quetta Registry

ThousandsPending (Current)DisposalInstitutionPending (Old)

15This figure includes 400 cases received from other Registries (3851=400).


APPEALS

Location Balance as Institution Total Disposal Balance ason 01-01-2002 on 31-12-2002

Islamabad 4689 187916 6568 1403 5165

Lahore 03 138 141 139 02

Karachi 04 230 234 42 192

Peshawar 00 43 43 43 00

Quetta 03 85 88 42 46

Total 4699 2375 7074 1669 5405

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Principal Seat

Lahore Registry

Karachi Registry

Peshawar Registry

Quetta Registry


16The figure for institutions was 2375, but 496 cases were sent to other Registries (2375-496).


CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR ALL CASES FROM 01-01-2002 to 31-12-2002

Cases Previous Institution Total Disposal Current RemarksPendency Pendency Pendency

Petitions 8371 11472 19843 7878 11965 Increaseby 3594

Appeals 4699 2375 7074 1669 5405 Increaseby 706

G/Total 13070 13847 26917 9547 17370 Increaseby 4300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Total

Appeals

Petitions



4.3.7 Average Monthly Institution and Disposal During the Year

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT SHOWING AVERAGE MONTHLYINSTITUTION DURING THE YEAR 2002

Cases Islamabad Lahore Karachi Peshawar Quetta Total

Petitions 354 416 121 48 17 956Appeals 157 12 19 4 7 199

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT SHOWING AVERAGE MONTHLYDISPOSAL DURING THE YEAR 2002

Cases Islamabad Lahore Karachi Peshawar Quetta TotalPetitions 308 200 87 44 18 657Appeals 117 12 4 4 4 141

APPEALS

At the current rate ofdisposal, it will takea little more than 38months to clear thebacklog of all the pend-ing appeals

141 141 141 141 141 141 141

141 141 141 141 141 141 141

141 141 141 141 141 141 141

141 141 141 141 141 141 141

141 141 141 141 141 141 141

141 141 141

PETITIONS

At the current rate ofdisposal, it will takea little more than 18months to clear thebacklog of all the pend-ing petitions

657 657 657 657 657

657 657 657 657 657

657 657 657 657 657

657 657 657


4.3.8 Some Visible Trends

SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

Yearwise Institution, disposal & Pendency of cases

(1993 to 2002)

PETITIONS AND APPEALS

3866 5

134

5658

5826

9289

9409

9029

8834

10998

13070

6498

6079

6607

11668

10349

10371

8413

11702

15243

13847

5230

4955

6439

8205

10751

8608 9538

13171

9547

10229

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Pendency Institution Disposal

1993 1994 1995 1996 19981997 2000 1999 2001 2002


4.3.9 Trend of Pending Cases Over the Last Ten Years

Increase/Year Current Previous Decrease1993 5134 3866 1268+1994 5658 5134 524+1995 5826 5658 168+1996 9289 5826 3463+1997 9409 9289 3463+1998 9029 9409 380-1999 8834 9029 195-2000 10998 8834 2164+2001 13070 10998 2072+2002 17370 13070 4300+

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20040

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

��

� ��

�

�

THE STEEP CURVE

OF PENDING CASES

Thousa

nd

Case

s


4.3.10 Trend of Institution of Cases Over the Last Ten Years

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20026498 6079 6607 11668 10349 10371 8413 11702 15243 13847

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20040

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

��

�

�

� �

�

�

�THE CURVE FOR CASES FILED

OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS

Thousa

nd

Case

s


4.3.11 Trend of Disposal of Cases Over the Last Ten Years

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20025230 4955 6439 8205 10229 10751 8608 9538 13171 9547

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20040

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

��

�

�

��

�

�

�

THE CURVE FOR CASES DECIDED

OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS

Thousa

nd

Case

s


4.3.12 Comparative Graph of Cases Filed, Decided and Pending

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20040

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

��

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

� ��

�

�

��

�

�

� �

�

�

�

CASES FILED, DECIDED & PENDING

DURING THE LAST TEN YEARS

Thousa

nd

Case

s


4.3.13 Analysis of the Pending Balance

To understand the balance of pending cases, the following tables may be examined. The pendingbalance for all cases for the year 2002 is 17370, while the pending balance for appeals is 5405 andthat for all petitions is 11965.

Civil Petitions at the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

Civil Opening CurrentPetitions Balance Insititution Total Disposal Balance

Islamabad 1440 2909 4349 2692 1657Lahore 4622 3961 8583 1600 6983Karachi 190 1261 1451 884 567Peshawar 523 429 952 383 569Quetta 55 108 163 126 37

Total: 6830 8668 15498 5685 9813

The pending balance of 9813 for civil petitions is82.01% of all pending petitions and 56.49% of allpending cases.

Criminal Petitions at the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

Criminal Opening CurrentPetitions Balance Insititution Total Disposal Balance


Total: 790 1649 2439 1269 1170

The pending balance of 1170 for criminal petitionsis 9.7% of all pending petitions and 6.7% of all pend-ing cases.


Civil Appeals at the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

Civil Opening CurrentAppeals Balance Institution Total Disposal Balance


Total: 3609 2009 5618 1462 4156

The pending balance of 4156 for civil appeals is76.89% of all pending appeals and 23.92% of allpending cases.

Criminal Appeals at the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

Criminal Opening CurrentAppeals Balance Institution Total Disposal Balance


Total: 935 362 1297 207 1090

The pending balance of 1090 for criminal appealsis 32.01% of all pending appeals and 6.25% of allpending cases.


$56.49%

Civil Petitions

6.7%

Criminal Petitions23.92%

Civil Appeals

6.25%

Criminal Appeals

6.65%Remaining

Civil Petitions and Civil Appeals form 80.41% of the bal-ance of all pending cases.

4.3.14 Pending Balance According to Age of Cases as on 31-12-2002

Cases Cases CasesInstituted Instituted Instituted

Prior to Prior to AfterLocation 1990 2000 2000 Total

Islamabad 12 1617 6286 7915Lahore 00 32 7756 7788

Karachi 00 104 766 870Peshawar 00 08 662 670

Quetta 00 25 102 127

Total: 12 1786 15572 17370

There are only 12 cases that were instituted prior to 1990,while 1786 cases that are still pending were instituted priorto the year 2000. The balace of 15572 cases were all insti-tuted after 2000.


4.3.15 Data for the Last Five Decades: Increase in Institution of Cases as Comparedto Increase in the Number of Judges

INSTITUTION, DISPOSAL AND PENDENCY OF CASES IN THESUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN FROM 1950 TO 31-12-2002.

APPEALS

Last FreshYear Balance Institution Total Disposal Pending

1950 — 25 25 11 14

1951 14 31 45 19 26

1952 26 53 79 31 48

1953 48 65 113 95 18

1954 18 50 68 48 20

1955 20 140 160 92 68

1956 68 63 131 42 89

1957 89 44 133 59 74

1958 74 1 75 16 59

1959 59 210 269 91 178

1960 178 288 466 285 181

1961 181 287 468 285 183

1962 183 382 565 273 292

1963 292 454 746 326 420

1964 420 367 787 316 472

1965 472 392 864 379 485

1966 485 371 856 384 472

1967 472 328 800 335 465

1968 465 426 891 341 550

1969 550 829 1379 359 1020

1970 1020 541 1561 343 1218

1971 1218 118 1336 350 986

1972 986 138 1124 387 737

1973 737 166 903 249 654

1974 654 174 828 259 569

1975 569 207 776 225 551

1976 551 1208 1759 170 1589

1977 1589 603 2192 182 2010

1978 2010 1284 3294 579 2715

1979 2715 765 3480 613 2867

1980 2867 1334 4201 410 3791

Continued. . . .



1981 3791 772 4563 536 4027

1982 4027 1127 5154 661 4493

1983 4493 1459 5952 1242 4710

1984 4710 541 5251 878 4373

1985 4373 978 5351 866 4485

1986 4485 1186 5671 1060 4609

1987 4609 1130 5739 972 4767

1988 4767 1415 6182 1012 5170

1989 5170 2279 7449 1472 5977

1990 5977 1301 7278 5601 1677

1991 1677 1208 2885 1095 1790

1992 1790 4808 6598 4245 2353

1993 2353 1525 3878 1559 2319

1994 2319 1200 3519 692 2827

1995 2827 1872 4799 876 3823

1996 3823 4919 8742 3227 5515

1997 5515 1949 7464 2487 4977

1998 4977 3282 8259 3817 4442

1999 4442 1883 6325 2237 4088

2000 4088 3055 7143 1806 5337

2001 5337 3100 8437 3738 4699

2002 4699 2375 7074 1669 5405

PETITIONS


1950 - 9 9 1 8

1951 8 154 162 93 69

1952 69 141 210 186 24

1953 24 213 237 217 20

1954 20 205 225 210 15

1955 15 228 243 199 44

1956 44 278 322 268 54

1957 54 305 359 314 45

1958 45 408 453 408 45

Continued. . . .



1959 45 218 513 385 128

1960 128 199 327 251 76

1961 76 886 962 861 101

1962 101 1277 1378 1337 41

1963 41 1218 1259 1069 190

1964 190 1318 1571 1341 230

1965 230 2038 2268 1999 269

1966 269 1845 2114 1912 202

1967 202 2316 2518 1923 595

1968 595 1857 2452 2018 434

1969 434 1728 2162 1740 422

1970 422 1478 1900 1489 411

1971 490 640 1130 230 900

1972 900 974 1874 489 1385

1973 1385 1092 2477 678 1799

1974 1799 633 2432 373 2059

1975 2059 5755 7814 4266 3548

1976 3548 2370 5918 1746 4172

1977 4172 2651 6823 2676 4147

1978 4147 2651 6798 1153 5645

1979 5645 2455 8100 2734 5366

1980 5366 2519 7885 3804 4081

1981 4081 3689 7770 2249 5521

1982 5521 3365 8886 2399 6487

1983 6487 2888 9375 3270 6105

1984 6105 3934 10034 2302 7737

1985 7737 3663 14400 3616 7784

1986 7784 2935 10719 3486 7233

1987 7233 3803 11036 4379 6657

1988 6657 4429 11086 5942 5144

1989 5144 3534 8678 7528 1150

1990 1150 3999 4771 3621 772

1991 772 3560 4332 1604 2728

1992 2728 1818 4546 3033 1513

1993 1513 4973 6486 3671 2815

1994 2815 4879 7094 4263 2831

Continued. . . .



1995 2831 4735 7566 4663 2003

1996 2003 6749 8752 4978 3774

1997 3774 8400 12174 7742 4432

1998 4432 7089 11521 6934 4587

1999 4587 6530 11117 6371 4746

2000 4746 8647 13393 7732 5661

2001 5661 12143 17804 9433 8371

2002 8371 11472 19843 7878 11965

INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF JUDGES OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES

ChiefPeriod Justice Judges

1947-1950 1 —

1950-1951 1 2

1953-1955 1 4

1955-1956 1 5

1956-1977 1 6

1977-1979 1 7

1979-1981 1 8

1981-1986 1 10

1986-1987 1 12

1987-2002 1 16


Institution of Cases Over the Last Five Decades

Cases 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2002

Petitions 199 1478 2519 3999 8647 11472Appeals 288 541 1334 1301 3055 2375Total 487 2019 3853 5300 11702 13847

1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

�

�

�

�

�

THE CURVE FOR CASES FILED

OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES

Thousa

nd

Case

s


THIS PAGE BLANK


Social Objectivesand the Contribution of Judges


Chief Justice Addressing Full Court

5 SOCIAL OBJECTIVES AND THE CONTRIBUTION

OF JUDGES

5.1 Judges of Supreme Court Nominated to Various Committees, Tri-bunals, University Syndicates and other Bodies

The Chief Justice of Pakistan has nominated the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan tovarious Committees, Tribunals, University Syndicates and other Bodies as listed in the followingchart:—

S.No. Name of Judge Name of Committee, Organ-isation/ Body

Relevant Provision

1. Mr Justice Munir A. Sheikh 1) Judge Incharge for welfareof retired Judges in La-hore/ Islamabad.

Order of Chief Justice dated 10-2-2000

2) Chairman of the Build-ing Committees at Lahore,Islamabad, Karachi, Pe-shawar, Quetta and Mur-ree.


3) Member of the PakistanMedical and Dental Coun-cil from 16-11-2001.

Under clause (g) of Sub-Section(1) of Section 3 of PM&DC Ordi-nance, 1962

4) Financial powers to sanc-tion Expenditure:—

i) Repair, maintenance& purchase of offi-cial transport, ma-chinery, furniture &other misc. items,etc.

ii) Cost of petrol.iii) Medical charges for

Hon. Judges & otherstaff of the Court.

iv) Transport of goods.v) Law charges, andvi) Advertisement and

other misc. Expendi-ture, etc.


2. Mr Justice Nazim HussainSiddiqui

1) Judge Incharge for wel-fare of retired Judges inKarachi.


2) Member of the BuildingCommittee at Karachi, Is-lamabad & Murree.


Continued. . . .



Relevant Provision

3) Chairman,Central ZakatCouncil.

Section 12(3) of Zakat & Ushr Or-dinance, 1980

4) Member Selection Boardof the Quaid-e-Azam Uni-versity, Islamabad. (w.e.f.25-10-2000)

Section 6 (I) (V) of First Statutesof University Act, 1973

5) Financial powers to sanc-tion expenditure of Pur-chase of books, other misc.items/ equipments/ ma-chinery for use in the Li-brary.

Order dated 06-02-2002

3. Mr Justice Iftikhar MuhammadChaudhry

1) Judge Incharge for Affairsof Staff Welfare.


2) Member, Building Com-mittee, Quetta.


3) Chairman of EnrolmentCommittee of the PakistanBar Council. (w.e.f. 29-9-2000)

Sections 15 & 42 of the Le-gal Practitioners & Bar CouncilsAct, 1973

4) Financial powers to sanc-tion expenditure:—

i) Under P.O. No.1/2001 and medicalbills in respect of re-tired judges;

ii) Purchase of sta-tionery and printing,and

iii) Uniform and liver-ies.


4. Mr Justice Qazi MuhammadFarooq

1) Member, Building Com-mittee, Peshawar.


2) Judge Incharge for welfareof retired Judges at Pe-shawar.


3) Judge Incharge, FederalJudicial Academy.


4) Member, Committee formaintenance of a penal ofcounsel at State expense

Office Memorandum dated19.3.2001

5) Chairman, Federal ReviewBoard.


Continued. . . .



Relevant Provision

5. Mr Justice Rana Bhagwandas 1) Member, Building Com-mittee, Karachi.


2) Member of the LibraryCommittee.


6. Mr Justice Mian MuhammadAjmal

1) Member, Building Com-mittee at Peshawar.


2) Chairman DisciplinaryCommittee of the Pak-istan Bar Council.


3) Member, Syndicate of theQuaid-e-Azam University(expires on 22-10-2002)


7. Mr. Justice Syed Deedar HussainShah

1) Member, committee formaintenance of a panel ofcounsel at State expense.


2) Chairman, Tribunal of thePakistan Bar Council.


3) Member, Federal ReviewBoard


5) Chairman, Election Tri-bunal of the Pakistan BarCouncil.


8. Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal 1) Member, Committee formaintenance of a panel ofcounsel at State expense.


2) Member of the Execu-tive Council of the Al-lama Iqbal Open Univer-sity from 07-03-2002.


9. Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza Trustee of Shah AbdulLatif Education Trust.

Order dated 4-2-2002

10. Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar Member of Syndicate ofShah Abdul Latif Univer-sity, Khairpur, Sindh.



5.2 International Interaction

5.2.1 Visits Abroad by Chief Justice of Pakistan

The Chief Justice of Pakistan made the following visits abroad:

1. Attended the Global Judges Symposium on Sustainable Development and Rule of Law heldat Johannesburg, South Africa from 18th to 20th August, 2002. During this visit, he alsoattended Envirolaw International Conference 2002 at Durban, South Africa.

2. Participated in the 9th SAARC Law and 6th Chief Justices Conference held at Jaipur, Ra-jhastan, India from September 20 to September 22, 2002 to discuss Judicial Review and theEnvironment.

3. Attended South Asian Judicial Colloquium on Access to Justice held at New Delhi, India,from 1st to 3rd November, 2002.

The speeches and remarks of the Chief Justice are summarised below.

5.2.2 “Legal and Institutional Framework for the Protection of Environment in Pak-istan” By Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan

Mankind and all flora and fauna are de-pendent for their survival on the perfect eco-logical balance found in nature. The growthof economic power and unbalanced industrialexpansion has exerted unbearable pressure onthe limited available natural resources caus-ing the depletion of these precious resources,thus, depriving future generations of their rightto development. Further, developmental activi-ties result in environmental pollution and affectmankind’s most crucial fundamental right, thatis, the right to life. Inherent in the depletionof natural resources and environmental degra-dation is the clear and present danger to thesurvival of life on planet earth. Mankind mustexploit and enjoy natural resources by carry-ing out development work in a balanced mannerwith a view to getting optimal benefits that donot compromise the future of succeeding gener-ations.

Due to the continued and persistent inter-ference in nature by Man and thanks to the

development of science and technological in-novations, the problem of environmental im-balance and degradation of the environmenthave assumed alarming proportions resulting inair, water and soil pollution, desertification, de-forestation and soil erosion. Development andprogress are desirable, but they must be in har-mony with the requirement of maintaining aproper ecological balance. Natural resources arethe bounty of nature and should be utilized ina gainful and efficient manner. Nearly one anda half century ago, a wise Indian Chief, whileresponding to an offer of sale of his land to awhite man stated:

How can you buy or sell the sky, thewarmth of the land; the idea is strangeto us. If you do not own the freshnessof the air and the sparkle of the water,how can you buy them? This we know,the earth does not belong to man; manbelongs to the earth. This we know,all things are connected like the bloodwhich unites one family. All things areconnected. Whatever befalls the earth


befalls the sons of the earth. Man didnot weave the web of life; he is merelya strand in it. Whatever he does to theweb he does to himself.

This is indeed a profound statement andepitomizes the whole philosophy of the ecologi-cal balance of nature.

The ever-increasing problem of environmen-tal pollution and degradation of the environ-ment attracted the attention of the interna-tional community and voices were raised forinternational efforts to respond to the emerg-ing threat. The international community mustbe commended for a timely action. It succeededin convening the United Nations Conference onHuman Environment in Stockholm in 1972 todeliberate upon the issues and problems of theenvironment. The participating states agreedupon collaboration and cooperation in prepar-ing and launching an action plan to prevent en-vironmental degradation and preserve nature.The Declaration issued by the Conference wasindeed a laudable achievement of mankind. TheDeclaration states, inter alia, that “man has thefundamental right to freedom, equality and con-dition of life and bears a solemn responsibilityto protect and improve the environment.” TheConference further emphasized individual andcollective efforts to preserve the environment.

The Government of Pakistan has activelypursued the cause of environmental protection.It has been party to several international dec-larations, agreements and conventions on thesubject. Pakistan signed and ratified the U.N.Framework Convention on Climate Change.She has also ratified the Convention on Biolog-ical Diversity, participated in the 1992 Confer-ence at Rio-de-Jeniro and played an effectiverole in preparing and finalizing the guidelinesfor adoption by the member states. Pakistanhas also created structures and enacted rulesfor the implementation of various internationalenvironmental agreements such as the Inter-national Plant Protection Convention (Rome,

1951); the Convention Concerning the Protec-tion of World Cultural and Natural Heritage(World Heritage Convention, Paris, 1972); theConvention on International Trade in Endan-gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES,Washington, 1973); the Convention on the Con-servation of Migratory Species of Wild Ani-mals( Bonn, 1979); and the Vienna Conventionfor the Protection of the Ozone Layer (Vienna,1985), as well as many others.

The Constitution of Pakistan contains pro-visions for environmental protection and re-source conservation. The Constitution men-tions “Environmental Pollution and Ecology”as a subject in the Concurrent Legislative List,meaning that both the Federal and ProvincialGovernments may initiate and make legislationfor the purpose.

Several laws exist for the protection of theenvironment. Some of these laws are Federaland the rest Provincial in character. The im-portant laws on the subject are the Canal andDrainage Act, 1873; The Explosives Act, 1884;The Ports Act, 1908; The Forest Act, 1927;The Fisheries Ordinance, 1961; The PunjabWildlife (Protection, Conservation and Man-agement) Act, 1964; The Fire Wood and Char-coal (Restriction) Act, 1964; Motor Vehicles Or-dinance, 1965; The West Pakistan Regulationand Control of Loudspeaker and Sound Am-plifier Ordinance, 1965; The Agricultural Pesti-cide Ordinance, 1971; and The Antiquities Act,1975. There are many other laws as well thatdeal with related issues.

Besides, the Pakistan Penal Code, 1861,which is a general criminal law, and appliesall over the country, contains specific provisionson the subject. Thus, it prohibits mischief bykilling or maiming animals, or damaging worksof irrigation or a river or a road or a bridgeor drainage or firing explosive substances withintent to cause damage. The code also pro-hibits public nuisance by acting negligently tospread infectious diseases, disobeying quaran-tine rules, causing adulteration of food, drink


or drug, fouling water or making the atmo-sphere noxious to health. The promulgation ofthe Environmental Protection Ordinance, 1983was the first codifying legislation on the issueof environmental protection. This was indeed aconsolidated enactment to plug the gaps andremove defects/deficiencies in the existing leg-islation.

Later, the Government passed and promul-gated the Pakistan Environmental ProtectionAct, 1997. The Act is fairly comprehensive, pro-viding for the protection, conservation, rehabil-itation and improvement of the environment.It contains action plans and programmes forthe prevention of pollution and preservation ofclean and healthy environment. The salient fea-tures of the law are:

1. The Act covers air, water, soil, marine andnoise pollution including pollution causedby vehicles.

2. The Act provides for fixing the NationalEnvironment Quality Standards (NEQA)and their strict enforcement. For default,the Government has been empowered tolevy a pollution charge.

3. The Government has been empowered toissue environmental protection orders soas to effectively deal with and respond tothe actual or potential violation of the lawleading to environmental degradation.

4. The law provides for Environmental Im-pact Assessment (EIA) of various projectsbeing launched in the country includingthe construction of roads, buildings fac-tories or other installations, or any al-teration, expansion, repair of the same,mineral prospecting, mining or quarrying.The law states that no project may belaunched without an EIA being carriedout and safeguards provided to the effectthat the proposed project will not pollutethe environment.

5. The imports of hazardous waste into thecountry has been banned and the trans-port of hazards substance and danger-ous chemicals, toxic material, or explosivesubstances has been regulated, throughlicenses, under prescribed rules and pro-cedure.

6. To ensure compliance with the NEQS, thelaw provides for an appropriate mecha-nism including the installation of devicesso as to control the pollution caused bymotor vehicles.

7. A fairly high level body called, Pak-istan Environmental Protection Coun-cil, headed by the Prime Minister andcomprising the Chief Ministers of theprovinces, relevant Ministers of the Fed-eral and provincial governments, repre-sentatives of trade, commerce and indus-try and members of the academia, hasbeen constituted to formulate policy andprovide guidelines for enforcing the law.

8. For the effective implementation of theprovisions of the law, the Pakistan En-vironmental Protection Agency, headedby a Director General with other staffhas been constituted. This Agency is re-sponsible for enforcing policy and imple-menting the provisions of the law. On thesame pattern, Provincial EnvironmentalProtection Agencies have been created ineach province.

9. A Provincial Sustainable DevelopmentFund has been established and is regu-lated and managed by a Board.

10. Environmental tribunals with exclusivejurisdiction to try serious offences havebeen provided by the law. The law alsoprovides for the appointment of mag-istrates to try minor offences. Appealagainst an order/judgment of a mag-istrate lies before the Court of Ses-sion, whose decision is final. Appealagainst the judgment of a Tribunal lies


to the High Court. Stringent punishmentthrough heavy fines and imprisonmenthave been prescribed.

11. The Act also empowers the Federal Gov-ernment to make rules for the imple-mentation of international environmen-tal agreements and conventions to whichPakistan is a parry.

The Pakistan Environmental ProtectionAct, 1997 has been put into operation. Therequisite rules and regulations have been en-acted including, National Environmental Qual-ity Standards (Self-monitoring and Reportingby Industries) Rules, 2000; Pakistan Environ-mental Protection Agency (Review of Capital,IEE/EIA) Regulations 2002; Provincial Sus-tainable Development Fund (Utilization) Rules2002; Composition of Offences and Payment ofAdministrative Penalty Rules 2002 and Haz-ardous Substances Rules, 2002.

The Federal Government has establishedtwo Environmental Tribunals one each inKarachi and Lahore. The Karachi Tribunal hasjurisdiction over the provinces of Sindh andBaluchistan, while the Lahore Tribunal coversthe provinces of the Punjab and NWFP. HighCourts have designated senior Civil Judges asEnvironmental Magistrates to take cognizanceof all contraventions punishable in respect ofhandling of hazardous substances and pollutioncaused by motor vehicles.

Environmental Laboratory Certificate Reg-ulation 2000 has been notified whereby a net-work of ethnically sound laboratories is beingestablished through out the country. The certi-fied laboratories will be authorized to test envi-ronmental samples and assist public and privatesector to get their levels of emission tested.

The judiciary of Pakistan is alive to the sit-uation and has extended a helping hand to theState in achieving the goals of environmentallaw. The superior judiciary, and in particularthe Supreme Court of Pakistan, has played apositive and constructive role in preventing the

degradation of the environment and preserv-ing a sustainable ecological balance of nature.Several judgments have been rendered in casesrelating to the prohibition of environmentaldegradation and maintaining a clean and pureenvironment. The Supreme Court of Pakistanalso resorted to the exercise of extraordinaryjurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Consti-tution by entertaining petitions pertaining tomaintaining clean environment, this being anissue of great public importance. In the case ofShehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693) someof citizens of Islamabad forwarded a petitionto the Supreme Court of Pakistan complainingabout the construction of grid station in theirlocality. The Court formulated two questionsfor resolution: first, whether any governmentagency has a right to endanger the life of citi-zens by its actions without the consent of suchcitizens, and secondly, whether zoning laws vestrights in citizens which could not be withdrawnor altered without the consent of the citizens?The petitioners had relied on Article 9 of theConstitution, which guarantees the right to life,liberty and security of person. While interpret-ing this article, the Court observed that theword “life” is very significant as it covers allaspects of human existence. Life has not beendefined in the Constitution, but it does notmean that it can be restricted only to vegetativeor animal life or mere existence from conceptionto death. The Court went on to state that lifeincludes all such amenities and facilities that aperson born in a free country is entitled to enjoylegally and constitutionally. The Court, there-fore, concluded that a person is entitled to theprotection of law from being exposed to hazardsof electrical magnetic fields or such hazards thatmay be due to the installation of a grid station,in a factory, power station or a similar installa-tion. In reaching this conclusion, the Court re-ferred to two international declarations namelythe Declaration of UN Conference on HumanEnvironment at Stockholm 1972 and the RioDeclaration 1992, and expressed the view that


an international instrument, even if not rati-fied by the State, is of persuasive value andwill be given due importance and weightage.The Court added that the issue of environmentprotection transcends national frontiers and re-quires cooperation of nations.

In another case (PLD 1998 SC 102) theSupreme Court took suo moto notice of a newsreport to the effect that certain businessmenwere purchasing land in the coastal area ofBalochistan for dumping hazardous nuclear andindustrial waste. The Court asked for a reporton the matter from the Provincial Government.It turned out that there was no substance inthe report. The Court nevertheless issued direc-tions to the Government that no person shall beallotted land for dumping nuclear or industrialwaste. The Court directed that the Governmentshould submit a list of persons to whom landin the coastal area of Balochistan has alreadybeen allotted. The Court further directed thatthe land should not be used for the dumpingof nuclear or industrial waste. Furthermore, asimilar undertaking was to be obtained fromthe allottee of the land in the coastal area, theCourt concluded.

In another Human Right case (1996 SCMR543), the Supreme Court directed the Provin-cial Government of Sindh to take effective mea-sures for eliminating pollution caused by smokeemitting vehicles. The Court ordered that allvehicles, whether privately owned or owned bygovernment departments, should be regularlyinspected and checked. The Court further askedfor emergency checks to be carried for the pur-pose by the concerned officials. The Court di-rected that motorcycles and auto rickshaws notbe allowed to ply without silencers and that theuse of pressure horns and multi-tone horns beprohibited.

In General Secretary, W.P. Salt MinesLabour Union v. Director, Industries and Min-eral Development, Government of the Punjab(1994 SCMR 2061), the Supreme Court ex-pressed the view that provision of clean and

unpolluted drinking water to the citizens wasa fundamental right, enshrined in Article 9 ofthe Constitution, and that any effort or activ-ity that deprives the citizens of this right isvolatile of the Constitution. The Court, there-fore, prohibited further mining in the area as itmay contaminate the water reservoir or watercourse, used for drinking water by the residents.The Court went on to elaborate that the Consti-tution provides for the right to life and ensuresthe dignity of man. With these two importantrights, it would be difficult to conceive life inwhich a person does not get the minimum cleanatmosphere and unpolluted environment. TheCourt further stated that it will not hesitate tostop the functioning of a factory that createspollution and environmental degradation.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has alwayssought to enforce the laws and regulations per-taing to the protection of the environment. Inreaching its conclusion, the Court has relied notonly on the law and Constitution of Pakistan,which are binding on the Court, but has alsoinvoked international conventions, declarationsand protocols. In doing so, the Court favoredthe international conventions for the enforce-ment of internationally recognized standards ofenvironmental protection. The issue of protec-tion of environment is of vital importance notonly to the people of Pakistan but the peo-ple of the world. This issue transcends nationalboundaries and geographical barriers. There is agrowing consensus among the nations, and thepeople of Pakistan agree with this consensus,that there is a definite need to consolidate andstrengthen the environment protection legisla-tion. The judiciary of Pakistan is alive to itsresponsibility and has played and will continueto play its due role in preventing all forms ofenvironmental nuisance, pollution, degradationand ecological disaster so as to protect and safe-guard the ecological balance of nature in ourone and only planet, earth.


5.2.3 Concluding Remarks of Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan atthe Inaugural Session of South Asian Judicial Colloquium on Access to Justiceat New Delhi on 1-3 November 2002

Hon. Justice B. N. Kirpal, Chief Justice of In-dia;Hon. Justice Leila Seth, Chairperson, Common-wealth Human Rights Initiative;Hon. Judges of the Superior Courts from theSAARC region and elsewhere;Hon. Delegates;Ladies and Gentlemen!

It is my proud privilege to say a few wordsby way of concluding remarks in this Inaugu-ral Session of the First South Asian RegionalJudicial Colloquium on Access to Justice. Dueto paucity of time, I shall be brief. Indeed Iam privileged to have listened to the very il-luminating and thought-provoking speech on“Access to Justice and Judicial Accountability”by my friend, Justice B. N. Kirpal, the ChiefJustice of India. His observations are profoundand provide adequate food for thought for theparticipants to ponder over and debate in theforthcoming sessions of the Colloquium.

Access to justice is indeed a fundamentalconcept in the administration of justice. Tofurnish access to justice is a crucial and pro-found obligation of the State and the society.As a matter of fact, the edifice of administra-tion of justice is based on its ability to pro-vide a free and uninterrupted access to justiceto all—and more so, to the needy, poverty-stricken, deprived and socially disadvantagedsections of the society. This is indeed possiblethrough the mechanism of public interest litiga-tion. The essence of public interest litigation isto facilitate the weaker and vulnerable peopleto claim and enforce their rights and seek re-dress for wrongs and grievances. It is to enablethem to get equality before law and acquire theequal protection of law. It is to empower themto avail their fundamental rights and enjoy thebenefits of law.

The benefits of law are for all citizens andall sections of society, irrespective of any consid-eration of colour, creed, caste, gender or socio-economic background. Seen in this perspective,access to justice, in my view, is a crucial con-cept. It is essential for dignified and civilisedexistence. It is a very basic and fundamentalright, because in its absence, the enjoyment ofother rights, that is, civil, political, economicor cultural rights, becomes illusionary. By en-suring this right, the judiciary merely fulfilsan obligation cast on it by the Constitution.Such is a prerequisite of civilized governanceand an important State obligation. The Stateand its organs including the judiciary cannotavoid it. The extent to which and the mannerin which this obligation is fulfilled, is greatly de-pendent on the enabling legal or constitutionalprovisions and the approach of the judiciary toenforce it. The courts have to employ new andimaginative techniques to guarantee this essen-tial right to citizens, but especially to those indire need of it, including weaker and vulnerablesections of the society such as children, women,peasants, labourers, prisoners, minorities andother similar groups.

I should mention here that the SupremeCourt of Pakistan has been exercising its ju-risdiction of public interest litigation underArticle 184(3) of the Constitution, and overtime, has rendered some landmark judgments.I am equally familiar with the important andlandmark judgments rendered by the SupremeCourt of India, and who can ignore the roleand contribution of the former Chief Justiceof India, Mr Justice Bhagwat, in this area. Hecan rightly be called the harbinger of changeand the propounder of this new and innovativemode of litigation in this region. I am sure thatin the forthcoming sessions of the Colloquium,


the judgments of various courts in the regionwill be revisited by the participants.

The Colloquium is a unique opportunityfor judges, lawyers and academicians of the re-gion. They can renew their acquaintances, makebonds of friendship and share their unique ex-periences on issues of common interest. On thisoccasion, let me congratulate the organizers forconceiving a forum of this kind, to bring to-gether men and women of learning to meet, soas to discuss and deliberate, in order to learnfrom one another and improve their own per-formance and the performance of their institu-tions.

The topics for discussion in the Colloquium,namely, Access to Justice, Public Interest Liti-gation, Judicial Independence, Impartiality andAccountability, Rights of Weak and Vulnerable

Sections including Women, Children, Minori-ties and Prisoners and Strengthening of HumanRights Norms, are crucial in the South Asiancontext. I am confident that there would be de-tailed discussions and exchange of views amongthe participants. The purpose is to share knowl-edge and learn from one another. It is a usefulopportunity to think of and devise innovativemeans and techniques of improving the perfor-mance of the courts. This event is also an im-portant opportunity for men and women of theregion to put their heads together for regionalpeace, stability, security and most importantly,economic and social development. I am surethat the deliberations will be useful and ben-eficial for all participants.

Thank you.

5.2.4 SAARC Chief Justices’ Conference at Jaipur, India from 20-22 September 2002(Judicial Review and Environment Talk Points)—Remarks by the Chief Justiceof Pakistan

A clean and healthy environment is a basichuman right embedded in the right to life. Thebasic right can be ensured through a varietyof measures including legislation, policy guide-lines and the establishment of institutions andstructures for the effective enforcement of lawand policy.

Besides, provisions in the Pakistan PenalCode, for example fouling water reservoirs,making the atmosphere noxious to health, negli-gent conduct in respect of explosive substances,poisonous substance, combustible matter andthe like, there are several other laws on the pro-tection of environment. These are:

1. The Epidemic Diseases Act 1958;

2. The West Pakistan Regulation and Con-trol of Loudspeakers and Sound Ampli-fiers Ordinance 1965;

3. The Pakistan Plant Quarantine Act 1976;

4. The Pakistan Nuclear Safety And Radia-tion Protection Ordinance 1984;

5. The Islamabad (Preservation of Land-scape) Ordinance 1966; and

6. The Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance1971.

A major initiative by the Government ofPakistan was the enactment of comprehensivelaw, titled, “The Pakistan Environment Protec-tion Act 1997.” Salient features of this law areas follows:

1. The Act covers air, water, soil, marine andnoise pollution including pollution causedby vehicles.

2. The Act provides for fixing the NationalEnvironment Quality Standards (NEQA)and their strict enforcement. For default,the Government has been empowered tolevy a pollution charge.

3. The Government has been empowered toissue environmental protection orders so


as to effectively deal with and respond tothe actual or potential violation of the lawleading to environmental degradation.

4. The law provides for Environmental Im-pact Assessment (EIA) of various projectsbeing launched in the country includingthe construction of roads, buildings fac-tories or other installations, or any al-teration, expansion, repair of the same,mineral prospecting, mining or quarrying.The law states that no project may belaunched without an EIA being carriedout and safeguards provided to the effectthat the proposed project will not pollutethe environment.

5. The imports of hazardous waste into thecountry has been banned and the trans-port of hazards substance and danger-ous chemicals, toxic material, or explosivesubstances has been regulated, throughlicenses, under prescribed rules and pro-cedure.

6. To ensure compliance with the NEQS, thelaw provides for an appropriate mecha-nism including the installation of devicesso as to control the pollution caused bymotor vehicles.

7. A fairly high level body called, Pak-istan Environmental Protection Coun-cil, headed by the Prime Minister andcomprising the Chief Ministers of theprovinces, relevant Ministers of the Fed-eral and provincial governments, repre-sentatives of trade, commerce and indus-try and members of the academia, hasbeen constituted to formulate policy andprovide guidelines for enforcing the law.

8. For the effective implementation of theprovisions of the law, the Pakistan En-vironmental Protection Agency, headedby a Director General with other staffhas been constituted. This Agency is re-sponsible for enforcing policy and imple-menting the provisions of the law. On the

same pattern, Provincial EnvironmentalProtection Agencies have been created ineach province.

9. A Provincial Sustainable DevelopmentFund has been established and is regu-lated and managed by a Board.

10. Environmental tribunals with exclusivejurisdiction to try serious offences havebeen provided by the law. The law alsoprovides for the appointment of mag-istrates to try minor offences. Appealagainst an order/judgment of a mag-istrate lies before the Court of Ses-sion, whose decision is final. Appealagainst the judgment of a Tribunal liesto the High Court. Stringent punishmentthrough heavy fines and imprisonmenthave been prescribed.

11. The Act also empowers the Federal Gov-ernment to make rules for the imple-mentation of international environmen-tal agreements and conventions to whichPakistan is a parry.

Environmental legislation, all over theworld, is a relatively new phenomenon. Withlegislative framework in place, it is the respon-sibility of the judiciary to enforce the same. Theapex court of the land, that is, the SupremeCourt of Pakistan has decided some importantcases on environmental protection, which areenumerated below:

Sheihla Zia v WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC693)—The Supreme Court in case under Article184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan consid-ered a question of the protection of human lifeas guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution.It was assailed that a grid station in constructedin a residential area of the Capital by the Waterand Power Development Authority is in viola-tion of Art. 9 of the Constitution. It was allegedthat the electromagnetic field by the presenceof high voltage transmission lines at the gridstation would pose a serious health hazard to


the residents of the area particularly the chil-dren, the infirm and the families residing at thattime in the immediate vicinity. It was also urgedthat the presence of electrical installation andtransmission lines in close proximity are highlydangerous to the life and security of the citizens.Further, this may damage the green belt andaffect the environment. The court observed: Inthe problem at hand the likelihood of any haz-ard to life by magnetic field, its effect cannotbe ignored. At the same time the need for con-structing grid stations which are necessary forindustrial and economic development cannot belost sight of. The Court further held: Life (asguaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution)does not mean nor can it be restricted only tothe vegetative or animal life or mere existencefrom conception to death. For the purpose ofpresent controversy suffice to say that a personis entitled to protection of law from being ex-posed to hazard of electronic fields.

Almost the same view is taken by theSupreme Court of India, in Mehta v. Union ofIndia (AIR 1988 SC 1115) in context of haz-ardous industries. The Court observed that:“We cannot possible adopt a policy of not hav-ing any chemical or hazardous industries merelybecause they pose hazard to risk to the commu-nity . . . we can only hope to reduce the elementof hazard by taking all necessary steps in a man-ner that would pose the least risk of damage tothe community.”

In re: Human Rights Case (EnvironmentPollution in Baluchistan) (PLD 1994 SC 102),another memorable and very important issuewas taken up suo moto by the Supreme Courtunder Art 184 (3) of the Constitution 1973.This was on the basis of a news item regardingdumping of nuclear waste in Balochistan. It wasreported that: the business tycoons are makingattempts to purchase coastal area of Baluchis-tan and to convert it into dumping ground forwaste material, which may bring hazard to de-veloping posts of Guwadr, Pasni, Ormana and

Juwani and the dumping waste materials in-cluding nuclear waste from the developed coun-tries would not only be hazard to the health ofthe people but also to the environment and themarine life in the region.

The Court observed, that if, nuclear wasteis dumped on the coastal land of Balochistan,it is bound to create environmental hazard andpollution and will violate Art. 9 of the Consti-tution. The Court directed that: The Govern-ment functionaries, particularly the Authoritieswhich are charged with the duty to allot theland on coastal area should insert a condition inthe allotment letter/licence/lease that the allot-tee/tenant shall not use the land for dumping,treating, burying or destroying by any devicewaste of any nature including industrial or nu-clear waste in ay form.

Noise pollution is another form of healthhazard, which is also a public nuisance. In thecase Sltau v De Held [(1851) 2 Sim NS 133],a person residing in a house next to a RomanCatholic Chapel where a bell was rung at allhours of the day and night causing nuisanceto him was brought against the priest. It washeld, that, ringing of a bell is a public nuisanceand the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction.A similar situation was faced by the IndianHigh Court [(1883) ILD 3 Bomb 35] wherethe owners of a building brought a complaintagainst an adjacent cotton mill causing noiseand smoke injurious to the residents. The plain-tiff obtained compensation and an injunctionprohibiting any increase of smoke, cotton-fluffor noise of machinery.

In re: Pollution of Environment Caused BySmoke Emitting Vehicles (PLD 1996 SCMR543), the Supreme Court of Pakistan took noteof pollution caused by traffic noise smoke/whichis injurious to health and physical/mental dis-comfort and observed: “The concerned authori-ties should ensure that the motor rickshaws arenot allowed to ply without silencer . . . in the ex-isting circumstance, all the persons owning or


plying motor cycles, rickshaws should be givenone months time to get the silencer fitted.

The Court further took serious note of pres-sure horn’s fitted in vehicles or vehicles fittedwith multi-tone horns giving unduly harsh shrillloud or alarming voice and directed the au-thorities that the pressure horns be seized anddestroyed.

In General Secretary, West Pakistan SaltMiners Labour Union Khewra v. DirectorIndustries and Mineral Development Punjab(1994 SCMR 206), the Supreme Court observedthat “polluting a public spring or reservoir andfouling a water tank in a way to make it less

fit for human consumption is the worst exam-ple of the negation of human rights and con-trary to environmental laws.” The Court fur-ther held: “In case where the life of citizens isdegraded, the quality of life is adversely affectedand health hazards are created affecting a largenumber of people, the Court under the Consti-tution is obliged to grant relief to the extent ofstopping the functioning of factories which cre-ate pollution and environmental degradation.”

Water, which is necessary for existence oflife, if polluted or contaminated, will cause se-rious threat to human existence. In such a sit-uation, persons exposed to such dangers areentitled to claim that the fundamental rightsbe enforced.

5.2.5 Speeches of Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan During theYear 2002

1. Address on the retirement of Mr. Justice (R) Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri on 31-1-2002 atthe Supreme Court Building, Islamabad.

2. Address at the inauguration of Jinnah Hall, Allama Iqbal Open University held on 14-3-2002.

3. Address at the launching of Mr. S.M. Zafar’s book at PC Hotel, Lahore held on 6-4-2002.

4. Address on the Criminal Justice System, Role of Judiciary and Police, delivered at the NationalPolice Academy, Islamabad on 13-4-2002.

5. Address on the occasion of the Inauguration of the 15th Cultural Week of the InternationalIslamic University, Islamabad on 15-4-200.

6. Address at the Launching of Justice Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah’s Book “Memoirs and Reflections”held at the Supreme Court Auditorium on 8-7-2002.

7. Address at the Iqra University Convocation 2002 at Karachi, held on 3-8-2002.

8. Speech at the Workshop on Women’s Access to Legal and Judicial Professions held at Islam-abad Marriott Hotel on 7-9-2002.

9. Address on the occasion of launching ceremony of the book “Readings in Human Rights” heldat Holiday Inn, Islamabad on 17-9-2002.

10. Address at the inauguration of the 12th IAS Conference held at Islamabad Serena Hotel on14-10-2002.

11. Speech at the First Convocation 2002 of Muhammad Ali Jinnah University Islamabad Campusheld on 21-11-2002.


12. Speech on occasion of the launching ceremony of the English-Urdu Translation of Black’s LawDictionary held at the National Language Authority, Islamabad on 30-11-2002.

13. Address on the occasion of the Biennial International Conference on Cardiovascular and Tho-racic Surgery held at Pearl Continental Hotel, Rawalpindi on 16-12-2002.

14. Introductory remarks at the First Meeting of the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committeeheld at Islamabad on 21-12-2002.

15. Concluding remarks during the Altaf Gauhar Memorial Lecture–2002 held at Islamabad Mar-riott Hotel on 23-12-2002.

16. Address at the Annual Lunch of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Bar Associationdelivered on 28-12-2002.

5.2.6 Visits Abroad by Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan

The nominees of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal, Judge Supreme Court ofPakistan and Mr. Justice Javed Butter, Judge Lahore High Court, participated in the Judicial Ad-ministration and Reform Course conducted by International Development Law Institution, Sydney,Australia, held from 2nd to 21st June, 2002.


5.3 The Supreme Court and the Media

The Press has free access to the Supreme Court, and the Court offices are open throughout the year.Court Sessions and proceedings are open for the Press and copies of judgements are provided to themembers of the Press. Rooms have been provided within the Supreme Court building to facilitatetheir work. In addition to this, the Press can now access the Court website and this website isgrowing by the day. In short, the Court encourages the Press to freely report on its proceedings.


THIS PAGE BLANK


Code of Conduct for Judgesof the Supreme Court and the High Courts


THIS PAGE BLANK


6 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDGES OF THE SUPREME

COURT AND THE HIGH COURTS

[Framed by the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 128 (4) of the 1962 Constitution as amendedup to date under Article 209(8) of the 1973 Constitution]17

The prime duty of a Judge as an individual is to present before the public an image of thejustice of the nation. As a member of this court, that duty is brought within the disciplinesappropriate to a corporate body.

The Constitution, by declaring that all authority exercisable by the people is a sacred trustfrom Almighty Allah, makes it plain that the justice of this nation is of Divine origin. Itconnotes full implementation of the high principles, which are woven into the Constitution, aswell as the universal requirements of natural justice. The oath of a Judge implies completesubmission to the Constitution, and under the Constitution to the law. Subject to thesegoverning obligations, his function of interpretation and application of the Constitution andthe Law is to be discharged for the maintenance of the Rule of Law over the whole range ofhuman activities within the nation.

To be a living embodiment of these powers, functions and obligations calls for possessionof the highest qualities of intellect and character. Equally, it imposes patterns of behaviour,which are the hall-mark of distinction of a Judge among his fellow-men.

In this Code, an attempt is made to indicate certain traditional requirements of behaviourin the Judges of the Superior Courts, conducive to the achievement of a standard of justiceworthy of the nation.

ARTICLE I

On equiponderance stand the heavens and theearth. By equiponderance, oppression meaningunjust and unequal burdens, is removed. TheJudge’s task is to ensure that such equalityshould prevail in all things.

ARTICLE II

A Judge should be God-fearing, law-abiding,abstemious, truthful of tongue, wise in opin-ion, cautious and forbearing, blameless, and un-touched by greed.

While dispensing justice, he should bestrong without being rough, polite without be-ing weak, awe-inspiring in his warnings andfaithful to his word, always preserving calm-ness, balance and complete detachment, for theformation of correct conclusions in all matterscoming before him.

In the matter of taking his seat, of his per-sonal behaviour when in his seat and of risingfrom his seat, he shall be punctilious in pointof time, mindful of the courtesies, careful topreserve the dignity of the Court, while main-taining an equal aspect towards all litigants aswell as all lawyers appearing before him.

17First printed in PLD 1967 Jour. 97.


ARTICLE III

To be above reproach, and for this purpose tokeep his conduct in all things, official and pri-vate, free from impropriety is expected of aJudge.

ARTICLE IV

A Judge must decline resolutely to act in a caseinvolving his own interest, including those ofpersons whom he regards and treats as near rel-atives or close friends.

A Judge must rigidly refrain from enteringinto or continuing any business dealing, howso-ever unimportant it may be, with any party toa case before him. Should the dealing be un-avoidable, he must discontinue his connectionwith the case forthwith.

A Judge must refuse to deal with any case inwhich he has a connection with one party or itslawyer more than the other, or even with bothparties and their lawyers.

To ensure that justice is not only done, butis also seen to be done, a Judge must avoid allpossibility of his opinion or action in any casebeing swayed by any consideration of personaladvantage, either direct or indirect.

ARTICLE V

Functioning as he does in full view of the pub-lic, a Judge gets thereby all the publicity thatis good for him. He should not seek more. Inparticular, he should not engage in any publiccontroversy, least of all on a political question,notwithstanding that it involves a question oflaw.

ARTICLE VI

A Judge should endeavour to avoid, as far aspossible, being involved, either on his own be-half for on behalf of others, in litigation or inmatters which are liable to lead to litigation,such as industry, trade or speculative transac-tions.

To employ the influence of his position togain undue advantage, whether immediate orfuture, is a grave fault.

A Judge must avoid incurring financial orother obligations to private institutions or per-sons such as may embarrass him in the perfor-mance of his functions.

ARTICLE VII

Extra-Judicial duties or responsibilities, offi-cial or private, should be generally avoided. Heshould equally avoid being a candidate, for anyelective office in any organisation whatsoever.

ARTICLE VIII

Gifts are to be received only from near rela-tives and close friends, and only such as arecustomary. Everything in the way of favours inconsequence of the office must be refused. Inaccepting any entertainment offered, whethergeneral or particular, care should be taken thatits real purpose does not conflict with a Judge’sduty to maintain detachment from likely liti-gants, and from partisan activity.

ARTICLE IX

In his judicial work, and his relations with otherJudges, a Judge should act always for the main-tenance of harmony within his own Court, aswell as among all Courts and for the integrityof the institution of justice. Disagreement withthe opinion of any Judge, whether of equal orof inferior status, should invariably be expressedin terms of courtesy and restraint.

ARTICLE X

In his judicial work a Judge shall take all stepsto decide cases within the shortest time, con-trolling effectively efforts made to prevent earlydisposal of cases and make every endeavour tominimise suffering of litigants by deciding casesexpeditiously through proper written judge-ments. A Judge who is unmindful or indifferenttowards this aspect of his duty is not faithful tohis work, which is a grave fault.


The Supreme Judicial Council


THIS PAGE BLANK


7 THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Article 209 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, provides for a SupremeJudicial Council of Pakistan. The Article says:

209. Supreme Judicial Council.—(1) There shall be a Supreme Judicial Council of Pak-istan, in this Chapter referred to as the Council.

(2) The Council shall consist of—

(a) the Chief Justice of Pakistan;

(b) the two next most senior Judges of the Supreme Court; and

(c) the two most senior Chief Justices of High Courts.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, the inter se seniority of the Chief Justicesof the High Courts shall be determined with reference to their dates of appointment asChief Justice, and in case the dates of such appointment are the same, with referenceto their dates of appointment as Judges of any of the High Courts.

(3) If at any time the Council is inquiring into the capacity or conduct of a Judge whois a member of the Council, or a member of the Council is absent or is unable to actdue to illness or any other cause, then—

(a) if such member is a Judge of the Supreme Court, the Judge of the Supreme Courtwho is next in seniority below the Judges referred to in paragraph (b) of clause (2),and

(b) if such member is the Chief Justice of a High Court, the Chief Justice of anotherHigh Court who is next in seniority amongst the Chief Justices of the remainingHigh Courts,

shall act as a member of the Council in his place.

(4) If, upon any matter inquired into by the Council, there is a difference of opinionamongst its members, the opinion of the majority shall prevail, and the report of theCouncil to the President shall be expressed in terms of the view of the majority.

(5) If, on information from any source, the Council or the President is of the opinionthat a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court—

(a) may be incapable of properly performing the duties of his office by reason of physicalor mental incapacity; or

(b) may have been guilty of misconduct,

the President shall direct the Council to, or the Council may, on its own motion, inquireinto the matter.

(6) If, after inquiring into the matter, the Council reports to the President that it is ofthe opinion—


(a) that the Judge is incapable of performing the duties of his office or has been guiltyof misconduct, and

(b) that he should be removed from office,

the President may remove the Judge from office.

(7) A Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court shall not be removed from officeexcept as provided by this Article.

(8) The Council shall issue a code of conduct to be observed by Judges of the SupremeCourt and of the High Courts.


The Court Registry


THIS PAGE BLANK


8 THE COURT REGISTRY

Under Article 208 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, with the approval of the President, maymake rules providing for the appointment by the Court of officers and servants of the Court andfor their terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court (Appointment ofOfficers and Servants and Terms and Conditions of Services) Rules 1982 have been framed.

The Registry of the Supreme Court provides administrative services to the Court for facilitatingits judicial functions. The sanctioned strength of the Court Registry is 529, comprising the Registrar,Additional Registrar, Secretary to Chief Justice, Principal Private Secretary to Chief Justice, 3Deputy Registrars, 11 Assistant Registrars and other officers and servants.

Mr. Muhammad Amin Farooqi isthe present incumbent of the officeof the Registrar having been ap-pointed with effect from 7th July,1999.

8.1 Functions

The Registry provides administrative services to the Court for carrying out its judicial functions.It prepares the cases for fixing before a bench and assists the Court in case flow management. TheRegistry provides information and assistance to advocates and the general public on legal proce-dures and formalities for filing cases and completing the record. The main Registry is situated atIslamabad, but Branch Registries have been established at Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta.

8.2 Goals

The Registry’s goals are:

1. to provide services to the Court in cases flow and court management;

2. to provide to the Chief Justice and to other Judges necessary assistance and informationrelating to processing of cases pending in the Court;

3. to ensure that necessary documents are included and all legal procedural formalities have beencomplied with before a case is fixed for hearing;


4. to prepare cause lists and intimate fixation of cases to parties, advocates-on-record and advo-cates;

5. to implement Court judgements and orders;

6. to maintain Court records; and

7. to maintain the record of senior advocates of the Supreme Court, advocates and advocates-on-record.

8.3 Services

The Registry provides various services to the Court, the legal practitioners, and the litigant public.The staff ensures to the acquisition of necessary material and documents for preparing the cases forearly hearing, and it coveys to lawyers as well as parties to the case, information about fixing cases forhearing. After the judgement is pronounced, the Registry makes copies of the judgement available tothe parties and to general public and law journals for publication. It maintains record of advocates-on-record, advocates and senior advocates of the Supreme Court. Reception counters, manned byexperienced personnel, have been established at the entrance halls of the Court Building with aview to facilitating the lawyers, litigant parties and general public in accessing various courtrooms,offices and information.

The staff is imparted periodic training in the areas of their respective professional operation,particularly to equip them with essential skills and modern techniques.



8.4 Staff Welfare Fund

In July, 1990 by the order of the then Chief Justice of Pakistan, a staff Welfare Fund was establishedwith a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The aim of the fund was to help the needy and low paid employees ofthis Court. On 27th July, 1990, the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the staff members of the Courtdonated a sum of Rs.50,000/towards the fund. The members of the staff contributed the sums ofRs.47,500/-, Rs.39,350/- and Rs.91,000/- to the fund in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 respectively.The available amounts in the Staff Welfare Fund are as follows:

1. Amount invested in Special Saving Certificates with Post Office,Supreme Court Building Branch, Islamabad.

Rs. 2,74,000

2. Amount invested in PLS-TDR. No.937782 with Habib BankLimited, Supreme Court Building Branch, Islamabad.

Rs. 3,50,000

3. Amount invested in PLS-TDR. No.937787 with Habib BankLimited, Supreme Court Building Branch, Islamabad.

Rs. 500,000

4. Amount given as loan and due from members of Staff. Rs. 45,7005. Balance lying with Habib Bank Limited, Supreme Court Build-

ing Branch in Account No. PLS-375-0Rs. 464,938.59

Rs.1634638.59

During the year 2002, the following members of staff have been granted financial help:

1. A sum of Rs. 2000 was granted to Muhammad Nazir, Daftry, on medical grounds.

2. A sum of Rs. 3000 was granted to Muhammad Riaz, Despatch/Rider on medical grounds.

3. A sum of Rs. 5000 was granted to Muhammad Shafi, Qasid on medical grounds.

4. A sum of Rs. 3000 was granted to Muhammad Akbar, Daftry, for the marriage of his daughter.

5. A sum of Rs. 20,000 was granted to Mst. Nazia Begum, Widow of late Abdul Ghani (StenoTypist), as financial assistance.


Financing for the Supreme Court


THIS PAGE BLANK


9 FINANCING FOR THE SUPREME COURT

9.1 Expenditure During the Last Financial Year 2001–2002

Statement Showing the actual expenditure incurred during the last financial year 2001-2002.

HEADS OF ACCOUNT ACTUALS

01101-Pay of Officers Rs. 17,845,917

01201-Pay of Staff Rs. 12,533,587

02000-Regular Allowances Rs. 14,438,397

03100-Overtime Allowance Rs. 760,869

03200-Night Duty Allowance Rs. —

03300-Honorarium Rs. 444,040

03400-Medical Charges Rs. 3,244,686

03700-Pay of Contingent Staff Rs. 9,903,084

03800-Leave Salary Rs. —

11000-Purchase of Transport Rs. 4,232,399

12000-Purchase of Machinery Rs. 12,175,488

13000-Purchase of Furniture Rs. 3,103,502

19000-Purchase of Others Rs. 253,138

41000-R&M of Transport Rs. 1,682,962

42000-R&M of Machinery Rs. 308,519

43000-R&M of Furniture Rs. 8,989

49000-R&M of Others Rs. 21,518

51101-T.A. to Govt. Servants Rs. 8,690,254

51200-Transportation of Goods Rs. 1,027,473

51300-Cost of Petrol Rs. 3,404,053

51400-Conveyance Charges Rs. 727,108

52100-Postage & Telegraph Rs. 333,764

52200-Telephone Charges Rs. 5,734,859

52400-Courier Services Rs. 237,344

53100-Gas Charges Rs. —

53300-Electricity Charges Rs. 6,062

53400-Hot & Cold W/Charges Rs. —

54000-Office Stationery Rs. 1,040,576

55000-Printing Charges Rs. 679,370

56000-Purchase of Books Rs. 2,050,876

57000-Uniform & Liveries Rs. 197,352

58100-Rent of offfice building Rs. 16,350,000

Continued. . . .


HEADS OF ACCOUNT ACTUALS

58600-Rates & Taxes Rs. 96,512

59300-Law Charges Rs. 77,500

59500-Advertisement Charges Rs. 272,963

59900-Other Expenditure Rs. 1,437,505

67000-Entertainment Charges Rs. 466,589

95000-Conferences Rs. —

GRAND TOTAL:— Rs.123,787,237

9.2 Budgetary Allocation for the Year 2002–2003

Details of budget allocation under the following Sub-heads for the current financial year, 2002-2003are as under:—

HEADS OF ACCOUNT ALLOCATION

01101-Pay of Officers Rs. 23,328,000

01201-Pay of Staff Rs. 16,219,000

02000-Regular Allowances Rs. 22,513,000

03100-Overtime Allowance Rs. 600,000

03200-Night Duty Allowance Rs. 20,000

03300-Honorarium Rs. 400,000

03400-Medical Charges Rs. 3,000,000

03700-Pay of Contingent Staff Rs. 29,459,000

03800-Leave Salary Rs. 50,000

11000-Purchase of Transport Rs. 3,000,000

12000-Purchase of Machinery Rs. 1,500,000

13000-Purchase of Furniture Rs. 500,000

19000-Purchase of Others Rs. 500,000

41000-R&M of Transport Rs. 1,400,000

42000-R&M of Machinery Rs. 225,000

43000-R&M of Furniture Rs. 100,000

49000-R&M of Others Rs. 75,000

51101-T. A. to Govt. Servants Rs. 5,700,000

51200-Transportation of Goods Rs. 1,200,000

51300-Cost of Petrol Rs. 2,600,000

51400-Conveyance Charges Rs. 600,000

52100-Postage & Telegraph Rs. 300,000

52200-Telephone Charges Rs. 5,700,000

Continued. . . .


HEADS OF ACCOUNT ALLOCATION

52400-Courier Service Rs. 200,000

53100-Gas Charges Rs. 50,000

53300-Electricity Charges Rs. 300,000

53400-Hot & Cold W/Charges Rs. 10,000

54000-Office Stationery Rs. 1,100,000

55000-Printing Charges Rs. 650,000

56000-Purchase of Books Rs. 1,100,000

57000-Uniform & Liveries Rs. 120,000

58100-Rent of offfice building Rs. 20,000

58600-Rates & Taxes Rs. 150,000

59300-Law Charges Rs. 4,000,000

59500-Advertisement Charges Rs. 400,000

59900-Other Expenditure Rs. 800,000

67000-Entertainment Charges Rs. 400,000

GRAND TOTAL:— Rs. 128,289,000

The increase in pay of officers, staff, regular al-lowances, overtime allowance and pay of contin-gent staff is due to revision of pay scales witheffect from 1.12.2001 and also due to revisionof salaries of Judges with effect from 1.12.2001.Increase in expenditure for purchase of librarybooks is due to purchase of books for the li-braries of the Branch Registries of the Courts atLahore and Karachi. Increase in the purchase ofmachinery head is due to purchase of computersfor the Court and purchase of walk-through gatesfor the Main Registry at Islamabad and BranchRegistries of the Court at Lahore and Karachi.


The Detailed Reconciliation Table Provided GoesInto this Page. Page 1.

Supreme

Court

Annual

Report

2002:

128


Supreme

Court

Annual

Report

2002:

129


Supreme

Court

Annual

Report

2002:

130

9.3 The Share of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Federal Budget

Year Total Budget Supreme Court Budget As %age of Federal(Rs in Million) (Rs in Million) Budget

1993-94 327,316 38.471 0.01

1994-95 375,427 71.741 0.02

1995-96 450,475 40.262 0.01

1996-97 482,612 42.916 0.01

1997-98 554,696 75.768 0.01

1998-99 613,658 83.949 0.01

1999-2000 688,125 79.408 0.01

2000-2001 686,104 84.587 0.01

2001-2002 741,959 115.229 0.02

2002-2003 747,674 128.289 0.02


THIS PAGE BLANK


Legal Research at the Supreme Court


THIS PAGE BLANK


10 LEGAL RESEARCH AT THE SUPREME COURT

10.1 The Supreme Court of Pakistan Library

The Supreme Court of Pakistan maintains its own Library primarily for the use of Judges of theCourt and for legal research to support their needs. The Supreme Court Library is one of the bestlibraries in the country. Besides the Main Library at the Principal Seat of the Court, three Librarieshave been established at the Branch Registries: Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar.

The Library is situated in the basement of Judges Chamber Block. Currently it has a collectionof 60411 books including general books, text books, law reporters and journals on various subjects.It consists of 3 halls and separate offices for staff members and one study room for Judges. In theMain Hall, Law Reports of Pakistan and India have been shelved whereas in Hall No. 2 all thelatest text books have been shelved and arranged subject wise. In the 3rd Hall Foreign Law Reportsare available. All the Law Reports have been arranged alphabetically and are available from 1949till the most recent. The All India Reports (AIR) is available from 1914 up to the most recent. AllEngland Law Reports from 1558 till the present date. The Library also carries reference books likeencyclopaedias, dictionaries and Halsbury’s laws of England, as well as Annual Law Digests from1947. There is sufficient storage space for storing books. The Library has its own binding facilitieswith two Book Binders.

During the last five years, a number of books have been added to the Library collection. Thefollowing table provides the figures for these years.

Location 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Islamabad 39909 40519 41605 43864 48541

Lahore 4474 4517 4553 4556 5093

Peshawar 835 858 865 1373 1375

Sindh 4732 4784 5192 5195 5402

Baluchistan — — — — —

Among the significant recent additions to the Library are the following encyclopedias:

1. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethicsedited by James Hastings.

2. Encyclopedia of Religious Rites and Ceremonies of all Nations.

3. The Encyclopedia of American Religions (3rd Edition).

4. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of India Pakistan Bangladesh and Srilanka.

5. Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice.

6. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.

7. Encyclopedia of the American Judicial System.

8. The New Encyclopedia Britannica.


Besides the above Encyclopaedias, the Library has increased the available number of copies ofthe well known Law Reports, like PLD, SCMR, PLC, PTD, MLD and PLJ, as well as YLR thathas been published recently. This has been done to ensure the smooth running of the Library.

The Librarian is responsible for providing information and reference material to the Judges andthe Court as and when needed. He is assisted by three Assistant Librarians. The Library employs16 officials for the various functions of the Library. To meet the growing research needs a referencecell has been established. The reference cell is responsible for providing reference material to Judgesin court as well as in their chambers. The Main Library also deals with administrative matters suchas the ordering and payment of books and materials.

A programme is underway for providing electronic research facilities and services to the Judges.These facilties are under various stages of implementation. One Senior Research Officer is availablein the Library for this purpose. Among the components of the programme implemented are theautomated inquiry logging system known as the Library Automation and Management Programme(LAMP), which is based upon the CDSIS program. This programme is used for cataloguing andto maintain an easily and swiftly accessible record of books and their movement. Almost all thebooks in the library have been fed into the programme. Besides this a programme, a Case CitationSystem is in the process of implementation. Once implemented fully, it will help in conducting quicksearches through queries based on (1) name of the parties, (2) subject, (3) sub-subject and (4) casecitation. The Library maintains an efficient photocopying service.

10.2 Information Technology at the Supreme Court and Web Presence

10.2.1 Court Automation Plan

The Computer Section in the Supreme Court of Pakistan was established in 1996. Initially, a contractwas awarded to IBM for developing software for:—

• Case Monitoring System

• Library Management System

• Statute updating.

The above software system was installed in 1997 and data entry was started, but due to lackof funds no worthwhile progress could be made till 1998. In 1998 a study was carried out forcomputerisation in the court relating to:—

• Establishment of E-mail connection throughout the Court chambers/offices and Branch Reg-istries;

• Facilitating the making of queries and receiving replies;

• Providing access to case law in digital format; and

• Case Flow Management.

In the light of this report, since 1999 a database of 50,000 library books has been updatedunder Library Management System, the Constitution of Pakistan has been updated on the StatutesProgramme; and the Case Flow Management System has been redeveloped. Consequently:


1. All judgements and short orders are automated through word processing software. In fact, alltyping work of the office is done on the Computers including all financial statements.

2. Automation of Administration Section records for employees tracking is in progress.

3. Statistics data pertaining to cases is underway through an in-house developed software.

4. Cause lists, notices, queries, different lists of pending cases, and the history of all cases arenow generated electronically.

5. New case entries are being made at the filing stage.

6. The Criminal and Civil Branches are exclusively updating their respective cases on their owndesks.

7. Full query of case tracking is available to all the officers/offices.

8. The automation of Advocates (AOR, ASC, Sr. ASC) of Supreme Court is in progress.

9. E-mail connection has been established.

10. Computers have been provided in the Court to many officials, and automation for wordprocessing of all departments of the Court is complete.

11. Display boards showing the status of cases being heard in the Court Rooms will be installedshortly as under:—

(a) One in the public entrance hall;

(b) One outside each Court Room;

(c) One in the Bar Room; and

(d) One in the Bar Room Library.

In addition to this, 84 Computers are now connected with Server through LAN. Internet isoperative for approved Officers/Sections. In-house Case Flow Management Software is also availablefor all 84 Computers through the central Server via LAN. File transfer via Server is also achievedand actively in process via LAN. The setting up of a mail Server is in progress to facilitate internalmailing system. The LAN facility is expected to facilitate the display of case status.

10.2.2 The Growing Website of the Court

The Supreme Court launched its own website on 24th April, 2001. The website was designed andprepared by Malik Sohail Ahmed, Programmer, Computer Section. It displays essential informationabout the Court and its functioning and can be accessed at the address http://www.scp.com.pk.The following information has been made available on the website:—

1. Bio-data of the Honourable Chief Justice and Judges of the Court.

2. Proposed, final and supplementary cause lists of the Court. The cause lists are not searchableas yet, however, this will be achieved in the near future. A plan is already underway. Thecause lists are, therefore, available in static mode at present and not in dynamic mode.


3. Annual Reports of the Court.

4. Recent judgements of public importance.

5. List of Officers of the Court with telephone numbers.

Among the future plans of the website are the creation of dynamic cause lists that will besearchable by case number, by parties, or by names of Advocates. Further, dynamic Advocates listswith their address, telephone numbers, facsimile numbers and email addresses will be prepared.The query system mentioned above will be brought online for information on cases or any point oflaw. Finally, facilities will be created for updating case data between the Main Registry and BranchRegistries via websites through a dialup connection.

At present facilities in the in Bar Room include viewing of cause lists and case progress. Thedisplay is a static display for the time being and the provision of search facilities for the Bar isunder consideration.


The Court Building


11 THE COURT BUILDING

The Supreme Court complex, situated on Constitution Avenue, Islamabad comprises a Main CentralBlock, Judges Chambers Block and two Administrative Blocks. The height of the Main CentralBlock is 167 feet above the ground. It is surrounded by Judges’ Chambers Block to the east andan Administrative Block each to the north and south. The total covered area of the building is3,39,861 sq.ft. The building was designed by the Japanese firm, Kenzo Tange Associates. PakistanEnvironmental Planning and Architectural Consultant (PEPAC) served as consultant and interiordesigner. Civil and electrical work was carried out by Moinsons (Pvt) Ltd and Siemens (Pvt) Ltd.The building was completed in 1993 with a total cost of Rupees 605.960 million.

11.0.3 Building Architecture

The splendid and magnificent structure with white marble exterior is a classic blend of Islamic andEuropean architecture. The Islamic motifs are used in the exterior and interior of the building,especially in the marble flooring of the Ceremonial Hall, Judges Entrance Hall and Public EntranceHalls. The walls have detailed Islamic motifs on marble in inlaid brass. The forefront of the buildingis landscaped as a symbolic and ceremonial space, highlighting the dignity of Court. The fountainin the front creates a soothing effect and adds to the charm and beauty of the building.

11.0.4 Main Central Block

The Main Central Block is placed in the heart of the complex. It primarily comprises 11 courtrooms, the Ceremonial Hall, Auditorium of 550 seats and a Prayer Hall for 300 persons. The maincourt room, on the first floor, with seating capacity for 141 persons, is 125 ft high. It is surroundedby four court rooms, each having seating capacity for 72 persons. Six additional court rooms, eachhaving seating capacity for 36 persons, are situated on the ground floor.

11.0.5 Judges Chambers Block

The Judges Chambers Block houses the office of the Chief Justice, 20 Judges Chambers and theoffice of the Registrar. The library containing a collection of 60411 books, reports and journals, issituated in the basement. This Block also contains an impressive entrance Hall, a Conference Roomand a Dining Hall.

11.0.6 Administration Blocks

The two Administration Blocks mainly contain the offices of the administrative officers/personnel.The northern Block is occupied by the staff of the Supreme Court. The southern Block containsthe Secretariat of Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, offices of the Attorney General forPakistan, Advocates-General and the Pakistan Bar Council. The cafeteria is also situated on theground floor of this Block.


THIS PAGE BLANK


Judicial Hierarchy of Pakistan


THIS PAGE BLANK


12 JUDICIAL HIERARCHY OF PAKISTAN

12.1 Strength of Judges and Administrative Staff Within the Hierarchy

Supreme Lahore High Peshawar HighCourt High Court of High Court of

Judges of Pakistan Court Sindh Court BalochistanChief Justice & Judges 17 50 28 15 6AdministrativeStaff 529 2022 695 345 294District & SessionsJudges, Senior CivilJudges & Civil Judgescum-JudicialMagistrates undereach High Court 879 407 212 146Administrative Staff ofthe District Courtsunder AdministrativeControl of High Courts 8088 3942 1976 951

Please do not print

this table till the

data is updated.

The existing data is

OLD!


THIS PAGE BLANK


Information on the Administration of Justice


THIS PAGE BLANK


13 INFORMATION ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF

JUSTICE

13.1 Advocates on the Rolls of the Supreme Court

Senior Advocates Advocates Advocates-on Record Total

249 2607 204 3060

13.2 Current Strength of Attorney General’s Office and Offices of theAdvocates General in the Provinces

Federal Punjab Sindh NWFP Balochistan

31 27 20 12 4


THIS PAGE BLANK


Former Chief Justices, Judges and Registrars


THIS PAGE BLANK


14 FORMER CHIEF JUSTICES, JUDGES AND REGIS-

TRARS

14.1 Former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Pakistan

S.No. Name of Chief Justice From To

01. Mr. Justice Sir Abdul Rashid 27.06.1949 29.06.1954

(Chief Justice, Federal Court)

02. Mr. Justice Muhammad Munir 30.06.1954 02.05.1960

(Chief Justice, Federal Court)

03. Mr. Justice Muhammad Shahabuddin 03.05.1960 12.05.1960

04. Mr. Justice A.R. Cornelius 13.05.1960 29.02.1968

05. Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman 01.03.1968 03.06.1968

06. Mr. Justice Fazle Akbar 04.06.1968 17.11.1968

07. Mr. Justice Hamoodur Rahman 18.11.1968 31.10.1975

08. Mr. Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali 01.11.1975 22.09.1977

09. Mr. Justice S. Anwar-ul Haq 26.09.1977 25.03.1981

10. Mr. Justice Muhammad Haleem 26.03.1981 31.12.1989

11. Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah 01.01.1990 18.04.1993

12. Mr. Justice Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah 17.04.1993 14.04.1994

13. Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 05.06.1994 02.12.1997

14. Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian 03.12.1997 30.06.1999

15. Mr. Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui 01.07.1999 26.01.2000

16. Mr. Justice Irshad Hasan Khan 26.01.2000 06.01.2002

17. Mr. Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri 07.01.2002 31.01.2002


14.2 Former Judges of the Supreme Court

S.No.

Name of Judge/Chief Justice Nature of Ap-pointment

Date of Ap-pointment

Date of Re-tirement

1. Mr. Justice Sir Abdul Rashid. Chief Justice 27.06.1949 29.06.1954

2. Mr. Justice Abdul Rehman Judge 07.02.1950 04.10.1953

3. Mr. Justice A.S.M.Akram Judge 15.02.1950 27.02.1956

4. Mr. Justice Muhammad Sharif Acting Judge 17.05.1950to 23.05.1950

Judge 13.04.1954 01.04.1958

5. Mr. Justice Muhammad Munir judge 01.10.1951to 22.11.1951

Chief Justice 29.06.1954 02.05.1960

6. Mr. Justice A.R. Cornelius Judge 22.11.1951to 09.06.1952

Judge 17.10.1952to 31.05.1953

Judge 10.10.1653to 12.05.1960

Chief Justice 13.05.1960 29.02.1968

7. Mr. Justice M. Shahabuddin Acting Judge 06.10.1952to 23.12.1952

Acting Judge 06.02.1953to 07.06.1953

Judge 04.10.1953 12.05.1960

8. Mr. Justice S.A.Rehman Ad hoc Judge 02.03.1955to 23.05.1955

Judge 02.04.0958to 01.03.1968

Chief Justice 01.03.1968 03.06.1968

9. Mr. Justice Amiruddin Ahmad Judge 12.03.1956 21.12.1960

10. Mr. justice Fazle Akbar Judge 18.05.1960to 04.06.1968

Chief Justice 04.06.1968 17.11.1968

11. Mr. Justice Badi-uz-Zaman Kaikaus Judge 25.07.1960 03.01.1966

12. Mr. Justice Hamoodur Rahman Judge 22.12.1960to 18.11.1968

Chief Justice 18.11.1968 31.10.1975.

13. Mr. Justice Muhammad Judge 04.01.1966Yaqub Ali to 31.10.1975

Chief Justice 01.11.1975 22.09.1977

14. Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan Judge 18.03.1968 31.03.1973

15. Mr. justisce Abdus Sattar Judge 04.06.1968 28.02.1971

16. Mr. Justice Mujibur Rahman Khan Judge 18.11.1968 23.11.1971

17. Mr. Justice Waheeduddin Ahmad Judge 22.09.1969 20.09.1974Continued. . . .


S.No.



Date of Re-tirement

Ad hog Judge 23.05.1977 06.02.1979

18. Mr. Justice Salahuddin Ahmad Acting Judge 04.12.1970to 28.02.1971

Judge 01.03.1971 31.12.1976

19. Mr. Justice S.Anwar-ul-Haq Judge 16.10.1972to 22.09.1977

Chief Justice 23.09.1977 25.03.1981

20. Mr. Justice Muhammad Gul Judge 14.04.1973 31.12.1976

21. Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Cheema Judge 08.10.1974 31.12.1977

22. Mr. Justice Abdul Kadir Shaikh Judge 08.10.1974to 23.01.1975

Judge 01.07.1979 24.03.1991

23. Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Akram Judge 26.12.1975 31.09.1979

24. Mr. Justice Dorab Patel Judge 07.01.1976 25.03.1981

25. Mr. Justice Muhammad Haleem Judge 07.01.1977to 25.03.1981

Acting Chief 26.03.1981Justice to 22.03.1984Chief Justice 23.03.1984 31.12.1989

26. Mr. Justice Qaisar Khan Judge 07.01.1977 30.07.1978

27. Mr. Justice G. Safdar Shah Judge 10.10.1977 16.10.1980

28. Mr. Justice Karam Elahee Chauhan Acting Judge 27.04.1978to 13.06.1979

Judge 14.06.1979 04.02.1982

29. Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain Judge 12.01.1978 23.08.1988

30. Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah Judge 14.06.1989to 31.12.1979

Chief Justice 01.01.1990 18.04.1993

31. Mr. Justice Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah Ad hoc Judge 18.05.1977to 14.06.1979

Judge 14.06.1979to 16.04.1993

Chief Justice 17.04.1993 14.04.1994

32. Mr. Justice Shafiur Rehman Ad hoc Judge 14.06.1979to 29.07.1981

Judge 31.07.1981 15.02.1994

33. Mr. Justice Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain Acting Judge 02.06.1980 25.03.1981

34. Mr. Justice Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim Ad hoc Judge 17.06.1980 25.03.1981

35. Mr. Justice Shah Nawaz Khan Judge 05.04.1981 01.07.1982

36. Mr. Justice S.A. Nusrat Judge 04.08.1981 30.04.1989

37. Mr. Justice Zafar Hussain Mirza Judge 04.08.1981 09.10.1991

38. Mr. Justice M.S.H Quraishi Ad hoc Judge 30.07.1981Continued. . . .


S.No.



Date of Re-tirement

to 01.03.1982Acting Judge 01.03.1982 30.09.1985

39. Mr. Justice Mian Burhanuddin Khan Acting Judge 02.03.1982to 17.12.1984

Acting Judge 18.12.1984 17.12.1987

40. Mr. Justice Ali Hussain Qazilbash Acting Judge 17.04.1986to 31.08.1988

Judge 01.09.1988 14.09.1991

41. Mr. Justice Dr.Javed Iqbal Judge 05.10.1986 04.10.1989

42. Mr. Justice Saad Saood Jan Ad hoc Judge 05.10.1986to 24.03.1987

Judge 25.03.1987 30.06.1996

43. Mr. Justice Ghulam Mujadid Mirza Judge 25.03.1987to 27.03.1987

Acting C.J.,LHC 28.03.1987

to 21.04.1988Judge 22.04.1988 31.03.1990

44. Mr. Justice S.Usman Ali Shah Acting Judge 08.12.1987to 31.08.1988

Judge 01.09.1988 14.09.1991

45. Mr. Justice Naimuddin Judge 04.09.1988 09.11.1991

46. Mr. Justice Abdul Shakurul Salam Judge 13.12.1988 31.03.1993

47. Mr. Justice Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Judge 13.12.1989 12.07.1994

48. Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian Judge 13.12.1989to 02.12.1997

Chief Justice 03.12.1997 30.06.1999

49. Mr. Justice Rustam S. Sidhwa Judge 14.12.1989 31.08.1992

50. Mr. Justice Abdul Hafeez Memon Acting Judge 12.12.1989to 08.10.1990

Judge 17.04.1994 22.07.1997

51. Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Lone Judge 13.08.1990 03.07.1993

52. Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah Judge 05.11.1990 16.02.1998

53. Mr. Justice Muhammad Rafiq Tarar Judge 17.01.1991 01.11.1994

54. Mr. Justice Saleem Akhter Judge 25.03.1991 22.03.1997

55. Mr. Justice Wali Muhammad Khan Acting Judge 28.10.1991to 04.09.1993

Judge 05.09.1993 31.10.1994

56. Mr. Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui Judge 23.05.1992to 30.06.1999

Chief Justice 01.07.1999 26.01.2000

57. Mr. Justice Fazal Elahi Khan Judge 03.04.1993 31.12.1997

58. Mr. Justice Manzoor Hussain Sial Acting Judge 26.05.1993Continued. . . .


S.No.



Date of Re-tirement

to 04.09.1993Judge 05.09.1993 24.03.1996

59. Mr. Justice Zia Mahmood Mirza Acting Judge 07.06.1993to 18.10.1994

Judge 19.10.1994 20.04.1997

60. Mr. Justice Fazal Karim Acting Judge 07.06.1994to 18.10.1994

Judge 19.10.1994 31.07.1996

61. Mr. Justice Muhammad Munir Khan Acting Judge 15.06.1994 06.08.1994Ad hoc Judge 07.08.1994 06.08.1996

62. Mr. Justice Muhammad Ilyas Acting Judge 15.06.1994to 18.10.1994

Judge 19.10.1994 30.09.1996

63. Mr. Justice Mir Hazar Khan Khoso Acting Judge 19.07.1994 29.09.1994Ad hoc Judge 30.09.1994 29.09.1996

64. Mr. Justice Mamoon Kazi Ad hoc Judge 22.02.1995to 14.04.1996

Judge 04.11.1997 26.01.2000

65. Mr. Justice Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo Judge 19.10.1994 19.02.1998

66. Mr. Justice Raja Afrasiab Khan Judge 22.02.1995 14.01.2000

67. Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid Ad hoc Judge 28.01.1991to 28.04.1991

Judge 18.04.1996 26.01.2000

68. Mr. Justice Munawar Ahmed Mirza Judge 17.11.1996 24.11.1999

69. Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan Judge 17.12.1996 26.01.2000

70. Mr. Justice Sh.Ijaz Nisar Judge 29.05.1997 15.06.2000

71. Mr. Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed Judge 05.05.1998 26.01.2000

72. Mr. Justice Kamal Mansur Alam Judge 22.04.1999 26.01.2000

73. Mr. Justice Rashid Aziz Khan Judge 04.04.2000 07.07.2001

74. Mr. Justice Abdul Rehman Khan Judge 04.11.1997 05.09.2001

74. Mr. Justice Muhammad Arif Judge 04.11.1997 09.01.2002


14.3 Former Registrars of Federal Court and Supreme Court of Pak-istan

S.No. Name Date of Appointment Date of Retirement

1. Mr. A.A.Mirza 15-08-1947. 10-01-1971

2. Mr. A. S. Faizul Islam 11-01-1971 17-07-1972Chowudhury

3. Mr. Hidayat Hussain 31-03-1973 09-06-1977

4. Mr. Sajjad Ali Shah 10-06-1977 09-08-1978

5. Mr. S. A. Nizami 10-08-1978 31-10-1980

6. Mr. M. A. Latif 01-11-1980 09-01-1995

7. Mr. Ashiq Hussain 10-01-1995 05-10-1996(Acting Charge)

8. Mr. Mohammad Zakaullah 06-10-1996 07-01-1998(Acting Charge)

9. Mr. M. A. Latif 08-01-1998 07-07-1999(Contract)


Index

Abdul Hameed Dogar, J., 26advisory jurisdiction, 7advocates, 151advocates on the rolls of the Court, 149allocation of funds, 126analysis

last five decades, 89analysis of pending cases, 82apex court

organisation, 5appellate jurisdiction, 6, 13arbiter of the law, 5Attorney General, 17automation plan, 133, 136

branch registriesKarachi, 14Lahore, 13Peshawar, 14Quetta, 14

budget of the Court, 125

challenges, 1Chief Justice

role and functions, 8speeches, 96

code of conduct, 109, 111constitution of Benches, 62court building, 139, 143court composition, 17

Chief Justices, 17Judges, 17Shariat Appellate Bench, 17

court performace, 61court registry, 117, 119

functions, 119goals, 119organogram, 121services, 120

disposition of cases, 67all cases, 75branch registries, 73Islamabad, 68Karachi, 70Lahore, 69last fifty years, 85last ten years, 79monthly average, 76Peshawar, 71principal seat, 73

Quetta, 72visible trends, 77

distribution of work, 62

expenditure, 125

Falak Sher, J., 28Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J., 28foreword, 1former

Chief Justices, 155Judges, 155, 156Registrars, 155, 160

freedom of the Press, 33Full Court, 3, 10, 16, 163, 164

guardian court, 5

Hamid Ali Mirza, J., 26

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, J., 23inexpensive justice, 1information technology, 136institution of cases, 67

all cases, 75branch registries, 73Islamabad, 68Karachi, 70Lahore, 69last fifty years, 85last ten years, 79monthly average, 76Peshawar, 71principal seat, 73Quetta, 72visible trends, 77

international interaction, 96speeches, 96

Javed Iqbal, J., 25judicial activity, 59, 61judicial hierarchy, 145, 147jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 6

advisory, 7and FSC, 7appellate, 6original, 6review, 7

Karachi Branch Registry, 14court sessions, 65

Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J, 28

161

Khalid Mahmood, J, 29Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, J., 27

Lahore Branch Registry, 13court sessions, 64

law officers, 151legal research, 133, 135library, 135

Media, 107Mian Muhammad Ajmal, J., 25Muhammad Amin Farooqi, 119Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J., 27Munir A. Sheikh, J., 23

National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee, 1Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, J., 23NJPMC, 1number of judges

last fifty years, 88

original jurisdiction, 6, 13

Pakistan Muslim League (Q) v. Chief Executive, 49pendency, 67

Islamabad, 68Karachi, 70Lahore, 69Peshawar, 71Quetta, 72

pending cases, 67according to age, 84Islamabad, 68Karachi, 70Lahore, 69Peshawar, 71Quetta, 72

performance standards, 1Peshawar Branch Registry, 14

court sessions, 65population, 2principal seat, 13

appellate jurisdiction, 13court sessions, 62original jurisdiction, 13

Qazi Hussain Ahmad v. General Pervez Musharraf, 38Qazi Muhammad Farooq, J., 24Quetta Branch Registry, 14

court sessions, 66

Rana Bhagwandas, J., 24Rashid Ahmad Jullundhri, J., 29Registrar, 17Regstrar, 119review jurisdiction, 7

riba case, 35rise in litigation, 2

Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J., 27Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J., 2, 19, 92

bio-data, 20Sheikh Rashid Ahmad v. Majid Nizami, 33significant judgements, 31, 33social objectives

contribution of Judges, 91, 93Judges on committees, 93

speeches by Chief Justice, 96Staff Welfare Fund, 122statistics, 59, 61Superior Judiciary

code of conduct, 111Supreme Court

action in aid of, 5advisory jurisdiction, 7advocates, 151and Media, 107apex court, 5branch registries, 13budget, 125, 131court composition, 17decisions binding, 7execution of process, 7Federal budget, 131financial autonomy, 5financing of, 125jurisdiction of, 6legal research, 133, 135library, 135organisation, 3, 5review jurisdiction, 7rule making powers, 7seat of Court, 13significant judgements, 31, 33

Supreme Court Bar Association v. Federation, 57Supreme Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pak-

istan, 41Supreme Judicial Council, 113, 115Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, J., 25system of statistics, 1

Tanvir Ahmed Khan, J., 26

United Bank Limited v. Farooq Brothers, 35

visits abroad, 96

Watan Party v. Chief Executive/President, 52


Documents

Supreme Court of Pakistan Annual Report 2002