EXERCISING ‘SUO MOTO’ BY THE PAKISTANI HIGH COURTS: A QUESTION MARK ON CONSTITUTIONALITYAND PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS?

By:
MUHAMMAD RAHEEM AWAN
Advocate High Court
Ph.D. Scholar University of Bedfordshire UK
and
MISS SALMA YASMEEN
Advocate

Introduction:

As custodian of the constitution and Constitutional Fundamental Rights (“CFR”) of the people, the Supreme Court of Pakistan (“SCP”) has broadened the scope of Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) and CFR in last one decade. It has provided to the people easy and cheap access to justice against all sorts of arbitrary acts of State officials.^[1] Acting suo moto, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (“CJP”) relaxes all the procedural requirements to initiate legal proceedings against random, heinous crimes. The superior judiciary has established a system of strict check and balance over the ultra vires acts of the executive and legislature. The SCP has developed a thought to abide by the constitution and statute by chasing corrupt practices and bad governance in the institutions of public importance and rulers. Failure to abide the constitution and statute, corrupt practices and bad governance are subject to judicial review and scrutiny. Judicial intervention to force the executive and legislature to obey the law of the land is helping to eradicate their discriminatory actions. Similarly, by way of interpretation of the constitution, statute and rules, the SCP is playing its role to enforce law equally on all citizens, presuming that no one is above the law in the State and everyone is equal.^[2] It also ensured the smooth functioning of the democracy and democratic institutions by ensuring the 2013 general election occurred within given time frame^[3] and as well as forcing the elected government to hold local body’s’ elections according to the constitution.^[4] Consequently, the SCP has been seen exercising suo moto jurisdiction on a variety of events very rigorously since 2006. The author whilst examining the judicial activism in Pakistan has argued^[5] that, the judicial activism is nothing other than employing suo moto authority by the SCP on PIL in the expansion of CFR and it has increased the interest and confidence of the Pakistani citizens in the superior judiciary.

Seeing a wider role in the dispensation of justice, in the last decade, the High Courts (“HCs”) are also seen to be exercising suo moto jurisdiction on variety of cases. Despite massive support from Pakistan’s socially influential groups^[6] the suo moto power is not free from criticism, indeed, there are several controversies over its frequent exercise. Lord Acton once said, “All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”[7]Therefore, it will be correct to suggest that every authority and power should have some binding limitations and norms otherwise it will be a curse rather than a blessing. Such binding force and restrictions can play a vital role to avoid institutional authoritarianism. Pakistani Courts derive suo moto authority from the constitution of Pakistan 1973; hence this authority should be employed in accordance with the provision of the constitution. Therefore, to determine the constitutionality of the suo moto jurisdiction, it is significant to find its constitutional four corners without considering or being influenced by its outcomes. It is vital to investigate to whom in the legal hierarchy has been delegated suo moto power and under what conditions this jurisdiction can be invoked. Therefore, this paper aims to examine the constitutionality of suo moto authority of the HCs. It will be further examined that, whether suo moto authority of the HCs is conflicting to the constitutional principal of ‘Stare Decisis’? In this context this paper will critically examine the historical standpoint of the apex Courts on exercise of suo moto by the HCs.

Constitutionality of Suo Moto by High Courts

The Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Part VII provides rules for the Judicature. Chapter 1 of this part deals with the establishment and jurisdiction of the Courts in Pakistan. Article 175(2) provides that, ‘No Court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law.’

Chapter 2 of this part exclusively discusses the affairs of the SCP, eg formation, appointment, oath and jurisdictions of the SCP. Article 184(3) deals with the original jurisdiction of the SCP allowing it to take suo moto notice on PIL and to enforce CFR.^[8] Chapter 2 exclusively deals with the affairs of the SCP, hence authority conferred in Art 184(3) exclusively falls under the jurisdiction of the SCP.

Chapter 3 of part VII, Article 199 of the constitution deals with the writ jurisdiction of the HCs, hence is relevant to the discussion. The Article provides that on application of an aggrieved person subject to the constitution, once the HC is satisfied that the law does not provide any adequate legal remedy, it can pass any order contained in Art 199(1)a(i)(ii), b(i)(ii) & c.

The abovementioned provisions relate to: writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. Article 199(c) empowers the HCs to issue any of the aforementioned writs on the application of the aggrieved party subject to the constitution. Similarly, Art 199(2) provides that to enforce any of the CFRs contained in Part II Chapter 1 of the Constitution the right to approach the HCs in this regard ‘shall not be abridged’.^[9]

The scope and nature of the extraordinary proceedings before the SCP under Art 184(3) and HCs under Art 199 are very different from each other. The phraseology of Art 199 has several ‘trappings and constraints’ upon proceedings before the HCs such as ‘application of the aggrieved party’ which are not applicable on the proceedings before the SCP under Art 184(3).Arrangement of the instant article demonstrates that authority to issue any of the aforementioned writs for enforcement of CFR is subject to petition by the aggrieved party. Conversely, the constitution does not restrict the powers of the SCP enshrined in Art 184(3). Reading of Arts 175(2), 184(3) and 199 together makes it obvious that the suo moto jurisdiction conferred in Art 184(3) rests with the SCP. Intention of the legislators is distinguishable from the phrasing/drafting of Art 184(3) and Art 199 where they had drawn a clear line between powers and authorities of the SCP and HCs. The powers delegated to the SCP by the legislators are not subject to the formal application/petition of the aggrieved party which is main essence of the suo moto jurisdiction of the SCP. In contrast, while mandating the HCs under Art 199 the legislators emphasised repeatedly^[10] that it is ‘subject to the application of aggrieved party’. The formulation of Art 199(1) (c) which empowers the HCs to enforce the CFR but only on the ‘application of the aggrieved party further supports this contention. Had the legislators had the intention to delegate the suo moto authority to the HCs they should not have imposed the mandatory requirement of ‘subject to the application of the aggrieved party.’

The cognizance under suo moto jurisdiction by HCs remained a long-standing subject before the Pakistani higher judiciary. On the question of constitutionality of the suo moto authority of the HCs, several judicial precedents are available which can shed light on the controversy. These judgments were delivered before the current phase of judicial activism. It is important to mention here that Pakistan is a common law country which adheres to the strict principles of stare decisis that binds the Courts to follow previous judicial precedents involving the same facts. Stare decisis is embodied in the constitution^[11] which binds the subordinate Courts to follow the precedents set by the SCP and HCs. It has never been easy for the Courts to avoid such precedents. The Courts have to overrule,^[12] reverse^[13] or distinguish^[14] the previous judgment with the new one. Therefore, verdicts of the apex judiciary handed down in the pre-judicial activism era are very likely a guide to the controversy and helpful to solve the constitutional puzzle.

The basic principle on suo moto jurisdiction is available in judicial precedent authored by then CJP Muhammad Munir, M. Shahabuddin J and A.R. Cornelius J in the matter of Tariq Transport Company v The Sargodha Bhera Bus Service and others.^[15] In the instant judgment, the SCP repeatedly emphasized and held^[16] that HCs do not have suo moto jurisdiction, hence can only extend their writ jurisdiction on formal petition filed by the aggrieved party. It is important to mention here that at that time the constitution of Pakistan 1956 was enforced in the country and Art 170 conferred the powers to the HCs.^[17] Likewise, later on, the constitution of Pakistan 1962 had been enforced which conferred writ jurisdiction to the HC under Art 98.^[18]

In the matter of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Muhammad Saeed,^[19] the three-member bench headed by CJP A.R. Cornelius held that the procedure adopted by the learned Justice was fully in conflict with the general principles to deal with such kind of petitions.^[20] HCs should restrict themselves to the prayer as it could not grant any suo moto relief in writ proceedings. Subsequently, the instant principle was followed by the SCP in the matter of Akhtar Abbas v. Nayyar Hussain^[21]where Misters Justice Aslam Riaz and Nasim Hassan Shah held that, ‘it is settled law that in writ proceedings relief must be confined to prayer made in the writ petition and High Court cannot issue a writ suo moto’^[22] The most significant feature of the Pakistan v Muhammad Saeed case is that it is held, the Court cannot compel the legislature to pass any Act notwithstanding the constitution clearly obligating the legislature to pass a certain Act. The Court by relying on Ferris, law of extraordinary legal remedies, concluded that, ‘even though the constitution expressly command it, nor be restrained from passing an Act, even though the constitution expressly prohibits it’.^[23]It was further observed that Pakistan adheres to the theory of trichotomy of power where all three branches of the State – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary – work within their own domain independently. For a harmonious working environment, it is vital for all three branches to understand and follow their respective limits and avoid trespassing on the other branches’ sphere. Therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the government officials to perform any and every kind of duty. Perhaps government officials can be ordered to perform their duties purely ministerial in nature; however, requiring them to make rules in exercise of statuary authority can barely be considered ministerial obligation.^[24]

It reveals from the aforementioned discussion that exercise of suo moto by HCs is entirely in contrast with the dictums laid down by the SCP on several occasions. Whereas, direction given by the Peshawar High Court (“PHC”) to the Government of Pakistan (“GOP”), Election Commission of Pakistan (“ECP”) and provincial government in two^[25] different suo moto cases to enact a new law and amend an old one^[26] is totally in conflict with position taken by the SCP in Pakistan vMuhammad Saeed.

Another important judgment handed down by the SCP on the topic is, Shahnaz Begum v the Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan^[27] then CJP Justice Hamood-ur-Rahman and four other judges dealt with very important aspects of the suo moto jurisdiction; the judgment can be considered as one of the masterpiece judgments of the SCP. The SCP did not take this case in a routine matter, but instead dealt in a manner that judgment would end the controversy over the suo moto jurisdiction of all HCs and will be applicable therein. The CJP observed that the instant case involved the significant question that relates to the ‘jurisdiction of all High Courts.’ Emphasis given to the ‘important question relating to the jurisdiction of all High Courts’ clearly demonstrates the intention of the Court while delivering the instant judgment. The SCP called the Advocate Generals (“AG”) of the provinces of Punjab, Sind and Baluchistan to assist in determining the suo moto jurisdiction of all HCs.^[28] Both the learned AGs contended that the constitution does not confer suo moto power to HCs. Taking into account the restriction laid down in Art 130^[29] and powers conferred in Art 98^[30] of the constitution enforced at the time, the instant case was heard and the SCP held that HCs have no power to take suo moto notice despite the fact that Art 98 delegates the judicial review powers to HCs under specified circumstances. The SCP made it clear that Art 98(2)(a,b&c) clearly obligates the HCs to exercise such power only on ‘application of an aggrieved party or of any person’, and hence held that, ‘there is no scope for any suo moto action by the High Courts’. The SCP held that suo moto actions taken by the HCs of Sind and Baluchistan were without jurisdiction, hence were unwarranted.^[31]

The most important aspect of the instant judgment is its concluding paragraph whereby the CJP observed that it is significant to note that judges of the superior judiciary should not get influenced by the magnificent reports of the newspapers or things observed outside the Court. The CJP added that being influenced by the thrilling news clippings would amount to encouraging trial by the media. Similarly, by taking into account out–of-Court, personal observations, the Court would unnecessarily expose itself to the criticism of being biased and self-motivated.^[32]

The concluding paragraph of the instant judgment is significantly relevant with the current investigation as in the recent phase of judicial activism the majority of the suo moto notices have been taken on media reports. Instead of following the guiding principles set by the SCP, nowadays Courts are openly welcoming the role of the media^[33] by taking account of media reports in open Court. It will be correct to suggest that by doing so judges are opening themselves and their judgments to the criticism of being biased and self-motivated.

In another judgment, the Karachi High Court (“KHC”) addressed this issue. In the instant case, Juvenile Jail Landhi Karachi (suo moto notice), the CJ wanted to employ suo moto authority.^[34] The judgment authored by CJ Ajmal Mian and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo J has significant importance as the judgment determined the suo moto jurisdiction of the HCs under the existing constitution of Pakistan 1973. The judgment shows the prudence of the Court as before authoring the instant judgment, CJ called^[35] the panel of renowned and senior lawyers^[36] for assistance in addressing the controversy. The Court went beyond the suo moto by asking the question of disqualification of a judge to sit in the bench who takes suo moto notice of a certain issue. It was the unanimous view of the all the learned senior lawyers^[37] to which the Court also agreed unanimously that, under Art 199 of the constitution of Pakistan 1973 the High Court cannot issue a suo moto writ to grant any of the relief prescribed in the instant article.^[38] On the question of disqualification of the judge to hear the matter who initiates suo moto proceedings, the Court held that, to disqualify a judge from a hearing, it is important to prove his nexus with some personal vendetta or any biasness. Mere personal observance of a certain event and taking notice of it would not automatically disqualify a judge to hear such a matter.^[39]

Another important judgment handed down by the KHC on the issue under the existing constitution is Ardeshir Cowasjee etc v. K.B.C.A. etc.^[40] Justices Zahid Qurban Alvi and Anwar Zahir Jamali reiterated the long-standing stance of Pakistani Courts that the constitution does not delegate suo moto power to the HCs. The Court held that Art 199 requires initiating any writ proceedings in the High Court on the application of an aggrieved person. Following the expression contained in Art 199 ‘on the application of any aggrieved person’, the HC can only invoke its writ jurisdiction on an application of an aggrieved person.^[41] The view taken by the Court in this judgment was similar and endorsed the previous stance of the higher judiciary of Pakistan already discussed above. The consistent stance of the superior judiciary on the controversy of suo moto power of the HCs is maintained by the very renowned judges, the majority of whom are Chief Justices of Pakistan at different periods of time.^[42]It is worth mentioning here that the author of the judgment in the Ardeshir Cowasjee case Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali who ruled against suo moto by HCs has elevated to the SCP and remained the part of the judiciary famous for judicial activism and suo moto authority.

Although in the current era of judicial activism in Pakistan everything seems possible and nothing coming out of the apex Courts is surprising, a recent judgment passed by the Baluchistan High Court (“BHC”)[43] on the topic can be said to be a quite alarming one. In the instant judgment, the BHC took a clear view that the HC does have suo moto jurisdiction. The CJ of the BHC held that, Art 4^[44] of the constitution is also a CFR whereas Art 199 does not debar the HCs to take suo moto notice therefore the HCs and the SCP both can exercise suo moto simultaneously.^[45] The CJ further held that Courts are no more bound to the judicial precedents delivered at the time when the judiciary was undermined. Even constitutional amendment cannot abridge a CFR and authority of the HCs to enforce such rights.

The formulation of constitutional provisions and judicial precedents discussed above clearly indicate that the HCs do not have suo moto powers. Furthermore, discussion revealed that, neither legislature has any intention to entrust suo moto powers to HCs nor is there any significant judicial precedent available to favour and strengthen the case of suo moto by the HCs. Contrary to this old position, in the current era of judicial activism the HCs are seen to be exercising suo moto on a variety of issues. It may well be argued that cases like fixing sugar prices, transport fares or registration of criminal cases in foreign currency exchange matters indicate the likelihood of the HCs to further broaden the net of suo moto in the name of PIL drag as many areas as it desires to include in the scope of suo moto. The verdict of the Baluchistan High Court (“BHC”) on exercise of suo moto as well demonstrates the ability of the HCs to exercise and further expand the suo moto authority on the matter purely falling within ambit of other organs of the State.

5.10 Conclusion

In the era of judicial activism, the SCP, by expanding the scope of PIL, has been found to be exercising its original and suo moto authority very rigorously. It proved to be a torch bearer of the rule of law by applying the law of land to the President and Prime Minister of the country, as equal of a common citizen which indicates that no one is above the law without prejudice of the power and authority, neither Prime Minister nor President or any other influential and privileged class personality of the country; everyone is answerable for his deeds. By redefining the constitutional obligations, the SCP requires the executive to; accomplish their duties with the greatest capacity, honesty and faithfully in accordance with the constitution, law and rules of assembly, to uphold the ‘sovereignty, integrity, solidarity, well-being and prosperity of Pakistan’ and preserve it against any likely threat.[46] By means of these obligations, the SCP cautions and spreads the message among the responsible to be vigilant and careful before tailoring favourable deals through unfair means. By taking notice of several financial scams, commercial deals, frauds, mismanagement, illegality, irregularity, nepotism etc, the SCP has saved billions of dollars from being looted.

An assertive judiciary has proved its effectiveness for dispensation of justice and political stability in the country and has strengthened the faith of the people in the judicial system. Equally, the people of Pakistan have also proven themselves as a great supporter of the judicial activism in Pakistan. A significant majority of the lawyer community, civil society and media backs the judiciary. Their support reinforced the constitutional authority of the SCP when they fought for the freedom and restoration of the higher judiciary against the Head of State, the president wearing an army uniform, and for democratic government, equally. This spreads the message amongst the masses that notwithstanding their political attachments, the majority of Pakistani citizens favour judicial activism and stand behind the SCP hence there is no question regarding the desirability of judicial activism in Pakistan, and it is most desired phenomenon in the country.

Regardless to whatever has been said above, this investigation also revealed that, the constitution does not confer suo moto powers upon the High Courts. Exercise of suo motoby the HCs seems to be in conflict with the constitutional provisions, settled principles of law and judicial precedents. It is entirely different from the SCP’s power, hence exercise of suo moto by the HCs lacks to constitutional backing. Most specifically, the judgment of the BHC on the ability of HCs to exercise suo motois appeared to be very alarming for Pakistan’s constitutional jurisprudence. The SCP also seems idle on the exercise of suo moto by the HCs and did not call into question their ability to take suo moto. Moreover, violation of the principle of stare decisis by ignoring the previous judicial precedents may as well cause further uncertainty and unpredictability on the applicability, existence and future of prevailing laws and judicial precedents.

References

Case Laws

1. Akhtar Abbas v. Nayyar Hussain [1982] SCMR 549.

2. Ardeshir Cowasjeeetc v K.B.C.A. etc [2001] YLR 2403 Karachi.

3. Baz Muhammad Kakar& others v Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law & Justice, Islamabad & others Const. Petition No.77 of 2012. 3 August [2012]

4. Gillick c West Norfolk etc [1986] AC 112.

5. Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Muhammad Saeed PLD [1961] SC 192

6. R v R [1991] 3 WLR 767.

7. Scranage’s Trade Mark Application 0/182/05.

8. Tariq Transport Company v The Sargodha Bhera Bus Service and others PLD [1958] SC 437, 441.

9. Suomotu case in the matter of Juvenile Jail, Landhi, Karachi [1990] PcrLJ 1231.

10. PLD 1971 SC 677.

Constitution and Statutes

The Constitution of Pakistan 1973

The Constitution of Pakistan 1962

The Constitution of Pakistan 1956

Articles

1. Awan Muhammad Raheem, ‘Judicial activism in Pakistan in commercial and constitutional matters: Let justice be done though the heavens fall.’ Journal of International Criminal Justice Research Volume 1 July, {2014}page 1http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/141803.pdf

2. Amin A, ‘PHC takes suo moto notice of substandard ‘chaplikabab’’ The News International (11 September 2013) <www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-7-201395-PHC-takes-suo-moto-notice-of-substandard-chapli-kabab> accessed 25 September 2013

3. Amin A, ‘PHC orders re-polling in 54 women’s polling stations’ The News International (27 August 2013) <www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-7-201395-PHC-takes-suo-moto-notice-of-substandard-chapli-kabab> accessed 25 September 2013

4. Other Sources

5. Action Institute for the study of religion and liberty, http://www.acton.org/research/lord-acton-quote-archive.

------------------

---

[1]. Entertaining thousands of applications in the Human Rights Cell established in the SCP.

[2]. Baz Muhammad Kakar& others v Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law & Justice, Islamabad & others Const. Petition No.77 of 2012 etc in the Supreme Court of Pakistan (original jurisdiction) 3 August [2012] Annulment of Contempt of Court Act 2012, whereby the President, Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and Governors were given immunity from contempt of Court; Annulment of National Reconciliation Order 2007, whereby the President withdrew thousands of criminal and white collar crime cases against the political elite of the country.

[3]. The SCP took an undertaking from the then-elected government to conduct the election in good time.

[4]. The SCP ordered the Election Commission of Pakistan, Federal and all provincial governments to hold local bodies’ elections across the country.

[5]. Muhammad RaheemAwan, ‘Judicial activism in Pakistan in commercial and constitutional matters: Let justice be done though the heavens fall.’ Journal of International Criminal Justice Research Volume 1 July, {2014} page 1http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/141803.pdf

[6]. Lawyers, electronic and print media and civil society.

[7]. Action Institute for the study of religion and liberty , http://www.acton.org/research/lord-acton-quote-archive

[8]. Constitution of Pakistan Part II ch I deals with the CFRs.

[9]. Art 199(2) further clarifies that right.

[10]. Art 199(a,b&c).

[11]. Art 189 & 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

[12]. Superior Court or Court having same status overrules the judgment given by the subordinate Court see R v R [1991] 3 WLR 767.

[13]. Court higher than the originating Court departs from the precedents while acting as Court of appeal see Gillick c West Norfolk etc [1986] AC 112.

[14]. Where material facts of both the cases are considered sufficiently different from each other so previous judicial precedent cannot be applied. See Application No. 81862 for a Declaration of Invalidity in Respect of Trade Mark No. 2184549, In The Matter of Name of French Connection Limited. Word “FCUK” was allowed to be registered as trademark by Distinguishing with the Word “FOOK” which was not allowed to be registered as trade mark in Case Scranage’s Trade Mark Application 0/182/05.

[15]. Tariq Transport Company v The Sargodha Bhera Bus Service and others PLD [1958] SC 437, 441.

[16]. ibid 454(K), 465(Y) & 497(TT).

[17]. Constitution of Pakistan 1956 art 170: ‘Notwithstanding anything in Article 22, each High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, for the enforcement of any of the right conferred by Part II and for any other purpose’.

[18]. Powers of the HC on writ jurisdiction conferred in all three constitutions are similar, whereas wording of Constitution of Pakistan 1962 art 98 is much the same as the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 art 199. Likewise, art 130 of the 1962 Constitution has more or less the same wording as art 175(2) of the 1973 Constitution, describing the limits of the jurisdiction of the Courts.

[19]. Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Muhammad Saeed PLD [1961] SC 192

[20]. ibid head note B.

[21]. Akhtar Abbas vNayyarHussain[1982] SCMR 549.

[22]. ibid 550 head note A.

[23]. Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Muhammad Saeed.

[24]. ibid head note H.

[25]. The suo moto on barring women to cast their vote, and direction in the ChapliKabab case. Amin A, ‘PHC takes suo moto notice of substandard ‘chaplikabab’’ The News International (11 September 2013) <www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-7-201395-PHC-takes-suo-moto-notice-of-substandard-chapli-kabab> accessed 25 September 2013

[26]. Amin A, ‘PHC orders re-polling in 54 women’s polling stations’ The News International (27 August 2013) <www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-7-201395-PHC-takes-suo-moto-notice-of-substandard-chapli-kabab> accessed 25 September 2013

[27]. PLD 1971 SC 677

[28]. ibid 686.

[29]. Constitution of Pakistan 1973 art 175(2) has same wording.

[30]. Similar to art 199 of the 1973 constitution.

[31]. ibid 693 head note I.

[32]. ibid 694 final para.

[33]. PHC takes suo moto notice on barring women from casting their votes is one among several others in which Courts openly welcomed and complemented the role of media in breaking such news.

[34]. Suomotu case in the matter of Juvenile Jail, Landhi, Karachi [1990] PcrLJ 1231.

[35]. ibid 1234 para 2.

[36]. A HafeezLakho, Advocate General, S.A. Wadood Deputy Attorney General, Sabhiuddin Ahmad senior advocate (later Chief Justice of Sindh High Court and Judge of SCP), Makhdoom Ali Khan, senior advocate (later Attorney General of Pakistan).

[37]. Ibid p.1234 para 4.

[38]. ibid p. 1235 paras 20 & 21 head notes H & I.

[39]. ibid 1242 para 7 head note C.

[40]. ArdeshirCowasjeeetc v K.B.C.A. etc [2001] YLR 2403 Karachi.

[41]. ibid 2409 head note B.

[42]. CJP Muhammad Munir (1954-60), Muhammad Shahabuddin (1960), Alvin R Cornelius (1960-68), HamoodurRahman (1968-75), Nasim Hassan Shah (1993-94), AjmalMian (1997-99).

[43]. PLD [2013] Balochistan 75 Constitutional Petition No.682 of 2011, decided on 5th March, 2013 <http://bhc.gov.pk/Significantjudges.htm>; ‘Monthly Case Law Update’ (2013) 5 Constitution 3 (Lahore High Court Research Centre Publication).

[44]. Art 4 Right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law, etc.-

(1) To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.

(2) In particular-

(a) no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law;

(b) no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law; and

(c) no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do.

[45]. PLD [2013] Balochistan 75 Constitutional Petition No.682 of 2011, decided on 5th March, 2013 <http://bhc.gov.pk/Significantjudges.htm>; ‘Monthly Case Law Update’ (2013) 5 Constitution 3 (Lahore High Court Research Centre Publication).

[46]. Paragraphs 78 and 79 of Rental power case.