Supreme Court of Pakistan Annual Report 2002

Home , Abdul Hameed Dogar, Balochistan High Court, Bashir Jehangiri, Dorab Patel, Falak Sher (justice), Hamid Ali Mirza

THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 4 Supreme Court of Pakistan Annual Report 2002 c 2003 National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee This 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.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 6 Contents

1 FOREWORD BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN 1

2 THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN AND ITS ORGANISATION 5 2.1 The Supreme Court as the Court of the Last Resort ...... 5 2.1.1 The Apex Court ...... 5 2.1.2 The Guardian Court ...... 5 2.1.3 Final Arbiter of the Law and the Constitution ...... 5 2.1.4 Action in Aid of the Supreme Court ...... 5 2.1.5 Financial Autonomy ...... 5 2.2 Jurisdiction of the Court ...... 6 2.2.1 Original Jurisdiction ...... 6 2.2.2 Appellate Jurisdiction ...... 6 2.2.3 Advisory Jurisdiction ...... 7 2.2.4 Review Jurisdiction ...... 7 2.2.5 Appellate Jurisdiction against Judgements of Federal Shariat Court ..... 7 2.2.6 Power to Transfer Cases ...... 7 2.2.7 Decision of the Supreme Court binding on other Courts ...... 7 2.2.8 Issue and Execution of Process of the Supreme Court ...... 7 2.2.9 Rule Making Powers ...... 7 2.3 Role and Functions of the Chief Justice ...... 8 2.4 Seat of the Court and Branch Registries ...... 13 2.4.1 The Principal Seat ...... 13 2.4.2 The Branch Registry at Lahore ...... 13 2.4.3 The Branch Registry at Karachi ...... 14 2.4.4 The Branch Registry at Peshawar ...... 14 2.4.5 The Branch Registry at Quetta ...... 14 2.5 Supreme Court Composition 2002 ...... 17 2.5.1 The Chief Justices ...... 17 2.5.2 The Judges of the Court ...... 17 2.5.3 Ad-Hoc Members, Shariat Appellate Bench ...... 17 2.5.4 Attorney General for Pakistan ...... 17 2.5.5 Registrar ...... 17 2.6 Organisation Chart of the Supreme Court ...... 18 2.7 Bio Data of Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan ...... 20 2.8 Judges of the Supreme Court ...... 23

3 SIGNIFICANT JUDGEMENTS OF THE COURT DURING THE YEAR 2002 33 3.1 Sheikh Rashid Ahmad v. Majid Nizami, Editor-in-Chief, The Nation and Nawa-e- Waqt and Another (PLD 2002 SC 514) ...... 33 3.2 United Bank Limited v. Farooq Brothers and Others (PLD 2002 SC 800) ...... 35 3.3 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 Republic of Pakistan and others (PLD 2002 SC 994) ...... 49 3.6 Watan Party through Punjab President Ladies Wing Tasneem Shaukat Khan v. Chief Executive/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 61 4.1 Court Performance During the Year 2002 ...... 61 4.2 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 ...... 62 4.2.2 Branch Registry, Lahore ...... 64 4.2.3 Branch Registry, Karachi ...... 65 4.2.4 Branch Registry, Peshawar ...... 65 4.2.5 Branch Registry, Quetta ...... 66 4.3 Statistics on the Institution and Disposition of Cases During the Year 2002 ..... 67 4.3.1 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of cases at Islamabad (1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) ...... 67 4.3.2 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Lahore (1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) ...... 69 4.3.3 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Karachi (1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) ...... 70 4.3.4 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Peshawar (1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) ...... 71 4.3.5 Statement regarding Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Quetta (1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) ...... 72 4.3.6 Consolidated Statements for the Principal Seat and Branch Registries .... 73 4.3.7 Average Monthly Institution and Disposal During the Year ...... 76 4.3.8 Some Visible Trends ...... 77 4.3.9 Trend of Pending Cases Over the Last Ten Years ...... 78 4.3.10 Trend of Institution of Cases Over the Last Ten Years ...... 79 4.3.11 Trend of Disposal of Cases Over the Last Ten Years ...... 80 4.3.12 Comparative Graph of Cases Filed, Decided and Pending ...... 81 4.3.13 Analysis of the Pending Balance ...... 82 4.3.14 Pending Balance According to Age of Cases as on 31-12-2002 ...... 84 4.3.15 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 93 5.1 Judges of Supreme Court Nominated to Various Committees, Tribunals, University Syndicates and other Bodies ...... 93 5.2 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 in Pakistan” By Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan ...... 96 5.2.3 Concluding Remarks of Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan at the Inaugural Session of South Asian Judicial Colloquium on Access to Justice at New Delhi on 1-3 November 2002 ...... 101 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 Justice of Pakistan ...... 102 5.2.5 Speeches of Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan During the Year 2002 ...... 105 5.2.6 Visits Abroad by Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan ...... 106 5.3 The Supreme Court and the Media ...... 107

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

7 THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COUNCIL 115

8 THE COURT REGISTRY 119 8.1 Functions ...... 119 8.2 Goals ...... 119 8.3 Services ...... 120 8.4 Staﬀ Welfare Fund ...... 122

9 FINANCING FOR THE SUPREME COURT 125 9.1 Expenditure During the Last Financial Year 2001–2002 ...... 125 9.2 Budgetary Allocation for the Year 2002–2003 ...... 126 9.3 The Share of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Federal Budget ...... 131

10 LEGAL RESEARCH AT THE SUPREME COURT 135 10.1 The Supreme Court of Pakistan Library ...... 135 10.2 Information Technology at the Supreme Court and Web Presence ...... 136 10.2.1 Court Automation Plan ...... 136 10.2.2 The Growing Website of the Court ...... 137

11 THE COURT BUILDING 143 11.0.3 Building Architecture ...... 143 11.0.4 Main Central Block ...... 143 11.0.5 Judges Chambers Block ...... 143 11.0.6 Administration Blocks ...... 143

12 JUDICIAL HIERARCHY OF PAKISTAN 147 12.1 Strength of Judges and Administrative Staﬀ Within the Hierarchy ...... 147

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: iii 13 INFORMATION ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 151 13.1 Advocates on the Rolls of the Supreme Court ...... 151 13.2 Current Strength of Attorney General’s Oﬃce and Oﬃces of the Advocates General in the Provinces ...... 151

14 FORMER CHIEF JUSTICES, JUDGES AND REGISTRARS 155 14.1 Former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Pakistan ...... 155 14.2 Former Judges of the Supreme Court ...... 156 14.3 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 Supreme Court for the year 2002. A strong feature of this year’s report is the detail that has been provided along with the enhanced analysis through which the data has been scrutinized. The purpose is to present to the reader not only the achievements of the Court during the year 2002, but also to highlight some of the core problems that continue to beset, and even haunt, the legal system of Pakistan. As the Court grapples with these problems, by stretching to the limit the resources provided, the reader of this report—whether legal expert, researcher or interested citizen—is invited to share his or her ideas with the Court for the solution of the problems facing the legal system of Pakistan. The reader will find that the Court is always ready to listen to such ideas and to implement them if found suitable. As I contemplate my term as Chief Justice, I am amazed at the variety of measures that are underway for strengthening the legal system of Pakistan. The processes for strengthening the system have 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 and formulate judicial policy. The tasks facing the NJPMC are the setting of performance standards for the entire legal system as well as for each category of Court, the building and strengthening of 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 statistics that will provide accurate and meaningful data for adopting corrective measures and formulating sound judicial policy. Concrete first steps in all these areas have already been taken and they are expected to bear fruit in the near future. This Annual Report that I present to you today is also part of this comprehensive strategy. I am convinced that the measures we have initiated will soon bring inexpensive, swift and timely access to justice for the people of Pakistan. In working towards this goal the Supreme Court will continue to strengthen the tried and time-tested methods of delivering justice. The central pillar of all systems of justice is the qualified and competent judge. Pakistan has been fortunate in this respect, and today it gives me enormous pleasure to say that I am in the midst of competent colleagues who are second to none. It is with their dedication and hard work that the lofty goals we have chosen for ourselves will be achieved. The problems that the legal system of the country faces today provide a tremendous challenge and are by no means simple or transient. One of the most prominent problems is the rising crest of litigation riding the bulging waves of population and enhanced commercial activity. As compared to this dynamic growth, the number of Judges of this Court is static, and despite their unending efforts there is a natural physical limit to what can be achieved. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court is

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 1 well aware of all such problems and continually searches for timely solutions to them, for solutions must be found. As we look back at the year 2002, once again a record number of 13847 cases were filed. To this figure, if the previous balance of 13070 pending cases is added, it yields a figure 26917 that the Court faced during the year 2002. This figure alone speaks volumes about the enormity of the problem. In order to understand the situation better we have to look, even though momentarily, at some 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 to the rate of increase in population. A graphical representation within the report narrates a more detailed story. Whatever the message within these figures, the Court is occupied with the adoption of strategies to overcome the problem and the problem will be resolved not only for the Supreme Court, 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 naturally affected the time allocated to other cases. Summarised versions of a few such significant judgements have been included in this Report. To deal with these important cases as well as all the other cases a Full Court meeting was held to carve out strategies from among a number of options available to the Court. It has been my endeavour to implement these plans and strategies well in time so that 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, at Karachi 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 and sound management, the performance of the Court has been excellent. In conclusion, I would like to congratulate everyone who participates in the activity of the Court, in particular my brother Judges. I also acknowledge the very efficient services rendered by the Registrar and the Court staff in processing the cases before the Court. I wish to thank the Secretariat of the Law and Justice Commission for providing the necessary support to the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee for bringing out this report.

(Sh. Riaz Ahmad) Chief Justice of Pakistan

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 2 THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN AND ITS ORGANISATION

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 3 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 4 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 upholder of citizens’ rights, liberties and free- doms. Seen in this context, the Court occupies a The Supreme Court of Pakistan is the apex pivotal position in constitutional dispensation, Court in the judicial hierarchy of the coun- by playing the role of unifying and integrating try. The Court comprises the Chief Justice and the nation, its regions, institutions, communi- 16 Judges. The Constitution contains elabo- ties and citizens. rate provisions on the composition, jurisdiction, powers and functions of the Court. The qualifications for and mode of appointment of 2.1.3 Final Arbiter of the Law and the Judges, the age of their retirement, the grounds Constitution and procedure for their removal from office and The Supreme Court is the court of ultimate the terms and conditions of service of Judges jurisdiction in the land. It is the final ar- are also dealt with. The Constitution further biter of the law and the Constitution. Its or- provides for the independence of the Judiciary ders/decisions are binding on all other courts and its separation from the Executive. Conse- in the country. quently, institutional and judicial independence prevails in the country. 2.1.4 Action in Aid of the Supreme 2.1.2 The Guardian Court Court Establishing a system of trichotomy of power, Under the Constitution, all executive and ju- the Constitution assigns the Supreme Court a dicial authorities throughout the country are unique responsibility of maintaining harmony bound to act in aid of the Supreme Court (Art. and balance between the three pillars of the 190). State; namely, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The purpose is to ensure 2.1.5 Financial Autonomy that the state organs perform their respective functions under the stipulated limits and con- The Supreme Court enjoys financial autonomy straints. As guardian of the Constitution, the in as much as the Chief Justice of Pakistan Court is required to preserve, protect and de- is authorised to reappropriate funds within its fend this basic document. budgetary allocation. He can create and up- The multiple roles of the Court include the grade/downgrade posts in the Court establish- resolution of conflicts and disputes, be they ment. The Supreme Court is also empowered among governments (Federal/Provincial) or be- to make its own rules of practice/procedure as tween governments and individuals or individ- also for recruitment of its administrative staff uals inter se. The Court is also a custodian and and their terms and conditions of service.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 5 2.2 Jurisdiction of the Court

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide trial convicted the accused person and matters in its original, appellate, review and ad- sentenced him as aforesaid; or visory jurisdictions. (c) if the High Court has imposed any punishment on any person for contempt of the High Court; or 2.2.1 Original Jurisdiction (d) if the amount or value of the subject- 1. The Supreme Court has exclusive original matter of the dispute in the court of jurisdiction in any dispute between any first instance was, and also in dispute two or more Governments, where “Gov- in appeal is, not less than fifty thou- ernments” means the Federal Government sand rupees or such other sum as may and the Provincial Governments. be specified in that behalf by Act of [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] and the 2. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, the judgement, decree or final order ap- Supreme Court pronounces declaratory pealed from has varied or set aside the judgements. judgement, decree or final order of the 3. Where the Supreme Court considers that court immediately below; or a question of public importance, with ref- (e) if the judgement, decree or final or- erence to the enforcement of any of the der involves directly or indirectly some Fundamental Rights conferred by Chap- claim or question respecting property ter 1 of Part II of the Constitution, is of the like amount or value and the involved, it has the power to make an judgement, decree or final order ap- order of the nature mentioned in Article pealed from has varied or set aside the judgement, decree or final order of the 184. court immediately below; or (f) if the High Court certifies that the case 2.2.2 Appellate Jurisdiction involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Consti- 1. Subject to Article 185, the Supreme Court tution. shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from judgements, decrees, final orders or sentences of a High Court. 3. An appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgement, decree, order or sentence of 2. An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court aHighCourtinacasetowhichclause from any judgement, decree, final order or (2) does not apply shall lie only if the sentence of a High Court— Supreme Court grants leave to appeal (a) if the High Court has on appeal re- (Art. 185). versed an order of acquittal of an ac- Under Article 212 (3): An appeal to the cused person and sentenced him to Supreme Court from a judgement, decree, death or to transportation for life or order or sentence of an Administrative imprisonment for life; or, on revision, has enhanced a sentence to a sentence Court or Tribunal shall lie only if the as aforesaid; or Supreme Court, being satisfied that the (b) if the High Court has withdrawn for case involves a substantial question of law trial before itself any case from any of public importance, grants leave to ap- court subordinate to it and has in such peal.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 6 2.2.3 Advisory Jurisdiction any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High Court 1. If, at any time, the President considers (Art. 186A). that it is desirable to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law which he considers of public impor- 2.2.7 Decision of the Supreme Court tance, he may refer the question to the binding on other Courts Supreme Court for consideration. 2. The Supreme Court shall consider a ques- Any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the tion so referred and report its opinion on extent that it decides a question of law or is the question to the President (Art. 186). based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other courts in Pakistan (Art. 2.2.4 Review Jurisdiction 189). The Supreme Court shall have power, subject to the provision of any Act of [Majlis-e-Shoora 2.2.8 Issue and Execution of Process of (Parliament)] and of any rules made by the the Supreme Court Supreme Court, to review any judgement pronounced or any order made by it (Art. 188). Subject to clause (2) of Article 175, the Supreme Court has the power to issue direc- 2.2.5 Appellate Jurisdiction against tions, orders or decrees for doing complete jus- Judgements of Federal Shariat tice in any case or matter pending before it, Court including an order for securing the attendance Article 203-F of the Constitution confers on the of any person or the discovery or production of Supreme Court, appellate jurisdiction against any document. Any such direction, order or de- final decisions of the Federal Shariat Court un- cree is enforceable throughout Pakistan, and if der Article 203D, i.e., determining whether or a question arises as to which High Court shall not any law or provision of law is repugnant to give effect to a direction, order or decree of the the injunctions of Islam. Such Appeal is heard Supreme Court, the decision of the Supreme by the Shariat Appellant Bench of the Supreme Court on the question is final (Art. 187). Court consisting of three Muslim Judges of the Supreme Court and not more than two Ulema appointed by the President to attend sittings of 2.2.9 Rule Making Powers the Bench as ad hoc Members. Article 191 says that subject to the Constitu- tion and law, the Supreme Court may make 2.2.6 Power to Transfer Cases rules regulating the practice and procedure of The Supreme Court may, if it considers it expe- the Court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dient to do so in the interest of justice, transfer Rules, 1980 have been framed.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 7 2.3 Role and Functions of the Chief Justice

TheChiefJusticeofPakistanisappointedby Government to entrust functions is the President under Article 177 of the Con- unreasonable with respect to broad- stitution. He provides leadership to the Court. casting and telecasting. Among other functions and responsibilities, the • Chief Justice of Pakistan: Administers oath:

• Is consulted by the President for appoint- – to the President of Pakistan; ment of Judges of the Supreme Court as – to the Auditor General of Pakistan; well as Chief Justices and Judges of High – to the Judges of the Supreme Court; Courts. In the absence of sound reasons to and the contrary, to be recorded by the Pres- ident/Chief Executive, his opinion as to – to the Chief Election Commissioner. the fitness of a person for judgeship is ac- • cepted. Nominates: • Appoints: – a Judge of the Supreme Court to act as Chief Election Commissioner, – with the approval of the President, during the absence of the Chief Elec- ad hoc Judges of the Supreme Court tion Commissioner; and from among the retired Judges of – Judges of the Supreme Court to var- the Supreme Court, who retired less ious bodies of the Bar, e.g., Dis- than three years prior to such ad hoc ciplinary Committees and Syndi- appointment; and cates/Governing Bodies of universi- – with the approval of the President ties. and consent of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, ad hoc • Is ex-officio Chairman of: Judges of the Supreme Court from – Law and Justice Commission of Pak- among the serving Judges of the istan; High Courts who are qualified for appointment as Judges of the Supreme – National Judicial (Policy Making) Court. Committee; – Federal Review Board consisting of – Governing Body, Access to Justice a Chairman and two other persons, Development Fund; each of whom is or has been a judge – the Supreme Judicial Council; of the Supreme Court or a High Court, for reviewing orders made un- – the Federal Judicial Academy; and der a law providing for preventive – Al-Mizan Foundation. detention. • Exercises: – an arbitrator to determine any question arising as to whether any con- – administrative powers to ap- ditions imposed on any Provincial point/remove officers/staff of the Government are lawfully imposed, or Court and upgrade/downgrade whether any refusal by the Federal posts.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 8 – ﬁnancial powers to sanction ex- • Supervises caseﬂow management. penditure and re-appropriate funds • within the budgetary allocation of Assigns Judges to specialised work and re- the Court. sponsibilities to assist and aid the Chief Justice in formulating policies of court • Prepares the Court Roster and consti- management. tutes benches of the Court to hear cases. • Deals with cases of leave of the Judges. • Heads benches constituted for hearing of • Prescribes working hours of the Court important cases. and business in chambers and Court hol- idays. • Presides over Full Court Meetings and leads in taking important policy decisions. • Conducts judicial conferences and studies to plan for improvement of the system of • Supervises and directs the Court adminis- administration of justice. tration and acts as intermediary between the Court and the judicial system. • Oversees pre-service and in-service training courses of the judges of the sub- • Initiates internal Court operation poli- ordinate courts in the Federal Judicial cies. Academy.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 9 Full Court Meeting

2.4 Seat of the Court and Branch Registries

The Constitution of Pakistan provides that (a) All the High Courts; the Principal Seat of the Court shall be at Is- (b) The Rawalpindi Bench, Lahore High lamabad and the Court may, from time to time, Court. sit in such other places as the Chief Justice of Pakistan, with the approval of the President, 3. Appeals and petitions under Article may appoint (Art. 183). Today, the Court with 203(F) of the Constitution arising out of its Principal Seat at Islamabad, has Branch judgements of the Federal Shariat Court Registries at all the four provincial headquar- of Pakistan. ters. The Branch Registries at Lahore, Karachi, 4. Civil petitions for leave to appeal under Peshawar and Quetta have been established for Article 212(3) of the Constitution arising the convenience of the public and for providing out of judgements of the Federal Service justice at the doorstep. Tribunal as well as all the Provincial Ser- The Main Registry of the Court remained vice Tribunals. at Lahore in a borrowed wing of the Lahore High Court for a period extending a little over 25 years, from October, 1949 to November, 1974, after which the Main Registry was moved 2.4.2 The Branch Registry at Lahore to Rawalpindi. At Rawalpindi, the Main Reg- istry was housed in what was then called “East When the Main Registry was moved to Pakistan House.” The Main Registry was later Rawalpindi in 1974, a Branch Registry was es- moved to the Supreme Court Building at Islam- tablished at Lahore in a borrowed wing of the abad. Lahore High Court. Later, the Old State Bank Building located at Nabha Road was acquired and renovated to house the Branch Registry. 2.4.1 The Principal Seat The new building has three courtrooms, Chief At the Principal Seat, Islamabad, the following Justice Chamber, six other Chambers, library, matters are dealt with: conference room, Bar room and Registry Of- ﬁces. A Rest House for lodging Judges during Original Jurisdiction Court sessions has also been acquired, which is 1. Constitution Petitions under Article situated on Aikman Road GOR-I, Lahore. 184(3) of the Constitution for enforce- All petitions instituted in the Branch Reg- ment of Fundamental Rights. istry are heard at Lahore, subject to any special order by the Court. Petitions, appeals and 2. Constitution Petitions under Article miscellaneous applications are instituted in the 186(A). Branch Registry arising out of judgements and decisions of:— Appellate Jurisdiction 1. Lahore High Court excluding those of the 1. Civil and criminal petitions under Article Rawalpindi Bench; 185(3) of the Constitution. 2. The Federal Shariat Court Lahore; 2. Civil and criminal appeals under Article 185(2) (d)(e) and (f) of the Constitution, 3. The Federal Service Tribunal Lahore; and against the judgements and orders of: 4. The Punjab Service Tribunal.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 13 All appeals by leave of the Court, or direct instituted and heard at the Branch Registry at appeals, presented in the Registry, are trans- Karachi due to the shortage of Advocates-on- ferred to the Main Registry for registration, Record at Quetta. printing of record and hearing. 2.4.4 The Branch Registry at Peshawar 2.4.3 The Branch Registry at Karachi The Registry at Peshawar was established on This Registry was established on 14th October, 28th October, 1960 in a borrowed wing of the 1957 in a borrowed wing of the High Court Peshawar High Court and is still housed in of Sindh. The Registry remained housed, for the same building. A site (old Radio Pakistan some time, in Karachi Development Author- building) located on Khyber Road has been ity (KDA) Rest House, Stadium Road opposite, acquired for the Registry and necessary reno- PTV Centre and later the old State Bank build- vation/repair work is underway. The foundation ing situated at M.R. Kayani Road, was acquired stone of the Peshawar Branch Registry building and renovated to house the Registry. This build- was laid on 17th November 2001. A Rest House ing had initially been inaugurated by the father for lodging Judges during Court sessions has of the nation, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammed Ali also been acquired, which is situated on Khy- Jinnah. The Registry shifted to its new location ber Road, Peshawar. on 20th February, 1997. The new building has 2 All petitions instituted at the Branch Reg- courtrooms, Chief Justice Chamber and 5 other istry are heard at Peshawar, subject to any spe- Chambers, besides a library, conference room, cial order by the Court. All appeals, by leave of Bar room and Registry Offices. Rest House for the Court, are transferred to the main Registry lodging Judges during Court sessions has also for registration, printing of record and hearing. been acquired, which is situated in Bath Island, The following work is undertaken at the Clifton, Karachi. Branch Registry:— All petitions instituted in the Branch Reg- Petitions and miscellaneous applications are istry are heard at Karachi, subject to any spe- instituted at the Branch Registry. These peti- cial order by the Court. All petitions in which tions and applications arise out of judgements leave to appeal is granted are transferred to the and decisions of: Main Registry for registration as appeal. Sim- ilarly, direct appeals filed in the Registry are 1. Peshawar High Court; also forwarded to the Main Registry. The work 2. Federal Shariat Court, Peshawar; done in the Branch Registry is as follows:— Petitions, appeals and miscellaneous appli- 3. Federal Service Tribunal, Peshawar; and cation are instituted in the Branch Registry 4. N.W.F.P Service Tribunal. arising out of judgements and decisions of: 2.4.5 The Branch Registry at Quetta 1. Sindh High Court; The Registry was established on 19th Novem- 2. Federal Shariat Court Karachi; ber, 1978 in a borrowed wing of the High Court 3. Federal Service Tribunal Karachi; and of Balochistan, and is still functioning there. 4. Sindh Service Tribunal. Efforts are, however, being made to acquire a permanent site for the Registry. A Rest House As a special case, it has been provided that for lodging Judges during Court sessions has the cases which may be instituted and heard also been acquired, which is situated on Share- at the Branch Registry at Quetta may also be e-Zarghoon, Quetta.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 14 All petitions instituted in the Branch Reg- Petitions, appeals and miscellaneous appli- istry are heard at Quetta, subject to any special cations are instituted in the Branch Registry order. All petitions in which leave to appeal is arising out of judgements and decisions of: granted are transferred to the Main Registry for registration as appeals. The work done in 1. Balochistan High Court; the Branch Registry at Quetta is as follows:— 2. Federal Shariat Court, Quetta; 3. Federal Service Tribunal, Quetta; and 4. Balochistan Service Tribunal.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 15 L to R (sitting): Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Mr. Justice Sheikh 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. Justice Abdul 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 04-11-1997 Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui 04-02-2000 Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry 04-02-2000 Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq 04-02-2000 Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas 04-02-2000 Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal 28-04-2000 Mr. Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah 28-04-2000 Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal 28-04-2000 Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza 28-04-2000 Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar 28-04-2000 Mr. Justice Tanvir Ahmed Khan 27-09-2000 Mr. Justice Sardar Muhamamd Raza Khan 10-01-2002 Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday 10-01-2002 Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi 10-01-2002 Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar 10-01-2002 Mr. Justice Falak Sher 07-09-2002 Mr. 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 29-05-2002 Mr. 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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 17 2.6 Organisation Chart of the Supreme Court

Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr. Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad Judges of the Supreme Court Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqi Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal Mr. Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar Mr. Justice Tanvir Ahmed Khan Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar Mr. Justice Falak Sher Mr. Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari Members Shariat Appellate Bennch Mr. Justice Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmood Mr. Justice Dr. Rashid Ahmad Julundhri

Registrar Mr. Muhammad Amin Farooqi

Additional Registrar Mr. Budha Khan

Deputy Registrar Deputy Registrar Deputy Registrar Deputy Registrar Deputy Registrar Administration Miscellaneous Judicial Karachi Lahore Mr. Nurul Hussain Khan Mr. Sohail Ahmad Babar Mr. Aziz Ahmad Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Memon Mr. Pervez Ahmad

Assistant Registrar Assistant Registrar Data Processing Assistant Registrar Assistant Registrar Assistant Registrar Assistant Registrar Assistant Registrar Assistant Registrar Assistant Registrar Ofﬁcer Incharge Administration General/Protocol Manager Miscellaneous Civil Printing Criminal Implementation Coordination Peshawar Quetta Mr. Muhammad Afzal Mr. Khalid Naseem Mr. Muhammad Aslam Lashari Mr. Talat Farooq Lone Mr. Muhammad Aslam Mr. Muhammad Zulqarnain Shauq Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Mr. Yameen Sohail Mr. Muhammad Bashir Janjua Mr. Zubair Sabir Mr. Aurangzeb Khan

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 18 Chief Justice of Pakistan

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 19 2.7 Bio Data of Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan Name: Mr. Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad Father’s Name: Late Sh. Manzoor Ahmad Date of birth: 9th March, 1938 Educational Qualiﬁcation: B.A., LL.B. Date of enrolment as pleader: 16th August, 1960 Date of enrolment as an Advocate of High Court: 25th September, 1962 Date of enrolment as an Advocate of Supreme Court: February 1968

• Practised at the Bar for 14 years and worked as Legal Advisor to the Standard Chartered Bank, 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 Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan: conducted many cases on the constitutional, criminal as well as civil sides;

• Worked as a Part-time Lecturer in the Punjab University Law College, Lahore from 1969 to 1974;

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

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

• Appointed as Advocate General Punjab on 27th of May, 1980, i.e., the Principal Law Oﬃcer of 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 enquiry into 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 of Islamia College, Civil Lines, Lahore;

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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 20 • 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 of C-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 of Pakistan, 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 in 1995;

• 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 Washington D.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 Project for Strengthening of Institutional Capacity for Judicial and Legal Reforms organised by the Asian Development Bank from 27 April to 3 June, 2001;Participated in the delegation from the Pakistan Judiciary to the Peoples’ Republic of China from 2-10 September, 2001 to study the Judicial System of China;

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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 21 • 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 the Environment.

• 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 for systematic 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 Superiors Courts, retired/serving Judges of subordinate court and court staff. – Supreme Judicial Council.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 22 2.8 Judges of the Supreme Court

Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh Passed LL.B from Punjab University in 1962; enrolled as Advocate, 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 the Supreme Court in 1997.

Mr.Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui Passed LL.B. from University of Hyderabad and LL.M. from University of Karachi; practised law from 1961 to 1967. Appointed Civil Judge, promoted as Senior Civil Judge, Addl.District and Sessions Judge. Served (twice) as Registrar, High Court of Sindh, Special Judge Customs (thrice), Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Banking Court, Labour Court; Chairman, Commercial Court and Drug Court; Member, Supreme Appellate Court/Tribunal, Appellate Insurance Tribunal; Member, Board of Governors, Agha Khan University, Indus Valley School; Chairman, IBA, Karachi. Elevated Judge, High Court of Sindh in 1992 and appointed Chief Justice in 1999. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 4th Febru- ary, 2000; serving as Chairman, Central Zakat Council and Member, Selection Board, Q.A. University. Visited France. Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Passed LL.B. from Law College, Hyderabad University in 1973; enrolled as Advocate in 1974, and Advocate of the High Court in 1976 and of the Supreme Court in 1985. Elected Member, Bar Council in 1983. Appointed Advocate-General for Balochistan in 1989. Elevated as Additional Judge, High Court 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 and Chairman, Provincial Review Board for the Province of Balochistan.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 23 Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq Passed LL.B from University Law College, Lahore in 1960; enrolled as Advocate in 1961; elected Secretary, District Bar Association, Abbottabad in 1962. Qualiﬁed Provincial Civil Service (Judicial) Examination in 1967 and served as Civil Judge, Senior Civil Judge, and Additional District and Sessions Judge; promoted as District and Sessions Judge in 1977. At- tended the 1st Advanced Course in Shariah at the Institute of Shariah and Legal Profession, Islamabad and the Islamic Uni- versity, Madina, Saudi Arabia; Served as Registrar, Peshawar High Court from January 1988 to September 1989. Elevated as Judge, Peshawar High Court in 1991. Attended course on Alternate 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 Bhagwandas Passed M.A. (Islamic Studies) in 1966, LL.B. in 1965 and LL.M. in 1981 from the University of Karachi, authored thesis on “Law of Contempt of Court” and secured 2nd position in the examination. Appointed Civil Judge and Magistrate 1st Class in 1967; promoted as District and Sessions Judge in 1979; served as Judge, Sindh Labour Court, Karachi from 1980 to 1983; Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sukkur from 1983 to 1988; District and Sessions Judge, Khairpur, Karachi East and Sukkur from 1988 to 1991; served as Member, Inspection Team, High Court of Sindh from 1991 to 1992 and Registrar, from 1992 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.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 24 Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal Passed M.A. (Economics) in 1963; LL.B. from Law College, University of Peshawar in 1965; enrolled as a Pleader in 1965, Advocate High Court in 1968 and Advocate Supreme Court in 1976. Elected Secretary, High Court Bar Asso- ciation, Peshawar in 1975 and as Vice President of the same Association in 1979. Visiting Lecturer at Provincial Civil Service Academy, NWFP, Peshawar in 1972; Law Oﬃcer, Assistant Advocate-General, Additional Advocate- General and Deputy Attorney-General from 1980 to 1991. Appointed as Additional Judge, Peshawar High Court in 1991 and conﬁrmed in 1993. Served as Chairman, NWFP Bar Council Tribunal, Labour Appellate Tribunal and Mem- ber, Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Review Board, Election Tribunal and Syndicate, University of Engineering and 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 Shah Passed 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 such from 1979 to 1983 and again from 1987 to 1991. Served as Member, Syndicate Sindh Agricultural University. Elected as Member, Provincial Assembly of Sindh for the period 1988 to 1990 and again from 1990 to 1993. Elevated as Judge, High Court of Sindh in 1994. Appointed Chief Jus- tice, High Court of Sindh on 4th February, 2000. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 28th April, 2000.

Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Passed his M.A. (Political Science) in 1969 and LL.B from Punjab University in 1968; Master of International Law (Australia); qualiﬁed in Islamic Fiqh and Shariah Course from International Islamic University, Islamabad. Appointed as Member, National Industrial Relations Commission in 1988. Elevated as Additional Judge, High Court of Balochistan in 1993 and conﬁrmed in 1995. Ap- pointed as Chief Justice, High Court of Balochistan on 4th February, 2000. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 28th April, 2000.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 25 Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza Passed LL.B. from University of Sindh in 1961; enrolled as an Advocate in 1961; joined the Provincial Judicial Service in 1973 as Senior Civil Judge and Assistant Ses- sions Judge; promoted as District and Sessions Judge in 1983. Elevated as Judge, High Court of Sindh in 1995; nominated as Member, Election Commission of Pakistan in 1996. Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 28th April 2000.

Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar Passed LL.B. from Law College, Punjab University in 1969; enrolled as Advocate in 1970 and practised law for 25 years. Elected as President, District Bar Association, Khairpur. Completed the 3rd Lawyer’s Course in Shariah from the International Islamic University, Islamabad in 1991. Appointed as Judge, High Court of Sindh in April 1995; elevated as Judge, Supreme Court on 28th April, 2000.

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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 26 Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan Born in District Abbotabad in the year 1945; obtained M.A. in Economics from the Punjab University, while studying at the Forman Christian College, Lahore; passed his LL.B. in 1967; joined the PCS (Judicial Branch) in 1968; promoted as Senior Civil Judge in 1976, as Additional District and Sessions Judge in 1979 and was then District and Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan; left for the USA 1965 to study the Amer- ican legal system; visited Tokyo, Japan in 1999 to attend a course on “Corruption Among Public Oﬃcials”; elevated to the Bench on 14th December, 1993 as Additional Judge, Pe- shawar High Court and conﬁrmed as Judge Peshawar High Court in June, 1995; elevated as Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court for which he took the oath on 28th April, 2000; elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and took the oath on 10th January, 2002.

Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday Born in Lahore on 13th January, 1945; studied at Gordon College, Rawalpindi where he was President of the Minerva Club and Editor of the “Gordonian”; participated actively in 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 in 1976; was appointed Assistant Advocate General for the province of Punjab; elevated to the Bench of the Lahore High Court in October, 1988 and as Judge Supreme Court of Pakistan on 10th January, 2002.

Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi Born in Murree in the year 1943; graduated from the Punjab University and passed his LL.B. in 1969; obtained diploma in labour laws in 1973; joined the legal profession in 1973 and became an Advocate of the Supreme Court in 1981; was appointed Assistant Advocate General in 1985; taught diﬀerent law subjects in many respected institutions from 1987 to 1991; was elevated as Judge of the Lahore High Court in 1992; was Chariman of the Tribunal constituted under Anti-Terrorist Act, 1977; was elevated as Judge Supreme Court of Pakistan on 10-01- 2002.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 27 Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar Born in Lahore in the year 1945; after obtaining his LL.B. degree he joined the Bar and practised for 21 years; was Deputy 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 and Human Rights from 01-01-2000 to 09-01-2002; during his career, he has visited many countries—People’s Republic of China, U.K., Canada, U.S.A., Singapore and Manila—on study tours; on 10-01-2002, he was elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Mr. Justice Falak Sher Born in September, 1943; he graduated from the Punjab Uni- versity (Government College, Lahore) in 1964 and passed his LL.B. in 1966; is a Barrister-at-Law from the Gray’s Inn and was called to the Bar in England in 1972; joined the legal profession in 1966 becoming an Advocate of the High Court in 1969 and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1975; was appointed Legal Adviser to the British Ministry of Health and Social Security, but gave up the office to pursue legal practice; taught at the Punjab University Law College for over a decade and has also been a guest speaker at the Administra- tive Staff College, Lahore; was elevated as Judge of the Lahore High Court on 11th March, 1987 and as Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court on 14-07-2000; on 6th September, 2002, he was elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Mr. Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari Born at Eimanabad, District Gujranwala on 18th August, 1941; graduated from Government College, Lahore in 1961 and obtained his LL.B. degree from Punjab University Law Col- lege in 1963; enrolled as Advocate West Pakistan High Court in 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, Punjab in 1979; has taught law courses and acted as examiner for various law subjects; was appointed as Additional Judge of Lahore High Court in 1994 and as Judge of the Lahore High Court in 1996; was elevated as Ad-hoc Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 7th September, 2002.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 28 Mr. Justice Allama Dr. Khalid Mahmood Born on 17th October, 1925; graduated from the Punjab Uni- versity in 1942 and obtained Masters degrees from the same University in Arabic, Islamic Studies and Persian in the years 1946, 1951 and 1953 respectively; obtained a Masters degree in Theology in 1969 from the University of Birmingham and went on to complete his doctoral degree (Ph.D.) from the same University in the same discipline; has been head of the Arabic and Persian departments in institutions in Pakistan as well as in the United Kingdom; has a number of books to his credit, among these are: Athaar al-Tanzeel, Athaar al-Hadeeth, Athaar al-Tashree and Athaar al-Ihsan; was elevated to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the year 2002. Mr. Justice Dr. Rashid Ahmad Jullundhri Belongs to Lahore; graduated from Jaami‘a Abbasiyya, Univer- sity of Bahawalpur and obtained his Masters degree in Arabic from 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 Open University and the University of Balochistan, Quetta and the position of Director at the Institute of Islamic Research, Islam- abad and the Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore; from 1983 to 1985, he was Senior Fulbright Fellow at the Universities of Chicago and Harvard in the United States of America. He has a number of papers and books to his credit, among these is his dissertation on Qur’anic Exegesis and Classical Tafsir;was elevated to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the year 2002.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 29 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 30 Signiﬁcant Judgements of the Supreme Court During the Year 2002

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 31 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 32 3 SIGNIFICANT JUDGEMENTS OF THE COURT DUR- ING THE YEAR 2002

The judgements listed below are summarised versions of the complete judgements. Some of the 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., and for the dismissal of the suit. A Division Mr. Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal, and Syed Bench of the Lahore High Court comprising Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ. Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh and Mr. Justice Khalid Paul Khawaja heard both the appeals The judgement elaborates the meaning of and recorded dissenting judgments dated 10- Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan in 11-1994. Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh partly ac- the context of the enlargement of the free- cepted the appeal of the appellant and modified dom of the Press after §4 of the Constitution the decree passed by the trial Court. A decree (Fourth Amendment) Act (LXXI of 1995) sub- for Rs. 30,00,000 was passed against defendant stituted the words “commission of” for the word No.1 and a decree for Rs. 20,00,000 was passed “defamation.” against defendant No.2. As such the decretal Mian Muhammad Ajmal, J.—The appellant amount was enhanced from Rs. 30,00,000 to instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.3,00,00,000 Rs. 50,00,000. Mr. Justice Khalid Paul Khawaja as damages against the respondents for publish- dismissed the suit of the appellant alongwith his ing defamatory statements of one Mr. Naveed R. F. A. No. 164 of 1991 and accepted R. F. A. Malik in their dailies “The Nation” and “Nawa- No. 106 of 1991 tiled by the respondents. Due e-Waqt” on 22nd, 23rd, 25th, 30th July and 2nd to a difference of opinion between the learned of August, 1987. The suit was contested by the Judges of the Division Bench, the matter was respondents on both legal and factual premises. referred to the Chief Justice in terms of section The suit was transferred by the Lahore High 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure for nomina- Court from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, tion of a third Judge to express his opinion. Lahore to the Court of District Judge, Lahore, The reference was sent to Mr. Justice Ijaz who recorded evidence of the parties and af- Nisar. The two points of reference were: ter hearing the learned counsel for the parties, partly decreed the suit vide his judgment dated 9-6-1991 directing the respondents to pay a sum (a) Whether the fundamental right of free- of Rs. 30,00,000 as damages to the appellant. dom of the Press granted by Article 19 Feeling aggrieved, both the parties filed appeals of the Constitution of the Islamic Repub- before the Lahore High Court. The appellant’s lic of Pakistan, 1973 provides protection appeal was for enhancement of the quantum of to appellants in relation to publication of damages, while that of the respondents was for news items in question against any claim setting aside the judgment of the trial Judge for damages.

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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 33 (b) If the answer to the above point is in Naveed Malik were published in the newspaper the negative, whether in the facts and cir- in good faith in public interest and there was no cumstances of the case the plaintiff even malice in such publication nor was such malice otherwise is not entitled to claim damages alleged in the suit nor evidence was produced for publication of the news items by the ap- to that effect. He maintained that the appellant pellants. did not even contradict any of these statements when such an opportunity was offered to him by The learned Judge vide his judgment dated the respondents. Though the allegations against 27-3-1996 concurred with the findings arrived the appellant were made by Mr. Naveed Malik at by Mr. Justice Khalid Paul Khawaja, and and not by the respondents, he was exonerated held that the suit titled by the appellant mer- by the appellant and the respondents were sued ited dismissal as did his appeal for enhancement for damages for publishing Mr. Naveed Malik’s of damages. Accordingly, he dismissed the ap- statements. The statements by Mr. Naveed Ma- peal. The appeal filed by the respondents was lik were made in good faith, as is customary for accepted, and the judgment and decree passed public figures, and no damage was caused to the by the trial Judge in favour of the appellant was reputation of the appellant. Learned Counsel set aside.2 argued that the Press has been provided protec- Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the tion under Article 19 of the Constitution as the present appeals under Article 185(2) of the word “defamation” in the Article was replaced Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, by the words “commission of” through section 1973. An objection raised by the respondents 4 of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act about the appeal being time-barred was consid- (LXXI of 1975). This amendment is not with- ered by the Court and as the two appeals arose out any significance, as after substitution of the from the same judgement, delay with respect to word “defamation” by words “commission of,” Civil Appeal No. 1952 of 1996 was condoned. the scope of freedom of Press has been enlarged. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Referee Judge could not pronounce the After considering these arguments, the judgment, he should have referred the matter Court, distinguishing the present case from the back to the Division Bench, after recording his authority cited, did not accept the argument opinion on the points referred to him, and he that the learned Referee Judge could not pro- could not go beyond the reference. Further, as nounce the judgment and could not go beyond his client’s prestige and reputation were badly the points referred to him. The Court also bruised, his suit should be decreed. In addition, observed that where statements and counter- he contended that the amended Article 19 of the statements are made by political leaders and Constitution did not confer unbridled powers these are usually published in the newspapers on the Press to publish any false or defama- in good faith and in the interest of the pub- tory material in the newspaper to damage the lic, the presumption of malice is excluded and reputation of any citizen of the country. It was burden of proving malice in fact lies on the also argued that the material was maliciously plaintiff. The allegations made by Mr. Naveed published by the respondents in order to ma- Malik were published in the newspapers, which lign and humiliate the appellant in the eyes of could only be controverted by the appellant public-at-large. as he alone had knowledge of the correctness Learned counsel for the respondents con- or otherwise or the allegations made against tended that the statements issued by Mr. him. Since he refused to issue any contradiction,

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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 34 the statements were to be deemed correct and yet it does not give licence to the Press to the respondents could not be held responsible. publish any material that may harm or cause In the wrong of defamation, the law presumes damage to the reputation of a person, and such malice in the sense of a wrongful act done inten- freedom is subject to legitimate restrictions im- tionally by publishing defamatory matter, but posed under the law. Although the scope of where there is a lawful excuse for the publica- freedom of the Press has been enlarged, after tion of such matters, as in the case of privi- the omission of the word “defamation,” it does leged communication or of fair comments upon not grant a license to the Press to publish ma- a matter of public interest, the onus is upon the terial that may harm or cause damage to the plaintiff to establish the fact of malice in order reputation, honour and prestige of a person. to maintain the action. The burden of proving As the law implies legitimate restrictions, the express malice both by extrinsic and intrinsic Press is not free to publish anything they de- evidence lies on the plaintiff to show that the sired. The Press is bound to take full care and publications were actuated by some indirect or caution before publishing any material, and to improper motive. keep themselves within the bounds and ambit Mr. Naveed Malik appeared as D.W.6, and of the provisions of the Article. he not only reiterated the allegations made in his statements, but also owned the allegations It was held that “[i]n such peculiar circum- made by him, which were published in the press. stances, we are of the view that the plaintiff has In such circumstances, it was necessary that failed to substantiate his claim by not proving Mr. Naveed Malik be arrayed as a party, as the [ ] actual malice on the part of the respondents. cause of action arose from the publication of Accordingly, both [ ] appeals fail and the suit his statements. The exoneration of Mr. Naveed of the appellant stands dismissed. There shall Malik by the plaintiff suggests that he let free be no order as to costs. Before parting with the his political rival, but targeted the respondents judgment, we would like to observe again that who published the statements in good faith and the Press is not free to publish anything which in public interest. The respondents had given is prejudicial to the interest of any person or ample opportunities to the plaintiff to rebut or which may harm the reputation of anybody, contradict the allegations but that offer was not and it must take due care and caution before accepted by the plaintiff. publishing any such matter in the press and it The Court elaborated that Article 19 of the should verify the correctness of such matters Constitution guarantees the freedom of Press, from the concerned quarters.”

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

In the Supreme Court of Pakistan Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J.—The United Bank (Shariat Review Jurisdiction). Ltd. ﬁled Civil Shariat Review Petition No. 1 of 2000 under Article 188 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeking re- Present: Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, view of judgement dated 23rd December, 1999 C.J., Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Mr. Justice passed by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Mr. Justice Dr. Al- Supreme Court in Shariat Appeals No. 11 to 19 lama Khalid Mahmood, Mr. Justice Dr. Allama Rashid Ahmed Jullundhari.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 35 of 1992 whereby judgement dated 14th Novem- not at all dealt with the question of the applica- ber, 1991 of the Federal Shariat Court was af- bility or otherwise of the prohibition of Riba to firmed and it was declared that Riba in all its non-Muslims, yet surprisingly the Shariat Ap- forms and manifestations is prohibited by the pellate Bench proceeded to hold that the prohi- Holy Quran and the Sunnah. bition applied to non-Muslims, which was not In the year 2001, two miscellaneous applica- an issue before it. On this score also, the Court tions (No. 1480 & 1485 of 2001) were filed in the observed, the Shariat Appellate Bench ought to above review petition with a composite prayer have remanded the case to the Federal Shariat for suspension of the operation of the judgement Court to determine this question. and extension of time for its implementation. It was urged before the Court that the term After hearing the Federal Government and the ‘Qarz’ is confined to a type of transaction that parties concerned the Supreme Court extended is made in the name of Allah in the form of the period for implementation of the judgement “Sadaqa,” “Khairaat,” i.e., almsgiving. It was till 30th June, 2002. also argued before the Court that the present Civil Shariat Review Petition No. 1 of 2001 system of bank accounts and investments in var- was then filed by Muhammad Iqbal Zahid and ious schemes of the government does not involve others seeking review of the order dated 14th any transaction of loan, debt or Riba and deals June, 2001 with the prayer that the said or- with investment simpliciter. While entering into der be reviewed and recalled and the Federal such transactions, the investor has no compul- Government be directed to promulgate the Or- sion and he acts voluntarily in investing his dinance on Riba, which is stated to have been money for purposes of security as well as earn- framed to bring all laws in conformity with Is- ing of profit and, therefore, the receipt of profit lamic Injunctions. by such a person in the circumstances, partic- At the commencement of the hearing ob- ularly when there is no element of exploitation jection to the constitutionality of the appoint- (‘zulm’), which is a sine qua non in a transac- ment of Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmood and Dr. tion of Riba, cannot be termed as Riba. In this Rashid Ahmed Jullundhri, ad hoc members of behalf, the cases of pensioners and widows were the Shariat Appellate Bench, was raised. It was brought to the notice of the Court, and it was urged that their inclusion in the Shariat Ap- urged that the continuance of the present day pellate Bench was unconstitutional and illegal. banking system and the government sponsored The Court observed that the question of ap- savings schemes as well as the transactions that pointment of ad hoc members of the Bench lack the ingredient of ‘Qarz’ involving ‘zulm’ cannot be raised collaterally. Furthermore, both (exploitation and oppression) as envisaged by the learned ad hoc members, being recognised the Holy Quran and the Sunnah, was in the scholars, were on the panel of Ulema and their larger interest and welfare of the people. It was appointment met the requirements of Article also urged that in case the judgement is imple- 203F(3)(b) of the Constitution. The objection mented, it would lead to chaos and anarchy in was repelled. the country and a duty is cast on an Islamic In the course of the hearing of these review State to take all steps that are necessary in the petitions, the Court had the advantage of hear- public interest and the welfare of the people to ing the arguments of the learned counsel from avoid such chaos and anarchy. both sides and also those of Mr. Makhdoom The Court, quoting the Shariat Appellate Ali Khan, learned Attorney General for Pak- Bench at length on the issue of fiscal ques- istan. After hearing the arguments, the Court tions relating to inflation and indexation, ob- observed that the Federal Shariat Court had served that in the face of the observations of

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 36 the Shariat Appellate Bench and the finding the matter, it was all the more necessary for the of the Federal Shariat Court on the question Shariat Appellate Bench to have remanded the of indexation, the Shariat Appellate Bench, be- cases to the Federal Shariat Court for giving a fore striking down any law, ought to have re- clear verdict after considering all the relevant manded the case to the Federal Shariat Court material. to decide the issues of inflation and indexa- In conclusion, the Court observed, that a tion afresh, which according to the Bench itself case for review of the impugned judgement was required elaborate discussion, research, further made out as there were errors floating on the study and in-depth analysis of the papers and surface of the record. The Court found no force resolutions of international seminars. In this in the contention that the submissions made context, the Court also noted that the def- in support of the review petition amount to a initions of “Ra’sul Maal,” i.e., the principal plea for rehearing of the case. Consequently, the amount, which is liable to be returned in a Court had the following to say in paragraphs 18 transaction of “Qarz,” must be redefined keep- to 20 of the judgement: ing in view the scope of its intrinsic value in 18. In the light of the foregoing discus- relation to inflation so that there should be no sion, we are of the considered view that the exploitation as regards the equities of the par- issues involved in these cases require to be re- ties. determined after thorough and elaborate re- The Court noted the following contentions search and comparative study of the financial of Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque before the Federal systems which are prevalent in the contempo- Shariat Court: rary Muslim countries of the world. Since the (i) That the Banks in Pakistan are working Federal Shariat Court did not give a definite within the framework of Banking instru- finding on all the issues involved the determi- ments prescribed by the State Bank, with nation whereof was essential to the resolution the approval of Council of Islamic Ideol- of the controversy involved in these cases, it ogy, as valid Islamic Instruments. would be in the fitness of things if the matter is remanded to the Federal Shariat Court, which (ii) That there is considerable juristic opinion under the Constitution is enjoined upon to give available to the fact that an increase to a definite finding on all the issues falling within offset inflation has legal justification and its jurisdiction. cannot be counted as riba; and 19. Resultantly, Civil Shariat Review Peti- (iii) That there is juristic opinion available to tion No. 1 of 2000 filed by the United Bank Ltd the fact that bank interest does not fall in is allowed, the judgement dated 23rd December, the category of prohibited riba (interest). 1999 passed by the Shariat Appellate Bench According to his opinion, banks partici- of this Court in Shariat Appeals No. 11 to 19 pate in the procedural processes of the so- of 1992 and the judgement dated 14th Novem- ciety/community, make productive labour ber, 1991 of the Federal Shariat Court passed in possible, increase social wealth, and take Shariat Petitions No. 42-I + 45-I of 1991 etc. are only a fraction of the profit that accrues set aside and the cases are remitted to the Fed- to them and this is not riba. eral Shariat Court for determination afresh in the light of the contentions of the parties noted These contentions, the Court observed, were above and the observations made, which are not resolved on the ground that the learned germane to the controversy. Besides the points counsel who had raised the same did not send raised before this Court, the parties would be at the texts in support thereof, and in this view of liberty to raise any other issue relevant to these

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 37 cases and the Federal Shariat Court may also, 20. Before parting with the Order, we would on its own motion, take into consideration any like to record our deep appreciation for the valu- other aspect which may arise or may be found able assistance rendered by the learned counsel relevant for determination of the issues involved for the parties and the learned Attorney Gen- herein. eral for Pakistan and their associates. The Judgement was announced on 24th June, 2002 at Islamabad.

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

A number of pertitions were filed under Article Shah’s case. Dr. Farooq Hasan, learned Advo- 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan challeng- cate Supreme Court appearing in support of ing the legality of the Referendum Order, 2002 Constitution Petition No. 15 of 2(102) vehe- with the common prayer that the Referendum mently contended that despite the validation of Order be declared illegal, ultra vires the Con- the Proclamation of Emergency and the Pro- stitution and violative of the law laid down in visional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999. the Syed Zafar Ali Shah v. General Prvaiz Mushar- 1973 Constitution still remains the supreme law raf, Chief Executive of Pakistan.3 The Court of the land as laid down in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s disposed of the petitions on 27th April, 2002 case, and the powers of the present Govern- through a Short Order. The concluding portion ment are strictly circumscribed in the afore- of the Short Order was reproduced in the de- said case. According to the learned counsel, at tailed judgement of the Court,4 and is quoted present the grundnorm of the country being below from the detailed judgement. the 1973 Constitution and the judgment of this Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C. J., Munir A. Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case, the vires Sheikh, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Qazi of the Referendum Order have to be examined Muhammad Farooq, Mian Muhammad Ajmal, on the touchstone of the relevant provisions of Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, Hamid Ali Mirza, the Constitution as well as the law laid down Abdul Hameed Dogar and Muhammad Nawaz in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case. In all these pe- Abbasi, JJ. titions, a common prayer has been made that Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C. J.—The above petitions the Referendum Order be declared illegal, ultra were disposed of on 27th April, 2002 through vires the Constitution and violative of the law a Short Order. The concluding portion of the laid down in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case. Short Order is worded thus:— 9. In Constitution Petition No. 15 of 2002 filed by Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Amir Jamaat-i- 8. The above Constitution petitions have Islami and Constitution Petition No. 22 of 2002 been titled in this Court under Article 184 (3) filed by Syed Zafar Ali Shah, a composite, dec- of the Constitution challenging the legality and laration has been sought to the effect: vires of the Referendum Order on the Con- stitutional plane as well as on the touchstone • That the Chief Executive has unlawfully of the verdict of this Court in Syed Zafar Ali occupied and taken over the position of

3PLD 2000 SC 869. 4PLD 2002 SC 853.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 38 the President of the Islamic Republic of (iii) The holding of elections in October, 2002 Pakistan in violation of the judgment of as promised and reiterated before this this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case; Court by the learned counsel for the Fed- eration and the learned Attorney-General. • That Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Tarar still for Pakistan is a step in aid of the tran- continues to be the President notwith- sition or the transformation, as it would standing the Chief Executive’s Order 3 of lead to the road towards democracy and 2001; rebuilding of the institutions of the State, • That writ in the nature of quo warranto which is a great need of the hour; be issued against the Chief Executive: and (iv) The transition and transformation of an extra-Constitutional set up into a demo- • That the holding of referendum for elec- cratic dispensation is the most troubled tion to the office of the President be de- path and the gap cannot be covered with clared illegal, unconstitutional and viola- just one jump; tive of the judgment of this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case. (v) General Pervez Musharraf, eversince the assumption of power, has been perform- 10. Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Ad- ing his functions and duties in accordance vocate Supreme Court, Mr. Abdul Hafeez with the mandate given to him by this Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case and and Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Advocate has been striving to transform the Army Supreme Court, learned counsel appearing on rule into a democratic set up as envisaged behalf of the Federation and Mr. Makhdoom in the aforesaid case; Ali Khan, learned Attorney-General for Pak- (vi) It has been explicitly stated in the Pream- istan appearing on Court’s notice, have urged ble to the Referendum Order that it has the following points:— been made and promulgated in pursuance of the Proclamation of Emergency of the (i) The controversy raised in these petitions 14th day of October, 1999 and the P.C.O. has to be looked into with reference to No. 1 of 1999 and in exercise of all other a long history of the constitutional crises powers enabling the Chief Executive and Pakistan has been going through ever President of the Islamic Republic of Pak- since its coming into existence and the istaninthatbehalf; ground realities prevailing in the country particularly in the aftermath of the events (vii) In the peculiar constitutional history of of 12th October, 1999, as recognised and Pakistan, referendum is a valid means of validated by this Court in Syed Zafar Ali election to the office of President in Pak- Shah’s case; istan. It has also been resorted to in var- (ii) General Pervez Musharraf is firmly com- ious other countries for the purpose. A mitted to and bound by the direction of referendum is nothing but an appeal to this Court given in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s the people of Pakistan, who are the polit- case regarding the holding of elections in ical sovereign of the country; October, 2002, which is clearly established (viii) A nexus between the law, i.e., the Ref- not only from his statements within and erendum Order and the objects intended outside the country, but also from the pro- to be achieved through it, i.e., the de- visions of Article 4(2) of the Referendum clared objectives of the Chief Executive Order; and transition and transformation to the

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 39 democratic set up, is clearly established (x) The Referendum Order does not, in any in the present case. The Preamble to the manner, derogate from the parameters Referendum Order, inter alia, provides as of the extra-Constitutional measure val- under: idated by this Court in Syed Zafar Ali And whereas, since at that juncture the Shah’s case nor is it tantamount to con- institutions of State stood seriously weak- verting the parliamentary system envis- ened and the democratic and moral authority aged by the Constitution into presidential of the Government of the day stood gravely form of Government in view of the fact eroded, the Chief Executive of Pakistan an- that elections to the National and Provin- nounced a 7–Point Agenda on 17th October, cial Assemblies and the Senate of Pakistan 1999, stating his objectives to rebuild na- would be held in October 2002 in accor- tional confidence and morale; strengthen the dance with the Constitutional scheme and Federation, remove inter-provincial dishar- governments at the Federal and Provincial mony and restore national cohesion; revive levels would be formed accordingly. The the economy and restore investor confidence; Referendum Order is intra vires the pow- ensure law and order and dispense speedy ers given to the Chief Executive by means justice; depoliticize State institutions; devo- of the judgment of this Court in Syed Za- lution of power to the grass-roots level; and far Ali Shah’s case; ensure swift and across the board accountability; (xi) The Referendum Order has not the effect of amending the 1973 Constitution, And whereas the Chief Executive of Pak- therefore, its legality and vires cannot be istan has emphasised that, inter alia, appro- examined on the touchstone of the verdict priate measures will be taken for good gover- of this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case nance, economic revival, poverty alleviation and political restructuring; and the constitutional provisions relating to holding of referendum; And whereas it is imperative to consolidate (xii) Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Tarar cannot be the measures taken by the Chief’ Executive of Pakistan for the reconstruction of the in- deemed to be continuing to hold the office stitution of State for establishing genuine and of the President of the Islamic Republic of sustainable democracy to ensure good gover- Pakistan and the relief in the nature of is- nance for an irreversible transfer of power to suance of writ of quo warranto prayed for the people of Pakistan; in Constitution Petitions Nos. 15 and 22 of 2002 and against the assumption of office And whereas it is essential to combat ex- of President by General Pervez Mushar- tremism and sectarianism for the security of the State and tranquillity of society; raf under Chief Executive’s Order No. 3 of 2001, cannot be granted in these pro- And whereas it is in the supreme national ceedings for the following reasons: interest to obtain a democratic mandate from the people of Pakistan through Referendum (a) The outgoing President continued in for General Pervez Musharraf to continue to office under the P.C.O. 1 of 1999 and be the President of Pakistan. was part of the present Government (ix) The reform agenda launched by the Chief for nearly less than two years; Executive, being in the interest, welfare (b) He had been performing the functions and prosperity of the people of Pakistan, and duties of the office of President on its achievement and continuity are essen- and in accordance with the advice of tial for the public good; the Chief Executive of Pakistan under

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 40 the new dispensation and was a party in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case. Consequently, to various legislative and executive ac- these petitions qua the issuance of writ of quo tions of the present Government; warranto are dismissed. (c) He did not launch any protest when 12. As far as the legal status of the Referen- he ceased to hold office; dum Order is concerned, suffice it to say that it (d) After he ceased to hold the office of has been issued by the Chief Executive and the President, he accepted the retirement President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in benefits of that office and thus acqui- exercise of the powers conferred upon him by esced in his ceasing to hold the office; this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case while (e) The petition suffers from laches inas- validating the Proclamation of Emergency of much as the former President left the the 14th day of October, 1999 and the Provi- office on 20th June, 2001 whereas Qazi sional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999 and it Hussain Ahmed filed Constitution Pe- has rightly been conceded by the learned coun- tition No. 15 of 2002 in this Court on sel for the respondents that the said Order does 2nd April, 2002, i.e., after a lapse of not have the effect of amending the Constitu- about 10 months; tion of Pakistan. (f) The issuance of writ of quo warranto 13. As regards the grounds of challenge to is discretionary in nature and as held the consequences flowing from the holding of in Sabir Ali Shah’s case (PLD 1994 referendum under the Referendum Order, ap- SC 738), such a writ cannot be issued parently these questions are purely academic, in collateral proceedings. hypothetical and presumptive in nature and are 11. We have heard the learned counsel for not capable of being determined at this junc- the parties at great length. In view of the pecu- ture. Accordingly, we would not like to go into liar facts and circumstances of the present case, these questions at this stage and leave the same we are not persuaded to hold that a case for to be determined at the proper forum at the ap- issuing the writ of quo warranto prayed for in propriate time. Since no relief can be granted in Constitution Petitions Nos. 15 and 22 of 2002 these proceedings at this stage, the Constitu- has been made out. We, therefore, hold that the tion petitions are disposed of being premature. Chief Executive’s Orders Nos. 2 and 3 of 2001 14. In view of our findings in the above peti- have been validly issued by the Chief Executive tions, no order is required to be passed in Civil of Pakistan in exercise of his powers under the Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 512 of 2002, Proclamation of Emergency of the 14th day of which is disposed of accordingly. October, 1999 and the Provisional Constitution The Court then provided detailed reasons Order No. 1 of 1999 as validated by this Court for 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 of Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J., Qazi Muham- 2002, decided on 10th April, 2002. mad Farooq, Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Syed

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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 41 Deedar Hussain Shah and Abdul Hameed been made in violation of the principle of Dogar, JJ. seniority. Sh. Riaz Ahmad C.J.—The appointment of (b) The recommendations made by the judi- three Judges of the Lahore High Court, with cial consultee and the reasons recorded by eﬀect from January 10, 2002, was challenged him as well as the President of Pakistan through a number of petitions.6 for appointing junior Judges of the Lahore The facts pertain to the number of avail- High Court and ignoring senior Judges have able vacancies, details of appointments, se- not been disclosed or communicated to the niority position of the elevated Judges and superseded Judges, which shows that the the incidence of supersession. The assertions process was not transparent. prominently highlighted in the petitions were (c) The appointments militate against the doc- that though the names of Mr. Justice Khalil- trine of legitimate expectancy, enunciated ur-Rehman Ramday, Mr. Justice Muhammad in the aforesaid two cases, on which the Nawaz Abbasi and Mr. Justice Faqir Muham- principle of seniority is essentially based. mad Khokhar appear at Serial Nos. 3, 4 and 13 The Chief Justice and other senior Judges respectively of the seniority list of the Judges of a High Court have a legitimate ex- of the Lahore High Court, Mr. Justice Khalil- pectancy to be appointed as Judges of the ur-Rehman Ramday and Mr. Justice Muham- Supreme Court according to their respec- mad Nawaz Abbasi superseded the Chief Jus- tive seniority and any deviation therefrom tice and the senior puisne Judge of the Lahore renders the appointment invalid and uncon- High Court and Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad stitutional. Khokhar, who was the Secretary Law Justice and Human Rights Division at the crucial time, (d) The appointments have introduced an arbi- not only superseded the Chief Justice and the trary practice of “pick and choose,” which senior puisne Judge, but also eight other Judges is fraught with disastrous consequences as, senior to him. on the one hand, it will undermine the The appointments were challenged mainly independence of judiciary, create an anar- on the following grounds:— chic situation within the judiciary, lead to an unhealthy competition among Judges of the High Court to achieve coveted positions (a) In view of the well-established Constitu- and out of turn elevations to the Supreme tional convention and the law laid down by Court, and, on the other, lead to the pub- this Court,7 the concerned Constitutional lic perception of the Government having functionaries are bound to elevate Judges packed the Supreme Court with pliant and from the High Court to the Supreme Court pliable Judges of its own liking. on the basis of their seniority and in the event of departure from the principle of se- (e) The fundamental rights of “equality be- niority they are obliged to record reasons fore law” and “equal protection of law” of which are justiciable. The appointments of the superseded Judges have been violated Judges from the Lahore High Court have as 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 Muhammad Raza has not been challenged for the reason that being the Chief Justice he was the most senior amongst the Judges of 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]and Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 161) [hereinafter referred to as Asad Ali’s case].

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 42 without affording them an opportunity of The prayer in all the petitions was that being heard. the impugned appointments, except that of Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza, be declared as (f) The superseded Judges have been disqual- void being unconstitutional, and a direction be ified from elevation in future and if ele- issued for initiation of the process of appoint- vated in future they will rank junior in the ment against the available vacancies afresh. It Supreme Court to the junior Judges who has been further prayed in Constitution Pe- have superseded them. tition No.8 of 2002 that while making fresh (g) The impugned notification is illegal to the appointments the petitioner and other lawyers extent of two vacancies which had occurred should also be considered in view of the provi- after the retirement of the Chief Justice of sions, of Article 177(2)(b) of the Constitution. Pakistan in respect of whom he was not the The Federation of Pakistan in its concise judicial consultee at all. The Chief Justice statement did not dispute the factual assertions can be a consultee only in respect of those in regard to seniority and supersession of the vacancies which exist or occur during his concerned Judges, but resisted the petitions on own tenure and not those which are to oc- the following pleas:— cur after his retirement. (i) The appointments in question were made (h) The appointment of Mr. Justice Faqir by the President of Pakistan strictly in ac- Muhammad Khokhar is void ab initio be- cordance with the letter and spirit of the cause, firstly, he was not qualified for ap- Constitution, fully adhering to the recom- pointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court mendations made by the Chief Justice of having not performed judicial duties and Pakistan. functions for a period of five years and, sec- (ii) The petitions are not maintainable as the ondly, being the Secretary Law, Justice and recommendations of the Chief Justice of Human Rights Division, he had played an Pakistan in the process of constitutional important role in the process of appoint- consultation in the matter of appointment ments in question and as such his appoint- of Judges of the Supreme Court are not ment offends the principle of natural jus- justiciable; and tice, viz., “no one should be a judge in his own cause.” (iii) The principles of legitimate expectancy and natural justice are not attracted. (i) The office of Judge of the Supreme Court has been devalued by retaining the Chief The Court first addressed C.M.A. No.399 Justice of the Lahore High Court and ele- of 2002 moved in Constitution Petition No. 1 vating his juniors to the Supreme Court. of 2002 and recorded reasons for its dismissal. Through the said C.M.A., it was prayed that on (j) The main object of the judgments of this account of the importance and sensitive nature Court in the Judges’ case and Asad Ali’s of the matter the petition be heard by the Full case was to make the judiciary independent Court excluding the newly appointed Judges. and self-operative but the same has been The prayer was adopted and joined in by the defeated by the impugned appointments; learned counsel representing the petitioners in and the connected petitions. The application was (k) The fundamental right of the citizens of turned down, after hearing learned counsel for Pakistan to have access to an impartial and the parties and the learned Attorney-General, independent Supreme Court has been in- with the observation that reasons for its dis- fringed by appointment of junior Judges. missal will be recorded in the main judgment.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 43 In the main judgement the Court discussed the not be forced to sit on the Bench. It is important arguments of the learned counsel and decided to note that Asad Ali’s case revolved around the as follows:— appointment of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah as the Chief Justice of Pakistan, who could not “14. It was rightly argued by Dr. Farooq have been appointed as such being junior to Hasan that there is a clear distinction between three other Judges. It is further important to the judicial system of the United States and observe here that while laying down that the that of Pakistan. The Supreme Court of Pak- rule of seniority should prevail because a Judge istan works in Benches. All petitions for leave has legitimate expectancy to become the Chief to appeal and appeals from appellate and re- Justice, the then Chief Justice, who was junior visional judgments and orders made by a Sin- to three other Judges, did not opt to step down. gle Judge in the High Court are heard by a That is why at a subsequent stage when the Bench of two Judges of this Court. The peti- appointment of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah as tions against acquittal and appeals decided by the Chief Justice of Pakistan was challenged, a a Division Bench of the High Court are heard by larger Bench was constituted to hear and decide three Judges of this Court. However, depending thesaidcaseinasituationwhenthenotification upon the nature of the controversy involved in of appointment of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah any particular case, the Chief Justice has the stood suspended and he had been restrained sole prerogative to constitute a larger Bench from performing functions as the Chief Justice consisting of any number of Judges. The objec- of Pakistan. We reiterate here that this Court, tions raised at the Bar are neither new nor have not once but on a number of occasions, has been raised for the first time. Such objections laid down that it is the sole prerogative of the were raised in the past in a number of cases but Chief Justice of Pakistan to constitute a Bench were repelled by this Court. In any case, it was of any number of Judges to hear any particu- conceded by all the learned counsel that it was lar case and neither an objection can be raised the prerogative of the Chief Justice to consti- nor is any party entitled to ask for the con- tute any Bench with any number of Judges and stitutionofaBenchofitsownchoice.Weare the same cannot be questioned. The contentions fortified in this view by the judgments reported raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. State (PLD 1978 are devoid of force and have no merit whatso- SC 125), In re: M.A. No.657 of 1996 in Refer- ever. The attention of the learned counsel was ences Nos. 1 and 2 of 1996 (PLD 1997 SC 80) drawn to the Judges’ case, which was decided by and Hamid Sarfaraz v. Federation of Pakistan five Judges of this Court, out of whom one was (PLD 1979 SC 991). Similarly, in the matter an ad hoc Judge. Likewise Abrar Hassan’s case, of constitution of Benches of this Court, it is, wherein a Judge of this Court was appointed as inappropriate to raise the question of parochial- Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Sindh ism and provincialism. This was deprecated in and the notification of his appointment kept his Hamid Sarfaraz’s case.” lien/seniority in this Court, was heard by four Judges of this Court. As far as Asad Ali’s case is concerned, it was heard by ten Judges while The Court then recorded the arguments of four Judges refused to sit on the Bench. In the learned Counsel from both sides and there- course of hearing of Asad Ali’s case, an attempt after highlighted the background of the Judges’ was made to argue that the other Judges should case as well as Asad Ali’s case. Thereafter, the also sit on the Bench, but it was pointed out Court proceeded to deal with the grounds on that since four learned Judges of this Court had which the appointments of Judges had been refused to hear the case, therefore, they could challenged, as follows:

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 44 The Court proceeded to consider the first in Article 180 of the Constitution and in the common contention of the petitioners that ap- light of the well-established principle of inter- pointment of Judges from the Lahore High pretation of the Constitution and law, the ab- Court has been made in violation of the prin- sence of the words, “the most senior” in Article ciples of seniority and legitimate expectancy: 177 for appointment of Judges of the Supreme We are afraid the contention is misconceived Court would show that seniority of a Judge in and travels beyond the parameters indicated in the High Court is not a sine qua non for his ap- the Judges’ case and Asad Ali’s case. In our pointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court. If considered, view, the scope of the principles of for the purpose of appointment of Judges in the seniority and legitimate expectancy, enunciated Supreme Court, the seniority of the judges in- in those cases, is restricted to the appointment ter se in the High Courts would have been the of Chief Justice of a High Court and the Chief rule, there was no impediment in the way of Justice of Pakistan, and these principles neither the Constitution-makers to use the expression, apply nor can be extended to the appointment “the most senior” in Article 177 of the Constitu- of Judges of the Supreme Court. It is nowhere tion. Even. juristically speaking and analyzing mentioned in those judgments that the prin- the rationale of the principle of appointment of ciples of seniority and legitimate expectancy Judges in the Supreme Court, it becomes very shall also apply in the matter of appointment clear that the Chief Justice of Pakistan being of Judges of the Supreme Court. The omission the pater familias of the judiciary of the coun- appears to be intentional and not accidental in try is the best Judge to ascertain and gauge the view of the line of reasoning in the said judg- fitness and suitability of the Judges working in ments. In the Judges’ case, while interpreting the High Court for appointment as Judges of Article 193 of the Constitution, it was held that the Supreme Court. We are clear in our mind there is no Constitutional requirement to ap- that neither the principle of seniority is appli- point the most senior Judge as Chief Justice of cable as a mandatory rule for appointment of a High Court whenever a permanent vacancy Judges in the Supreme Court nor the said rule occurs, but there is a Constitutional convention has attained the status of a convention. in this context, which has developed by contin- uous usage and practice over a long period of The Supreme Court then elaborated the role time, and must be followed in the interest of and functions of the Chief Justice of Pakistan the independence of the judiciary. In Asad Ali’s in the process of appointment of the judges of case, this view was applied with greater force in the superior Courts as described in detail in the case of appointment of the Chief Justice of the Judges’ case and then stated that: “The Pakistan under Article 177 of the Constitution above role and functions of the Chief Justice on the strength of the Constitutional conven- of Pakistan will become redundant and super- tion and past practice as well as on the analogy fluous if the rule of seniority is held applica- of Article 180 of the Constitution, which pro- ble to the appointment of the Judges of the vides that in absence of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, because in that eventuality the Pakistan the most senior Judge of the Supreme process would become automatic and mechan- Court shall be appointed as Acting Chief Jus- ical. Such a situation would certainly affect tice of Pakistan. There exists no Constitutional the self-operativeness and independence of ju- convention or past practice to appoint the most diciary adversely. In addition, the Court stated senior Judge of a High Court as a Judge of the that: The mode of appointment of the Judges of Supreme Court. The Constitution makers were the Supreme Court, the requisite qualifications aware of the expression “the most senior” used for appointment and instances of appointment of retired Judges of the High Court as Judges of

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 45 the Supreme Court also exclude the application was answered in the negative by reiterating the of the principle of seniority. Further, “[i]t is not law on the subject laid down in the Judges’ necessary that the appointment of the Judges case. The Court emphasised that: The ratio- in the Supreme Court [be] invariably [] made nale behind making the recommendations of the from amongst the Judges of the High Courts. Chief Justice of Pakistan non-justiciable is mul- An Advocate of the standing of fifteen years in tifaceted. The main justification is contained in the High Court, subject to his suitability in the the [] observations of Ajmal Mian. J. (as he then opinion of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, can was) in the Judges’ case that the recommenda- also be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme tions are the outcome of subjective satisfaction Court. There are also instances of appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The other di- of retired Judges of the High Court as Judges mensions are that if the recommendations are of the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Muhammad made justiciable the primacy of the opinion of Sharif, Mr. Justice Qaiser Khan, Mr. Justice the Chief Justice of Pakistan will be under- G. Safdar Shah, Mr. Justice Rustam S. Sidhwa, mined directly or indirectly, embarrassment will Mr. Justice Manzoor Hussain Sial, Mr. Justice be caused to the judicial consultee as well as the Muhammad Ilyas, Mr. Justice Ch. Fazal Karim, recommendees, independence of judiciary and Mr. Justice Zia Mahmood Mirza and Mr. Jus- smooth working of the Court will be affected, tice Qazi Muhammad Farooq were appointed pressure groups will emerge at different levels permanent Judges of the Supreme Court after and we will go back to the situation prevail- their retirement.” The Court laid down that ing before the Judges’ case, which will be more “[t]here are yet two other factors which give unsavoury than the one portrayed in these pe- the rule of fitness and suitability an edge over titions. the principles of seniority and legitimate expectancy. First, the appointment of a Judge The next question for determination was of the High Court as a Judge of the Supreme deemed equally important by the Court. “It re- Court is a fresh appointment and not a promo- lates to advance appointment of Judges against tion and, secondly, supersession of senior Judges the anticipated vacancies and has arisen from of the High Court is not unprecedented.” A de- the second common contention of the petition- tailed chart of such arguments was included to ers that the Chief Justice of Pakistan, who had show that “out of 93 appointments made in this made the recommendations was not the judi- Court so far, six being those of ad hoc and Act- cial consultee to the extent of two vacancies ing Judges, the principle of seniority was not which had occurred after his retirement and as followed in the case of 9 retired Judges and 25 such appointments against the said vacancies serving Judges.” were void ab initio. It is true that appointments against two anticipated vacancies were The Court stated that: The main and vital made in advance, but the appointments cannot question which arises for decision, therefore, is be termed as illegal or void as an anticipated whether the recommendations of the Chief Jus- permanent vacancy can be filled in advance. tice of Pakistan, in the process of Constitutional Reference in this context may be made to the consultation in the matter of appointment of observations made at page 501 of the judgment Judges of the Supreme Court, are justiciable. in the Judges’ case....”“Nodoubt,thewords This question had arisen in the Judges’ case ‘in advance’ are not mentioned in Para. 7(iii) as well and was determined with the obser- of the Short Order in the Judges’ case, but the vation that the recommendations of the Chief omission is immaterial inasmuch as in the ab- Justice were not justiciable. This question had sence of any inconsistency between the Short again arisen in Ghulam Hyder Lakho’s case and Order and the detailed reasons, both are to be

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 46 read together. The view gets support from the subjective satisfaction of the judicial consultee, [] observations made in Ghulam Hyder Lakho’s therefore, the principle of natural justice ‘audi case. alteram partem’ was not attracted.” The Court The Court stated that “Appointments in also stated that contentions similar in essence advance were not made for the first time in the were raised in the case of Ghulam Hyder Lakho present case. Several appointments were made and “were held to be devoid of force.” in the past in advance against anticipated va- As regards the question of notices, the Court cancies.” “Last but not the least, the appoint- was of the considered view that issuance of no- ments in question had the blessings of the suc- tices to the concerned Judges would have done ceeding Chief Justice and judicial consultee Mr. more harm than good. “This question was con- Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, who was sidered in the Judges’ case also and it was consulted by the then Chief Justice of Pakistan clearly held at page 534 of the judgment that at the initial stage and before whom all the the principle of natural justice is not violated if four Judges made oath at the final stage i.e., notice is not issued to the concerned Judges.” on 10th January, 2002. The impugned notifica- The observations in Asad Ali’s case, at page 327 tion was issued on 26th December, 2001 with of the judgment, were also held to be relevant an explicit recital that the appointments will by the Court. take effect from 10th January, 2002, namely, The Court then took up “the contention the day when four vacancies were available Mr. urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri had taken against the appointment of Mr. Justice Faqir oath as Chief Justice of Pakistan on 7th Jan- Muhammad Khokhar who was serving as Sec- uary, 2002, but he did not make any move for retary, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division withdrawal of the impugned notification. Had at the time of his elevation to the Supreme he not endorsed the recommendations and the Court. The precise contention is that having not appointments he would have certainly asked performed judicial functions as a Judge of the for a back reference or sent his own recom- Lahore High Court for a period of five years he mendations or refused to administer the oath was not qualified for appointment as a Judge of office to the appointees. Another notewor- of the Supreme Court and his appointment was thy circumstance which points to ratification by also hit by the cardinal principle of natural jus- Mr. Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri of the tice ‘no one should be a judge in his own cause’ appointments made in advance is that on 31st on account of the pivotal role of the incumbent January, 2002 he had presided over the Bench, of the office of Law Secretary in the process which had heard one of the above-mentioned of the Constitutional appointments. This con- Constitution petitions but had not suspended tention too is without any substance as it is the impugned notification.” incompatible with the provisions of Article 177 Thenextcommoncontentionaddressedby of the Constitution and ignores the law laid the Court was “that the senior Judges of the down by this Court in Malik Ghulam Jilani v. Lahore High Court were condemned unheard Mr. Justice Muhammad Gul (1978 SCMR 110). and even in these petitions notices have not With regard to experience, Article 177 of the been issued to them. It is rather unnecessary Constitution only provides that a person shall to consider the contention as we have already not be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme held that the recommendations of the judicial Court unless he has been a Judge of a High consultee are not justiciable. Be that as it may, Court for a period of or for periods aggregating the contention is misconceived. The recommen- not less than five years and does not prohibit dations in question were a manifestation of appointment of a Judge of a High Court as

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 47 a Judge of the Supreme Court who has not has he held the office of a Judge but also func- worked as a Judge of the High Court for a pe- tioned or worked as a Judge.’´’ riod of five years.” “Article 177(2)(a) of the Constitution is part “The disqualification set up by the peti- materia with Article 178 (2) (a) of the Interim tioners cannot be read into Article 177 of the Constitution, therefore, the ratio of the case Constitution. Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad of Justice Muhammad Gul is fully applicable Khokhar was appointed as a Judge of the La- to the present case and cannot be termed as hore High Court on 10th December, 1996 and a weak precedent as contended by Mr. Hamid as Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Khan. Mr. Justice S.A. Nusrat was also serv- Division on 1st January, 2000. Having held the ing as Secretary, Ministry of Law and Parlia- office as a Judge of the Lahore High Court for a mentary Affairs when he was elevated to the period of five years he fulfilled the experience- Supreme Court. We would, therefore, reiterate related Constitutional requirement on the eve that appointment of a Judge of a High Court of his appointment as a Judge of the Supreme as Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Court. Besides, the issue was addressed and Division cannot stand in his way for appoint- settled in the case of Justice Muhammad Gul ment as a Judge of the Supreme Court if he wherein it was held that [] a ‘person in order has been a Judge of the High Court for a pe- to be qualified for appointment as a Judge of riod of, or for periods aggregating not less than, the Supreme Court must have had experience five years. The period of his service as Secretary of functioning as a Judge of High Court for five Law, Justice and Human Rights Division has to years was not correct.’ In that case also Mr. Jus- be counted towards his tenure as a Judge of the tice Muhammad Gul was Secretary, Ministry of High Court and not excluded therefrom.” Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of The Court observed that it was repeatedly Pakistan, at the time of his appointment as a submitted by the learned counsel for the pe- Judge of the Supreme Court and the appoint- titioners that the record pertaining to the ap- ment was challenged through a writ petition pointments in question should be made public under Article 199 of the Constitution on the to enable them to meet the views of the ju- ground that he did not fulfil the requirement of dicial consultee and the appointing authority Article 178(2) of the Interim Constitution, 1972 in regard to the concerned Judges. The insis- that a person shall not be appointed as a Judge tence was based on the ground that the said of the Supreme Court unless he has for a period record being a public record, the petitioners as of, or for periods aggregating not less than, five also the concerned Judges cannot be deprived of years been a Judge of a High Court. The writ its inspection. The submission was opposed by petition was dismissed in limine by a Division the learned Attorney-General and the learned Bench of the Peshawar High-Court and the pe- counsel for the Federation. “It has already been tition for special leave to appeal was dismissed held that the recommendations culminating in by this Court, inter alia, with the following ob- the impugned appointments are not justiciable servations: ‘The phraseology of Article 178(2) in the absence of difference of opinion between of the Interim Constitution does not bear out the President and the Chief Justice of Pakistan. the intent attributed to it by the petitioner. The In the face of these findings, the issue of inspec- words used are he has for a period of, or for pe- tion of record has become redundant. In any riods aggregating not less than five years been case, we are of the view that apart from the el- a Judge of the High Court. If the authors of the ement of confidentiality, making the record of Constitution had so intended they would have the impugned appointments public would not used some other words to indicate that not only be in the interest of the institution, the judicial

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 48 consultee and the concerned Judges for reasons regards the second question, suffice it to say which are too obvious to need elucidation. In the that the consultative process in vogue in India Judges’ case also the relevant record was made cannot be adopted in Pakistan as there exists available pursuant to the order of the Court but no provision in our Constitution akin to Arti- wasnotperusedevenbythemembersofthe cle 124(2) of the Constitution of India on the Bench.... The learned Attorney-General and strength whereof a collegium of Judges has been the learned counsel for the Federation have ad- formed in India.... It may, however, be ob- vanced sound and convincing reasons in support served in passing that a practice has emerged of the proposition that making the record of ap- over the years that while making recommenda- pointments public would not be in the interest tion for appointment of a Judge of the Supreme of the judiciary. Disclosure of such record, if ad- Court the Chief Justice of Pakistan consults the verse to a Judge, would indeed block his way for senior puisne Judge, as was done in the present elevation in future. Furthermore, such course of case.” action would not only put a Judge under the “In view of the judgment passed by this vestige of a stigma but also militate against the Court, no order is required to be made in republic interest and shake public confidence in spect of the writ petitions summoned from the the judiciary.” Lahore High Court, which may be returned. Two questions remained to be considered. The above are the reasons in support of the The first question pertained to the severability Short Order, dated 10th April, 2002 of this or otherwise of the impugned notification and Court whereby these petitions were dismissed. the second to the collegium of Judges compris- The Short Order reads as under: ‘For reasons ing the Chief Justice of India and four senior- to be recorded later in the detailed judgment, most Judges of the Supreme Court, which is the above petitions are dismissed.’ Before pat- consulted by the Chief Justice in the process of ting with the, judgment we would like to record appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court our appreciation for the valuable assistance ren- of India. The Court laid down that “The first dered by the learned counsel for the parties and question need not be determined in view of the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan and the settled proposition that recommendations their associates.” of the judicial consultee are not justiciable. As Order accordingly.

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

Constitutional Petitions Nos.29 to 33 of 2002, (Chief Executive’s Order No. 7 of 2002), in- decided on 11th July, 2002. serted therein by the Conduct of General Elec- Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C. J., Munir tions (Amendment) Order, 2002, hereinafter A. Sheikh, Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Iftikhar called the Election Order, whereby a new qual- Muhammad Chaudhry and Qazi Muhammad iﬁcation has been added for the eligibility of a Farooq, JJ. candidate to become a member of the Majlis-e- Shoora (Parliament) or a Provincial Assembly. Sh. Riaz Ahmad, CJ.—Through these pe- It has been provided by the said Article of the titions the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Election Order that a person would be ineligible under Article 184(3) of the Constitution was to contest election if he is not a graduate. invoked to assail the provisions of Article 8A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 49 The petitioners, political parties as well people but the record of most of the elected rep- as politicians, challenged the above legislation resentatives of the four dissolved National and mainly on the grounds that it is not only vi- Provincial Assemblies speaks volumes about olative of the provisions of Articles 17 and 25 their psyche, lack of education and sense of re- of the Constitution, but also travels beyond the sponsibility. It also shows that the political field parameters set by this Court in Syed Zafar Ali was dominated by a coterie of individuals repre- Shah’s case (PLD 2000 SC 869), it is unrea- senting a special class of vested interests, which sonable and irrational in view of the prevailing ensured that if not they, their kith and kin were state of literacy in the country and tends to elected as members of the Assemblies. Regard- create an elitist class, curtail the choice and con- less of the ideal standards, their main effort was sent of the governed and take away the right of directed to have their hegemony in the politi- adult franchise and universal suffrage. cal field. There are known cases where through The respondents resisted the petitions es- manoeuvring and machination one faction de- sentially on the following common pleas taken liberately went to the opposition and the other in their written reply/statement. to the treasury benches. In the light of what has been narrated above, it is crystal clear that 1. Article 8A of the Election Order has been the political scenario in Pakistan is a sad tale validly and competently enacted in con- of failures on the part of the public represen- sonance with the parameters laid down in tatives. We may not go into the past but the Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case. It is neither 11 years history of the political events is an eye violative of the Constitution nor does it opener. Four National Assemblies in succession amend any salient feature thereof and it were dissolved on the ground of misdemeanour would strengthen and not dismantle the on the part of the Government and the party parliamentary form of Government; and forming it. The grounds on which the Assem- blies were dissolved and which were upheld by 2. With the passage of time and the evolu- this Court are sufficient for and necessitate a tion of civil society great changes occur in drastic change in the political culture of the the political, social, economic conditions country. No doubt it is the privilege of the pub- of the society. The impugned legislation lic representatives to side with their party in is aimed at improving the standard of the power but it does not absolve them of their re- Parliament and other legislative bodies sponsibility and look at the degree of responsi- for the welfare of the people of Pakistan. bility that the 13th and 14th amendments were bulldozed and nobody raised his little finger The Court stated the contentions and ar- against the proposed legislation. These amend- guments of learned Counsel from both sides ments pertained to the Constitutional changes and then gave an outline of Pakistan’s con- and were not germane to the ordinary law. A stitutional history. The Court concluded from Constitutional amendment requires sane think- this account that “[i]t was necessary to narrate ing, deliberation and composition, which were this history briefly as its certain parts distinctly totally absent and none took it seriously. In fact point to a political culture, which leaves much what was practised in those years was noth- to be desired. It demonstrated utter disregard ing but parliamentary dictatorship. A whim of for the parliamentary values and deliberate at- the party leader in the House could not have tempt to inure the soul of democracy. The es- become a substitute for the will of the peo- tablishment of a democratic order and the in- ple or their representatives in the Assemblies. stitutions therein requires utmost responsibility Of course, it cannot be totally attributed to on the part of the elected representatives of the

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 50 lack of education but nevertheless it was one level of competence and change the political cul- of the most important factors owing to which ture, but will also be an incentive to education.” the representatives had allowed themselves to The Court observed that the contention that be driven by their leaders. This Court also owes the Government had not done much for educa- a duty to the posterity. It is a matter of common tion, especially in the far-flung areas like PATA knowledge that changes in the social, political and FATA, was not supported by any authen- and economic fields are not brought about at tic data and, therefore, tends to be speculative once with a magic wand but involve a journey and hypothetical. Accordingly, the Court did of thousands of miles, which requires a start not accept it. withthefirststep....Itwasarguedthattheim- position of educational qualification would not The Court then turned to the legal status of bring about any change because the kith and the Election Order and noted the arguments of kin of the old politicians would reach the As- all the learned counsel that the Election Or- semblies. Be that as it may, there is something der in essence and spirit was an amendment known as generation gap. We are confident that in the Constitution, which the Chief Execu- the new generation would play their due role tive was not empowered to make in view of the in changing the political culture and enhancing fetters imposed by this Court on his power to the prestige and image of the representative in- amend the Constitution. The Court stated that stitutions in the polity of nations.” this argument was misconceived inasmuch as the Election Order did not amend the Constitu- tion, but was a law within the purview of Article The Court stated that a “change in the po- 62(i) of the Constitution. The Court then stated litical culture with reference to the educational that: qualification for members of the Assemblies is also necessitated by the fact that with the trans- “Section 99 of the Representation of the fer of power at the grass-roots level through People Act, 1976 also deals with the qualifica- implementation of the devolution plan all the tions for membership of the Parliament and is civic work has been assigned to the chosen pari materia with Article 62 of the Constitu- representatives at different levels of the Local tion. A perusal of the Constitutional provision Government and now the business in the Parlia- highlighted above clearly shows that further ment would mainly be confined to lawmaking. qualifications in addition to those laid down The making of new laws in the light of the in Article 62, which deals with the qualifica- changing circumstances and social and polit- tions for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Par- ical values is an uphill task. In this view of liament) can be prescribed by a law enacted the matter, it is all the more necessary that by the lawmaking authority. The Election Or- the public representatives are well-versed with der having been issued by the Chief Executive the modern trends, changing social order and on the strength of the powers conferred on him the events on the international scene. No doubt by this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case is wisdom is not related with degrees but this is thus a validly promulgated law and does not an exception to the rule. Education certainly suffer from any legal defect or infirmity. It also broadens the vision, adds to knowledge, brings does not transgress the limits laid down in the about maturity and enlightenment, promotes aforesaid case as it is linked with the holding tolerance and peaceful a coexistence and elimi- of general election in the country and aims at nates parochialism. We are convinced that the good governance which is the hallmark and soul educational qualification prescribed for mem- of democracy and the ultimate outcome of gen- bership of Assemblies will not only raise their eral election.”

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 51 It was urged before the Court that the Elec- law but the State is not prohibited to treat its tion Order was ultra vires Articles 17 and 25 of citizens on the basis of a reasonable classifica- the Constitution. The Court reproduced Article tion. The concept of reasonable classification, 17 of the Constitution and then stated: “Article its basis and criteria for classification to avert 17 clearly allows a citizen to have the right to violation of Article 25 were also highlighted. form associations or unions subject to any rea- The Court held that Article 25 of the Constitu- sonable restrictions imposed by law. Similarly, tion enshrines the basic concept of the religion every citizen not being in the service of Pak- of Islam. However, this is now known as the istan, has the right to form or be a member of golden principle of modern jurisprudence, which a political party, subject to any reasonable re- enjoins that all citizens are equal before law and strictions imposed by law in the interest of the are entitled to equal protection of law.” The sovereigntyorintegrityofPakistan....Thereis Court then proceeded to elaborate the princi- no cavil with the proposition laid down by this ples laid down in the I.A. Sherwani case with Court that every citizen has a right to contest regard to equal protection of law and reason- election but the principle enunciated therein ableness of classification. The Court felt no need does not confer an unbridled right on every cit- to refer to the plethora of case-law on the sub- izen to contest an election. The right to contest ject because the above principles summarize the an election is subject to the provisions of the entire case-law. “Judging the Election Order in Constitution and the law and only those citi- the light of the above principles, we are of the zens are eligible to contest election who possess view that the education-related qualification is the qualifications contained in Article 62 and reasonable and not arbitrary or whimsical be- the law including the law made under Article cause firstly, being a step towards transforma- 62(i) and do not suffer from disqualifications tion of the political culture it is founded on rea- laid down in Article 63 of the Constitution and sonable basis and, secondly, it equally applies the law.” to all the graduates and does not discriminate The Court observed that “Article 25 of the any graduate or create a class within the grad- Constitution, which is the equality before law uates.” clause and is equivalent to the ‘due process “The above are the reasons in support of of law and equal protection of law’ clauses of the Short Order, dated 11th July, 2002 of this the United States Constitution, has been in- Court whereby these petitions were dismissed. terpreted by this Court in various cases. The The Short Order reads as under: ‘For reasons to leading judgment on the subject was delivered be recorded later, the petitions are dismissed.’ ” in I.A. Sherwani’s case. It was laid down therein Petitions dismissed that under Article 25 all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of

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

Constitutional Petition No.36 of 2002, decided Muhammad Chaudhry and Qazi Muhammad on 7th October, 2002. Farooq, JJ. Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J., Munir A. Sheikh, Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Iftikhar

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 52 Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J.—The present petition of checks and balances has done away with under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the the parliamentary form of government and Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks to set has put in place presidential form of gov- aside the amendments made in the Constitution ernment. of Pakistan through the Schedule to the Legal (v) There are no checks and balances on the Framework Order, 2002 on the ground of being President of Pakistan under the amended illegal and unconstitutional. Constitution and he is not answerable to 2. Mr. Zafarullah Khan, learned Advocate anyone. Under the new set-up somebody Supreme Court, in support of the petition, would be ruling but someone else would raised the following contentions:— be answerable. (vi) The position of an elected President is en- (i) The Legal Framework Order violates the tirely different vis-a-vis the present Presi- judgment of this Court in Syed Zafar Ali dent inasmuch as the former is elected by Shah’s case (PLD 2000 SC 869) wherein it a certain party but the present incumbent has been unequivocally laid down that ”no neither represents any party, nor is a mem- amendment shall be made in the salient ber of any party and is not responsible to features of the Constitution, i.e. indepen- anybody dence of judiciary, federalism, parliamentary form of Government blended with (vii) The 13th and 14th Amendments were en- Islamic provisions”. Only limited power forced under the parliamentary system to amend the Constitution had been con- whereas the Legal Framework Order has ferred by this Court upon the Chief Ex- been introduced by an institution, which ecutive but the Chief Executive has intro- does not have the mandate for the job. duced as many as 29 amendments in just (viii) Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution envis- one go through the Legal Framework Or- ages a subjective test and the assessment der. by the authority exercising the power is (ii) Amendment of the Constitution all over whimsical. With Article 58(2)(b) of the the world is not a simple task. The Con- Constitution on the statute book, no gov- stitution of Pakistan can only be amended ernment completed its tenure and the with a two–third majority of the members money spent on holding of five general of both the Houses of Parliament. In Aus- elections in just 12 years could well have tralia and Japan, the Constitution can be been invested in social welfare sectors such amended with absolute majority followed as education, health, etc. by a popular referendum. In some coun- (ix) Appointment of a Governor under Article tries, the amendment of the Constitution 101 ’not on the advice of but ’in consul- takes effect after the Party proposing it tation with’ the Prime Minister and the is out of power and the amendment is empowerment of the Governor under Ar- also passed/ratified by the next Party in ticle 112 on the line of Article 58(2)(b) power. militate against the concept of federal- (iii) The Legal Framework Order defies the ism inasmuch as they adversely affect the principle of division of labour/trichotomy provincial autonomy, a cornerstone of the of powers envisaged by the Constitution parliamentary system. of Pakistan. (x) The National Security Council in the (iv) The Legal Framework Order by investing backdrop of the above factors deals the vast powers in the President in the name final blow on the parliamentary system of

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 53 government given its composition, which the conclusion that sufficient corroborative and includes five uniformed members plus the confirmatory material existed to justify the in- opposition leader and the Chief Minis- tervention by the Armed Forces through extra- ters on whom would continue to hang the Constitutional measure. While validating the Sword of Damocles in the shape of Gov- extra-Constitutional step this Court held that ernor’s power to dissolve the Assembly in the 1973 Constitution remains the supreme law his discretion. The Prime Minister would of the land subject to the condition that cer- be reduced to a non-entity. tain parts thereof have been held in abeyance on account of state necessity. It was further held 3. We have heard the learned counsel for that General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army the petitioner as well as the learned Attorney- Staff/Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Commit- General for Pakistan and Syed Sharifuddin tee, described as Chief Executive is entitled to Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, rep- perform all such acts and promulgate all legisla- resenting Federation of Pakistan. tive measures as enumerated below, namely:– 4. We need not recapitulate the details but we may briefly mention here that on the 12th (a) “All acts and legislative measures, which of October, 1999 General Pervez Musharraf, are in accordance with or could have been Chief of Army Staff took over the reins of made under the 1973 Constitution, includ- the country by dismissing the Government of ing the power to amend it.” Mian Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan and also the provincial governments However, this Court placed restrictions in all the provinces. On the 14th of Octo- upon the power to amend the Constitution ber. 1999 General Pervez Musharraf issued the and laid down that it can be resorted to Proclamation of Emergency effective from the only if the Constitution fails to provide a so- 12th of October, 1999 whereby the Constitu- lution for attainment of the declared objection of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was tives of the Chief Executive and the power held in abeyance and the whole of Pakistan was controlled by the following criteria:— was brought under the control of the Armed (b) All acts required to be done for the ordinary Forces. The Proclamation of Emergency was orderly running of the State; and followed by the Provisional Constitution Order (c) All such measures as would establish or No. 1 of 1999 as amended. Seven Constitution would lead to the establishment of the de- petitions were filed by various persons in this clared objectives of the Chief Executive. Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution assailing the extra-Constitutional step of taking To conclude in brief, this Court held that over the affairs of Pakistan by the Armed Forces having regard to all the relevant factors. a pe- of Pakistan and the Chief of Army Staff Gen- riod of three years was allowed to the Chief eral Pervez Musharraf. All these petitions were Executive with effect from the date of the Army decided on 12th of May, 2000 vide judgment takeover i.e. the 12th of October, 1999 for reported as Syed Zafar Ali Shah v. General Per- achieving his declared objectives. It was further vez Musharraf (PLD 2000 SC 869). Needless held that the Chief Executive shall appoint a to repeat, this Court vide the aforesaid judg- date not later than 90 days before the expiry ment validated the extra-Constitutional step on of the period of three years for holding general the touchstone of the doctrine of state necessity election to the National and the Provincial As- and the principle of salus populi est suprema semblies and the Senate of Pakistan. By way lex as embodied in Begum Nusrat Bhutto’s of passing remarks, we may refer to the subse- case (PLD 1977 SC 657). This Court came to quent events after the judgment was delivered

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 54 by this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case. The government. Her second government was also Chief Executive decided to take over the office dismissed and the National Assembly dissolved of the President of Pakistan and then a referen- in 1996 by Sardar Farooq Khan Leghari, the dum was held. In compliance with the judgment then President of Pakistan. Consequently, fresh of this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case, it elections were held and Mian Nawaz Sharif for was announced that the general election in the the second time formed the government and be- country would be held on 10th October, 2002, came the Prime Minister. Article 58(2)(b) was i.e., before the expiry of three years allowed by got repealed by Mian Nawaz Sharif through this Court to the Chief Executive for restora- the 13th Amendment of the Constitution. At tion of democracy and for holding of elections this juncture, it would be necessary to refer to in the country. the validity of the 8th Amendment and Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution; which was debated 5. The Chief Executive established various in this Court in Mahmood Khan Achakzai v. institutions to help and guide him and keep- Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 426). ing in view the rising population of the coun- While referring to Article 58(2)(b) and its util- try and particularly the political culture, cer- ity in the background of the political culture tain packages containing Constitutional amend- of this country, this Court made the following ments were announced and through lengthy de- illuminating observations:— bates the opinion of the public, intellectuals, was solicited and as a result thereof, finally, “57. Much has been said against Article the Legal Framework Order, 2002 was promul- 58(2)(b) of the Constitution that it has changed gated. This Order revived Article 58(2)(b) of the shape of the Constitution from Parliamen- the Constitution, which was incorporated in the tary to Presidential and has concentrated pow- Constitution in 1985 through the well-known ers in the hands of the President who is not 8th Amendment of the Constitution. Article directly elected as the Prime Minister. Perusal 58(2)(b) of the Constitution conferred powers of the Constitution, as it is, shows that it is on the President to dissolve the National As- not so and the apprehension is unfounded for sembly if the government was not being run the reason that this provision has only brought in accordance with the Constitution and ap- about balance between the powers of the Pres- peal to the electorate was necessary. This power ident and the Prime Minister in Parliamentary was resorted to four times in this country; Form of Government as is contemplated under firstly, by General Ziaul Haq dissolving the Na- Parliamentary Democracy. There is nothing un- tional Assembly and dismissing the government usual about it and such provisions enabling the of Mr. Muhammad Khan Junejo, secondly, by President to exercise such power can be found in Mr. Ghulam Ishaq Khan while dissolving the various Parliamentary and Democratic Consti- National Assembly and dismissing the govern- tutions like Australia, Italy, India, France and ment of Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto in 1990 and Portugal. In fact Article 58(2)(b) has shut the thirdly, again by Mr. Ghulam Ishaq Khan while door on Martial Law for ever, which has not dissolving the National Assembly and dismiss- visited us after 1977.” ing the government of Mian Nawaz Sharif. Al- though the dismissal of the government of Mian We can only wish that the then legislators Nawaz Sharif in 1993 was declared by this Court and Mian Nawaz Sharif at the helm of affairs to be un-Constitutional but subsequently both had realized the implications of such repeal. Ar- the President and the Prime Minister had to re- ticle 58(2)(b) was described as a safety valve sign and as a result of the general election held against the imposition of martial law/military in 1993, Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto formed the takeover.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 55 6. Adverting to the Legal Framework Order, Constitution. It is true that as held in Benazir as discussed above, Article 58(2)(b) has now Bhutto’s case (PLD 1988 SC 416) and Asad been reincorporated in the Constitution. Mr. Ali’s case (PLD 1998 SC 161) the person desir- Zafarullah Khan, learned Advocate Supreme ing to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court un- Court for the petitioner criticized such incor- der Article 184(3) of the Constitution need not poration and we drew his attention to the ob- necessarily be an aggrieved person, nevertheless servations made by this Court in Mahmood the person approaching this Court under the Khan Achakzai’s case and also apprised him of aforesaid provision has to demonstrate that the the grave consequences of the repeated military question raised concerns the public at large. It takeovers. However, we are constrained to judge may be appropriate to reproduce observations the maintainability of this petition under Arti- of this Court in Zulfiqar Mehdi v. Pakistan In- cle 184(3) of the Constitution filed by Watan ternational Airlines Corporation (1998 SCMR Party. We confronted the learned counsel with 793), which run as under:— this aspect of the case and the learned coun- “The issues arising in a case, cannot be sel submitted that Watan Party had filed this considered as a question of public importance, petition through the Punjab President of the if the decision of the issues affects only the Ladies Wing, namely, Tasneem Shaukat Khan. rights of an individual or a group of individu- We have noted the following paragraph in the als. The issue in order to assume the character body of the petition:— of public importance, must be such that its de- “That the petitioner’s party has boycotted cision affects the rights and liberties of people the general elections, which are undemocratic.” at large. The adjective ‘public’ necessarily im- Admittedly, no list of members or office- plies a thing belonging to people at large, the bearers at the national, provincial or local levels nation, the State or a community as a whole. has been filed. There is nothing on record to Therefore, if a controversy is raised in which indicate that the party has ever had any repre- only a particular group of people is interested sentation in the Parliament or in any Provincial and the body of the people as a whole or the Assembly. It was also admitted that the patty entire community has no interest, it cannot be had not held the intra-party election mandated treated as a case of public importance.” by the Political Parties Order, 2002 (Chief Ex- 7. It is worthwhile to mention that all the ecutive’s Order No. 18 of 2002). We asked the major political parties have fielded their can- learned counsel to name the office-bearers of the didates to contest the General Election 2002 party in Balochistan but the learned counsel under the Conduct of General Elections Order, could not give any definite name. In this back- 2002 (Chief Executive’s Order No. 7 of 2002) ground, the crucial question seeking an answer and none of them has come forward with a pe- is the locus standi and bona fides of the petition to question any provision of the Legal titioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court Framework Order. It is well-known now that under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. In our after the election the National and the Provin- view, answer to this question is in negative as cial Assemblies will meet. The members will the petitioner has no locus standi to file this elect Speakers, Deputy Speakers, Prime Min- petition. Although as held in Manzoor Elahi v. ister, Chief Ministers and the Senators. The Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1975 SC 66) the elected Parliament is in immediate sight and question raised before the Court under Article obviously the Parliament and not this Court 184(3) must be one of public importance with is the appropriate forum to consider all these reference to the enforcement of Fundamental amendments. We may further observe that pro- Rights contained in Chapter 1, Part II of the cedure to amend the Constitution as enshrined

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 56 in Article 239, Part XI remains unaltered. The the petitioner has no locus standi to invoke the Parliament retains same power to amend the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) Constitution as it did before the promulgation of the Constitution. of the Legal Framework Order. Petition dismissed. 8. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition must be dismissed because

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- made to a Resolution by the petitioner Asso- stitutional Petition No. 1 of 2002, decided on ciation and the Pakistan Bar Council claim- 28th October, 2002. (On review from the order ing to be the Apex representative bodies of dated 10-4-2002 of this Court passed in Consti- the lawyers, inter alia, asserting that petitioner tutional Petition No. 1 of 2002). with a heavy heart declines to argue the Review Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J., Qazi Muham- Petition. mad Farooq, Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Syed 3. The contents of the application constitute Deedar Hussain Shah and Abdul Hameed gross contempt of this Court by using disparag- Dogar, JJ. ing remarks about the Judiciary through the language which could not have been expected Sh. Riaz Ahmad C.J.—This Review Petition from the pen of the President of the Supreme is directed against an order of this Court dated Court Bar Association. Suffice it to state that 10th of April 2002 whereby the Constitution pe- Full Bench of the Supreme Court comprising 12 tition filed by Supreme Court Bar Association Judges upheld the taking of oath by Judges of of Pakistan and others assailing the appoint- the Superior Judiciary under the Oath of Office ment of Judges in the Supreme Court of Pak- (Judges) Order, 2000, and most of the lawyers istan was dismissed. including senior lawyers like Mr. Khalid Anwar, 2. This Review Petition was fixed for hear- Amicus Curie, Mr. S.M. Zafar as well as the rep- ing on 28th of October, 2002 when a request resentatives of the Bar arguing the case were of for adjournment was received on behalf of the view that the Judges who declined to take Mr. Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court oath did so according to their conscience and whichwasmovedbyMr.MehmoodulIslam, a heavy responsibility lay upon the Judges who Advocate-on-Record, stating therein that coun- took oath for dispensation of justice. The unan- sel for the petitioner (Mr. Hamid Khan) regrets imous verdict of this Court in Zafar Ali Shah’s his inability to appear before this Court on case was upheld in Review Petition’. It was uni- the said date due to his unavoidable personal versally acclaimed and has been described as a obligation and prior commitments. The Bench landmark judgment. We had heard the main assembled in the Court to consider the afore- Constitution Petition for 11 days when Mr. said request for adjournment when surprisingly Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and the Court noticed the presence of Mr. Hamid other counsel had argued the case at length and Khan, Advocate Supreme Court in Court-room, all the points raised at the Bar were dealt with who came at the rostrum and submitted an ap- by this Court in the judgment sought to be re- plication under the caption “STATEMENT AT viewed. We would have proceeded to take action THE BAR.” In this application, a reference was against Mr. Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 57 Court, President Supreme Court Bar Associa- as the system of administration of justice by tion of Pakistan, but it is always appropriate preserving the Bar as well. Failing which the to exercise restraint. However, we reserve our Courts would have been replaced by altogether right to take the proper action at an appropri- a new system unknown to a civilized society. ate stage. Unfortunately, some Members of the This aspect of the matter has been discussed at Bar motivated by malice, extraneous consider- length in the judgment of this Court in Zafar ations and for political reasons or ill-will make Ali Shah’s case, supra, and the oath was taken irresponsible statements to tarnish the image of in the highest national interest, therefore, we the Judiciary which is not at all in the supreme have deliberately not chosen to proceed against national interest. We would therefore, strongly Mr. Hamid Khan in view of the interest of the deprecate and condemn this attitude on the Institution, but we reiterate that we reserve our part of Mr. Hamid Khan and considering the right to proceed against Mr. Hamid Khan con- contents of this application scandalous, mali- temner/signatory of the application referred to cious and irrelevant, we order that paragraphs hereinabove. (i) and (ii) thereof be struck off. Needless to say 5. Be that as it may, even otherwise no that administration of system of justice rests case for interference is made out on merits be- upon cooperation between the judiciary and the cause we have gone through the contents of Members of the Bar being the necessary limbs the Review Petition and each and every point of the system. We have the highest respect for canvassed in the Review Petition has already the Bar and particularly for those Members who been dealt with in the judgment under review. have shown respect to the Judiciary. Obviously, in our considered view the learned 4. In fact, making of such attempts on the counsel knew this aspect very well and it is too part of the Members of the Bar amounts to well known that under the garb of review, this abuse of the sacred elected office. Such trend Court does not allow the re-hearing of the mat- can neither promote the system nor would ad- ter. Knowing fully well the consequence of the vance the cause of the administration of justice instant Review Petition the learned counsel has in the country. We may further observe that it deliberately declined to argue the case moti- is because of the judgment in Zafar Ali Shah’s vated by malice, ill-will and extraneous consid- case and oath taken by Judges of the Supreme erations. This is high time that counsel like Mr. Court that a time schedule was given and the Hamid Khan and Members of the Bar should regime had to hold elections and to go back to realize their responsibilities towards the Courts barracks after restoration of democratic institu- and society as a whole because they hail from tions. We may further observe that in compli- the legal profession which seeks redress of the ance with the judgment of this Court in Zafar grievances of the aggrieved persons from the Ali Shah’s case, elections were held in the coun- Courts. If this state of affairs continues then try on 10th of October, 2002 and the process of God be with us and nothing more could be said transferring the power is in progress. We may about it. As a consequence of above this Review further observe that Judges had taken oath un- Petition has nil merit and the same stands dis- der the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 1999 and missed accordingly. thus saved the independence of Judiciary as well Petition dismissed.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 58 Judicial Activity and Statistics

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 59 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 60 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 large number of cases, both petitions and appeals, were filed. To deal with the situation the Supreme Court of Pakistan refined its earlier strategy for clearing the backlog of cases. A Full Court meeting was convened to review the situation and to adopt strategies and adjust the mechanism for reducing the mounting pressure of new filings added to the backlog. Accordingly, the Chief Justice constituted different benches varying the number of Judges. Consequently, a substantial number of cases, both old 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 pending cases prior to this were 13070, but during the year an overwhelming number of 13847 cases were filed. This trend of increase in the number of cases is in keeping with that in all the provinces of the country. The causes may be attributed to the bulging population and an increase in commercial activity. 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 at the end of the year was 7915. At Lahore, the Branch Registry, against the previous balance of 5199 pending cases, 2534 cases were disposed of. After 5125 new cases were instituted, the balance of pending cases at the end of the year stood at 7788. At the Karachi Branch Registry 1090 cases were decided 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 565 cases were decided when the figure for pending cases was 620. The institution of 615 new cases, the balance 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 balance of 13070, 9547 cases were decided. The institution of 13847 new cases raised the balance of pending cases for year 2002 to 17370. All these figures reveal the rising pressure of new institutions upon the resources of the Supreme Court. Despite a large number of disposals by the Court at the Principal Seat 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 national importance. A few such significant judgements have been included in this Report. To deal with these important cases as well as all the other cases, 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, at Karachi 14 weeks, at Peshawar 10 weeks and Quetta the sittings were for 12 weeks. The detailed statistics of judicial activity during the year 2002, including the constitution of benches, 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.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 61 4.2 Distribution of Work: The Principal Seat of the Court and Branch Registries 4.2.1 Statement of Court Sessions, 2002 at Principal Seat, Islamabad

S.No. Working Period No. of weeks No. of Benches 1. 01-01-2002 to 04-01-2002 1 week 4 2. 07-01-2002 to 11-01-2002 1 week 5 3. 14-01-2002 to 17-01-2002 4days 5 4. 18-01-2002 1day 4 5. 21-01-2002 to 24-01-2002 4days 4 6. 25-01-2002 1day 5 7. 28-01-2002 to 29-01-2002 2days 5 8. 30-01-2002 to 31-01-2002 2days 6 9. 01-02-2002 1day 5 10. 04-02-2002 1day 6 11. 06-02-2002 to 08-02-2002 3days 4 12. 11-02-2002 to 13-02-2002 3days 4 13. 14-02-2002 to 15-02-2002 2days 3 14. 18-02-2002 to 21-02-2002 4days 1 15. 25-02-2002 to 28-02-2002, 01-03-2002 1 week 1 16. 04-03-2002 to 08-03-2002 1 week 3 17. 11-03-2002 to 15-03-2002 1 week 4 18. 18-03-2002 to 19-03-2002 2days 3+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 19. 20-03-2002 to 21-03-2002 2days 4+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 20. 22-03-2002 1day 5 21. 26-03-2002 to 29-03-2002 4days 4 22. 01-04-2002 to 05-04-2002 1 week 3+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 23. 08-04-2002 1day 3+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 24. 09-04-2002 1day 4+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 25. 10-04-2002 to 12-04-2002 3days 5 26. 15-04-2002 1day 5 27. 16-04-2002 1day 4 28. 17-04-2002 to 19-04-2002 3days 5 29. 22-04-2002 1day 3+1(9 Judges Larger Bench) 30. 23-04-2002 to 24-04-2002 2days 2+1(9 Judges Larger Bench) 31. 25-04-2002 to 26-04-2002 2days 1+1(9 Judges Larger Bench) 32. 29-04-2002 1day 4+1(9 Judges Larger Bench) 33. 30-04-2002, 02-05-2002, 03-05-2002 3days 4 34. 06-05-2002 to 10-05-2002 1 week 3 35. 13-05-2002 to 17-05-2002 1 week 3 36. 20-05-2002 to 24-05-2002 1 week 4 37. 27-05-2002 to 31-05-2002 1 week 4 38. 03-06-2002 to 05-06-2002 3days 4 39. 06-06-2002 to 07-06-2002 2days 3+1(Sh.A. Bench of 5 Judges) Continued. . . .

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 62 S.No. Working Period No. of weeks No. of Benches 40. 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 6days 1 (Sh. A. Bench) 42. 24-06-2002 to 28-06-2002 1 week 1 43. 01-07-2002 to 05-07-2002 1 week 2 44. 08-07-2002 1day 3 45. 09-07-2002 to 11-07-2002 3days 1+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 46. 12-07-2002 1day 3 47. 15-07-2002 1day 2 48. 16-07-2002 1day 1 49. 17-07-2002 to 19-07-2002 3days 2 50. 22-07-2002 to 26-07-2002 1 week 5 51. 06-08-2002 1day 1 52. 08-08-2002 1day 1 53. 12-08-2002 to 13-08-2002 2days 1 54. 15-08-2002 to 16-08-2002 2days 1 55. 26-08-2002 1day 1 56. 09-09-2002 to 13-09-2002 1 week 6 57. 16-09-2002 to 20-09-2002 1 week 6 58. 23-09-2002 to 27-09-2002 1 week 6 59. 30-09-2002, 01-10-2002 to 02-10-2002 3days 6 60. 03-10-2002 1day 5+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 61. 04-10-2002 1day 6 62. 07-10-2002 1day 4+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 63. 08-10-2002 1day 5+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 64. 09-10-2002 1day 6 65. 11-10-2002 1day 4 66. 14-10-2002 to 15-10-2002 2days 4 67. 16-10-2002 to 18-10-2002 3days 5 68. 21-10-2002 to 25-10-2002 1 week 3 69. 28-10-2002 1day 5+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 70. 29-10-2002 1day 4 71. 30-10-2002, 31-10-2002, 01-11-2002 3days 6 72. 04-11-2002 to 07-11-2002 4days 6 73. 08-11-2002 1day 5 74. 11-11-2002 to 15-11-2002 1 week 6 75. 18-11-2002 to 19-11-2002 2days 6 76. 20-11-2002 to 21-11-2002 2days 6+1(5 Judges Larger Bench) 77. 22-11-2002 1day 6 78. 25-11-2002 to 28-11-2002 4days 6 79. 29-11-2002 1day 5 80. 02-12-2002 04-12-2002 3days 1 81. 09-12-2002 to 13-12-2002 1 week 1 82. 16-12-2002 to 17-12-2002 2days 1 Grand Total:— 44 weeks, 3 days

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 63 4.2.2 Branch Registry, Lahore

S.No. Working period No. of weeks No. of Benches 1. 23-01-2002 & 24-01-2002 2days 1 2. 06-02-2002 to 08-02-2002 3days 2 3. 11-02-2002 to 15-02-2002 One week 2 4. 18-02-2002 to 21-02-2002 4days 1 5. 25-02-2002 to 01-03-2002 One week 1 6. 04-03-2002 to 08-03-2002 One week 2 7. 11-03-2002 to 15-03-2002 One week 2 8. 18-03-2002 to 22-03-2002 One week 1 9. 26-03-2002 to 29-03-2002 4days 1 10. 01-04-2002 to 05-04-2002 One week 1 11. 08-04-2002 to 12-04-2002 One week 1 12. 15-04-2002 to 19-04-2002 One week 2 13. 22-04-2002 to 26-04-2002 One week 1 14. 29-04-2002 to 03-05-2002 4days 2 15. 06-05-2002 to 09-05-2002 4days 2 16. 10-05-2002 1day 1 17. 13-05-2002 to 17-05-2002 One week 2 18. 20-05-2002 to 24-05-2002 One week 2 19. 27-05-2002 to 29-05-2002 3days 2 20. 30-05-2002 to 31-05-2002 2days 1 21. 03-06-2002 to 07-06-2002 One week 1 22. 17-06-2002 to 21-06-2002 One week 3 23. 24-06-2002 to 28-06-2002 One week 3 24. 01-07-2002 to 05-07-2002 One week 3 25. 07-07-2002 to 12-07-2002 One week 2 26. 15-07-2002 to 19-07-2002 One week 1 27. 02-12-2002 to 04-12-2002 3days 3 28. 09-12-2002 to 13-12-2002 One week 2 29. 16-12-2002 & 17-12-2002 2days 2 Grant Total:— 24 weeks, 2 days 50

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 64 4.2.3 Branch Registry, Karachi

S.No. Working period No. of weeks No. of Benches 1. 21-01-2002 & 22-01-2002 2days 1 2. 18-02-2002 to 22-02-2002 One week 2 3. 25-02-2002 to 01-03-2002 One week 2 4. 26-03-2002 to 29-03-2002 One week 1 5. 06-05-2002 to 10-05-2002 One week 1 6. 13-05-2002 to 17-05-2002 One week 1 7. 24-06-2002 to 28-06-2002 One week 1 8. 01-07-2002 to 05-07-2002 One week 2 9. 08-07-2002 to 12-07-2002 One week 1 10. 15-07-2002 to 19-07-2002 One week 2 11. 22-07-2002 to 26-07-2002 One week 1 12. 12-08-2002 to 16-08-2002 One week 1 13. 02-12-2002 to 04-12-2002 3days 2 14. 09-12-2002 to 13-12-2002 One week 2 15. 16-12-2002 to 17-12-2002 2days 2 16. 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 Benches 1. 14-01-2002 & 24-01-2002 2 weeks 1 2. 25-01-2002 1day 1 3. 18-02-2002 to 01-03-2002 2 weeks 1 4. 17-06-2002 to 24-06-2002 1 week, 1 day 1 5. 15-07-2002 to 19-07-2002 1 week 1 6. 14-10-2002 to 17-10-2002 4days 2 7. 18-10-2002 1day 1 8. 21-10-2002 to 23-10-2002 3days 2 9. 24-10-2002 to 25-10-2002 2days 1 10. 02-12-2002 to 17-12-2002 2weeks,2days 1 Grand Total:— 10 weeks, 3 days 12

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 65 4.2.5 Branch Registry, Quetta

S.No. Working period No. of weeks No. of Benches 1. 18-02-2002 to 21-02-2002 4days 1 2. 25-02-2002 to 01-03-2002 1 week 1 3. 04-03-2002 to 08-03-2002 1 week 1 4. 06-03-2002 to 10-05-2002 1 week 1 5. 24-06-2002 to 28-06-2002 1 week 1 6. 21-10-2002 to 25-10-2002 1 week 2 7. 02-12-2002 to 04-12-2002 3days 1 8. 09-12-2002 to 13-12-2002 1 week 1 9. 16-12-2002 to 17-12-2002 2days 1 Grand Total:— 12 weeks, 3 days 10

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 66 4.3 Statistics on the Institution and Disposition of Cases During the Year 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 as Balance on 31-12-2002 C.P. 1440 29099 4349 2692 1657 Crl.P. 201 441 642 251 391 C.R.P. 179 241 420 160 260 Crl.R.P. 39 53 92 39 53 Crl.Sh.P. 43 34 77 32 45 Crl.S.R.P. 06 – 06 03 03 J.S.P. 25 72 97 72 25 J.P. 130 460 590 394 196 CONST.P. 72 40 112 32 80 C.S.R.P. 00 – 00 – 00 H.R. 59 01 60 20 40 G/T 2194 4251 6445 3695 2750

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

ABBREVIATIONS MEANING C.P. Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Crl. P. Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal Cr. R. P. Criminal Review Petition C.R.P. Civil Review Petition Crl. SH.P. Criminal Shariat Petition Crl. S.R.P. Criminal Shariat Review Petition J.S.P. Jail Shariat Petition J.P. Jail Petition CONST.P. Constitution Petition C.S.R.P. Civil Shariat Review Petition H.R. Human Rights C.A. Civil Appeal CRL. A/CRL.As Criminal Appeal/Appeals CRL. SH. A. Criminal Shariat Appeal C.S.A. Civil Shariat Appeal Crl. O.P Criminal Original Petition SMR Suo Moto Review G.T Grand Total 9This ﬁgure breaks up into 2509+400, where 400 cases are from other Registries.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 67 APPEALS

Appeals Opening Institution Total Disposal Balance as Balance on 31-12-2002 C.A. 3602 157610 5178 1259 3919 Crl.A. 932 29911 1231 144 1087 Crl.Sh.A. 91 04 95 – 95 C.S.A. 64 – 64 – 64 G/T 4689 187912 6568 1403 5165

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR ISLAMABAD

Cases Opening Institution Total Disposal Pending Remarks Balance as on 31-12-02 Petitions 2194 4251 6445 3695 2750 Increased by 556 Appeals 4689 1879 6568 1403 5165 Increased by 296 G/T 6883 6130 13013 5098 7915 Increased by 1032

10This ﬁgure is 1901-325=1576. 325 cases were registered at Islamabad, but institution is shown in Branch Registries 11This 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.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 68 4.3.2 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Lahore (1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) PETITIONS

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

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

Cases Opening Institution Total Disposal Pending Remarks Balance as on 31-12-02 Petitions 5196 4987 10183 2397 7786 Increased by 2590 Appeals 03 138 141 139 02 Decreased by 01 G/T 5199 5125 10324 2536 7788 Increased by 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).

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 69 4.3.3 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Karachi (1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) PETITIONS

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

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

Cases Opening Institution Total Disposal Pending Remarks Balance as on 21-12-02 Petitions 272 1454 1726 1048 678 Increased by 406 Appeals 04 230 234 42 192 Increased by 188 G/T 276 1684 1960 1090 870 Increased by 594

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 70 4.3.4 Statement Showing Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Peshawar (1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) PETITIONS

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

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

Cases Opening Institution Total Disposal Pending Remarks Balance as on 31-12-02 Petitions 620 572 1192 522 670 Increased by 50 Appeals 00 43 43 43 00 — — G/T 620 615 1235 565 670 Increased by 50

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 71 4.3.5 Statement regarding Institution, Pendency and Disposal of Cases at Quetta (1-1-2002 to 31-12-2002) PETITIONS

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

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

Cases Opening Institution Total Disposal Pending Remarks Balance as on 31-12-02 Petitions 89 208 297 216 81 Decreased by 08 Appeals 03 85 88 42 46 Increased by 43 G/T 92 293 385 258 127 Increased by 35

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 72 4.3.6 Consolidated Statements for the Principal Seat and Branch Registries PETITIONS

Location Balance as Institution Total Disposal Balance as on 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

Quetta Registry

Peshawar Registry

Karachi Registry

Lahore Registry

Principal Seat

1 2345678910 Thousands Pending (Current) Disposal Institution Pending (Old)

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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 73 APPEALS

Location Balance as Institution Total Disposal Balance as on 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

Quetta Registry

Peshawar Registry

Karachi Registry

Lahore Registry

Principal Seat

1 2345678910 Thousands Pending (Current) Disposal Institution Pending (Old)

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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 74 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR ALL CASES FROM 01-01-2002 to 31-12-2002

Cases Previous Institution Total Disposal Current Remarks Pendency Pendency Pendency Petitions 8371 11472 19843 7878 11965 Increase by 3594 Appeals 4699 2375 7074 1669 5405 Increase by 706 G/Total 13070 13847 26917 9547 17370 Increase by 4300

Petitions

Appeals

Total

1 23456789101112131415161718 Thousands Pending (Current) Disposal Institution Pending (Old)

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 75 4.3.7 Average Monthly Institution and Disposal During the Year

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT SHOWING AVERAGE MONTHLY INSTITUTION DURING THE YEAR 2002

Cases Islamabad Lahore Karachi Peshawar Quetta Total Petitions 354 416 121 48 17 956 Appeals 157 12 19 4 7 199

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT SHOWING AVERAGE MONTHLY DISPOSAL DURING THE YEAR 2002

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

APPEALS

At the current rate of 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 disposal, it will take a little more than 38 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 months to clear the backlog of all the pend- 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 ing appeals 141 141 141 141 141 141 141

141 141 141 141 141 141 141

141 141 141

PETITIONS

At the current rate of 657 657 657 657 657 disposal, it will take a little more than 18 657 657 657 657 657 months to clear the backlog of all the pend- 657 657 657 657 657 ing petitions 657 657 657

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 76 4.3.8 Some Visible Trends

SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

Yearwise Institution, disposal & Pendency of cases (1993 to 2002)

PETITIONS AND APPEALS Pendency Institution Disposal

18000

16000 15243

14000 13847 13171 13070 11702 12000 11668 10998 10751 10371 10349 10229 9547 10000 9538 9409 9289 9029 8834 8608 8413 8000 8205 6607 6498 6439 6079 5826 6000 5658 5230 5134 4955

4000 3866

2000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 77 4.3.9 Trend of Pending Cases Over the Last Ten Years

Increase/ Year Current Previous Decrease 1993 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+

19 18 17 16 THE STEEP CURVE 15 OF PENDING CASES 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7

6 Thousand Cases 5 4 3 2 1 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 78 4.3.10 Trend of Institution of Cases Over the Last Ten Years 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 6498 6079 6607 11668 10349 10371 8413 11702 15243 13847

19 18 17 16 THE CURVE FOR CASES FILED 15 OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS 14 13

12 11 10 9 8

7 6 Thousand Cases 5 4 3 2 1 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 79 4.3.11 Trend of Disposal of Cases Over the Last Ten Years 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5230 4955 6439 8205 10229 10751 8608 9538 13171 9547

19 18 17 16 THE CURVE FOR CASES DECIDED 15 OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS 14 13 12 11 10

9 8 7 6

Thousand Cases 5 4 3 2 1 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 80 4.3.12 Comparative Graph of Cases Filed, Decided and Pending

19 18 17 16 CASES FILED, DECIDED & PENDING 15 DURING THE LAST TEN YEARS 14 13

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 Thousand Cases 5 4 3 2 1 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 81 4.3.13 Analysis of the Pending Balance To understand the balance of pending cases, the following tables may be examined. The pending balance for all cases for the year 2002 is 17370, while the pending balance for appeals is 5405 and that for all petitions is 11965.

Civil Petitions at the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

Civil Opening Current Petitions Balance Insititution Total Disposal Balance Islamabad 1440 2909 4349 2692 1657 Lahore 4622 3961 8583 1600 6983 Karachi 190 1261 1451 884 567 Peshawar 523 429 952 383 569 Quetta 55 108 163 126 37 Total: 6830 8668 15498 5685 9813 The pending balance of 9813 for civil petitions is 82.01% of all pending petitions and 56.49% of all pending cases.

Criminal Petitions at the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

Criminal Opening Current Petitions Balance Insititution Total Disposal Balance Islamabad 201 441 642 251 391 Lahore 420 858 1278 695 583 Karachi 43 152 195 136 59 Peshawar 92 138 230 132 98 Quetta 34 60 94 55 39 Total: 790 1649 2439 1269 1170 The pending balance of 1170 for criminal petitions is 9.7% of all pending petitions and 6.7% of all pending cases.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 82 Civil Appeals at the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

Civil Opening Current Appeals Balance Institution Total Disposal Balance Islamabad 3602 1576 5178 1259 3919 Lahore 03 100 103 101 02 Karachi 03 220 223 34 189 Peshawar 00 34 34 34 00 Quetta 01 79 80 34 46 Total: 3609 2009 5618 1462 4156 The pending balance of 4156 for civil appeals is 76.89% of all pending appeals and 23.92% of all pending cases.

Criminal Appeals at the Principal Seat and Branch Registries

Criminal Opening Current Appeals Balance Institution Total Disposal Balance Islamabad 932 299 1231 144 1087 Lahore 00 38 38 38 00 Karachi 01 10 11 08 03 Peshawar 00 09 09 09 00 Quetta 02 06 08 08 00 Total: 935 362 1297 207 1090 The pending balance of 1090 for criminal appeals is 32.01% of all pending appeals and 6.25% of all pending cases.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 83 Civil Petitions

$56.49%

6.65% Remaining 6.25% 6.7%

23.92% Criminal Petitions Criminal Appeals

Civil Appeals

Civil Petitions and Civil Appeals form 80.41% of the balance of all pending cases.

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

Cases Cases Cases Instituted Instituted Instituted Prior to Prior to After Location 1990 2000 2000 Total Islamabad 12 1617 6286 7915 Lahore 00 32 7756 7788 Karachi 00 104 766 870 Peshawar 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 prior to the year 2000. The balace of 15572 cases were all instituted after 2000.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 84 4.3.15 Data for the Last Five Decades: Increase in Institution of Cases as Compared to Increase in the Number of Judges INSTITUTION, DISPOSAL AND PENDENCY OF CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN FROM 1950 TO 31-12-2002.

APPEALS

Last Fresh Year 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....

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 85 Last Fresh Year Balance Institution Total Disposal Pending 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 Last Fresh Year Balance Institution Total Disposal Pending 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....

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 86 Last Fresh Year Balance Institution Total Disposal Pending 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....

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 87 Last Fresh Year Balance Institution Total Disposal Pending 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

Chief Period 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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 88 Institution of Cases Over the Last Five Decades

Cases 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2002 Petitions 199 1478 2519 3999 8647 11472 Appeals 288 541 1334 1301 3055 2375 Total 487 2019 3853 5300 11702 13847

19 18 17 16 THE CURVE FOR CASES FILED 15 OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6

Thousand Cases 5 4 3 2

1 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 89 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 90 Social Objectives and the Contribution of Judges

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 91 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 to various Committees, Tribunals, University Syndicates and other Bodies as listed in the following chart:—

S.No. Name of Judge Name of Committee, Organ- Relevant Provision isation/ Body 1. Mr Justice Munir A. Sheikh 1) Judge Incharge for welfare Order of Chief Justice dated 10- of retired Judges in La- 2-2000 hore/ Islamabad. 2) Chairman of the Build- Order of Chief Justice dated 18- ing Committees at Lahore 02-2002 ,Islamabad, Karachi, Pe- shawar, Quetta and Mur- ree. 3) Member of the Pakistan Under clause (g) of Sub-Section Medical and Dental Coun- (1) of Section 3 of PM&DC Ordi- cil from 16-11-2001. nance, 1962 4) Financial powers to sanc- Order of Chief Justice dated 06- tion Expenditure:— 02-2002 i) Repair, maintenance & purchase of oﬃ- cial transport, machinery, furniture & other misc. items, etc. ii) Cost of petrol. iii) Medical charges for Hon. Judges & other staﬀ of the Court. iv) Transport of goods. v) Law charges, and vi) Advertisement and other misc. Expendi- ture, etc.

2. Mr Justice Nazim Hussain 1) Judge Incharge for wel- Order of Chief Justice dated 10- Siddiqui fare of retired Judges in 2-2000 Karachi. 2) Member of the Building Order of Chief Justice dated 18- Committee at Karachi, Is- 02-2002 lamabad & Murree.

Continued. . . .

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 93 S.No. Name of Judge Name of Committee, Organ- Relevant Provision isation/ Body 3) Chairman,Central Zakat Section 12(3) of Zakat & Ushr Or- Council. dinance, 1980 4) Member Selection Board Section 6 (I) (V) of First Statutes of the Quaid-e-Azam Uni- of University Act, 1973 versity, Islamabad. (w.e.f. 25-10-2000) 5) Financial powers to sanc- Order dated 06-02-2002 tion expenditure of Pur- chase of books, other misc. items/ equipments/ machinery for use in the Li- brary.

3. Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad 1) Judge Incharge for Aﬀairs Order of Chief Justice dated 10- Chaudhry of Staﬀ Welfare. 2-2000 2) Member, Building Com- Order of Chief Justice dated 18- mittee, Quetta. 2-2002 3) Chairman of Enrolment Sections 15 & 42 of the Le- Committee of the Pakistan gal Practitioners & Bar Councils Bar Council. (w.e.f. 29-9- Act, 1973 2000) 4) Financial powers to sanc- Order of Chief Justice dated 06- tion expenditure:— 02-2002 i) Under P.O. No.1/ 2001 and medical bills in respect of retired judges; ii) Purchase of stationery and printing, and iii) Uniform and liveries.

4. Mr Justice Qazi Muhammad 1) Member, Building Com- Order of Chief Justice dated 18- Farooq mittee, Peshawar. 2-2002 2) Judge Incharge for welfare Order of Chief Justice dated 10- of retired Judges at Pe- 2-2000 shawar. 3) Judge Incharge, Federal Order of Chief Justice dated 10- Judicial Academy. 1-2002 4) Member, Committee for Oﬃce Memorandum dated maintenance of a penal of 19.3.2001 counsel at State expense 5) Chairman, Federal Review Order of Chief Justice dated 16- Board. 2-2002

Continued. . . .

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 94 S.No. Name of Judge Name of Committee, Organ- Relevant Provision isation/ Body 5. Mr Justice Rana Bhagwandas 1) Member, Building Com- Order of Chief Justice dated 18- mittee, Karachi. 02-2002 2) Member of the Library Order of Chief Justice dated 10- Committee. 2-2000

6. Mr Justice Mian Muhammad 1) Member, Building Com- Order of Chief Justice dated 18- Ajmal mittee at Peshawar. 02-2002 2) Chairman Disciplinary Order of Chief Justice dated 6-2- Committee of the Pak- 2002 istan Bar Council. 3) Member, Syndicate of the Order of Chief Justice dated 14- Quaid-e-Azam University 2-2002 (expires on 22-10-2002)

7. Mr. Justice Syed Deedar Hussain 1) Member, committee for Oﬃce Memorandum dated Shah maintenance of a panel of 19.3.2001 counsel at State expense. 2) Chairman, Tribunal of the Order of Chief Justice dated 6-2- Pakistan Bar Council. 2002 3) Member, Federal Review Order of Chief Justice dated 16- Board 2-2002 5) Chairman, Election Tri- Order of Chief Justice dated 2-7- bunal of the Pakistan Bar 2002 Council.

8. Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal 1) Member, Committee for Oﬃce Memorandum dated maintenance of a panel of 19.3.2001 counsel at State expense. 2) Member of the Execu- Order of Chief Justice dated 5-3- tive Council of the Al- 2002 lama Iqbal Open Univer- sity from 07-03-2002.

9. Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza Trustee of Shah Abdul Order dated 4-2-2002 Latif Education Trust.

10. Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar Member of Syndicate of Order of Chief Justice dated 12- Shah Abdul Latif Univer- 5-2002 sity, Khairpur, Sindh.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 95 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 held at Johannesburg, South Africa from 18th to 20th August, 2002. During this visit, he also attended 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 the Environment.

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- development of science and technological in- pendent for their survival on the perfect eco- novations, the problem of environmental im- logical balance found in nature. The growth balance and degradation of the environment of economic power and unbalanced industrial have assumed alarming proportions resulting in expansion has exerted unbearable pressure on air, water and soil pollution, desertification, de- the limited available natural resources caus- forestation and soil erosion. Development and ing the depletion of these precious resources, progress are desirable, but they must be in har- thus, depriving future generations of their right mony with the requirement of maintaining a to development. Further, developmental activi- proper ecological balance. Natural resources are ties result in environmental pollution and affect the bounty of nature and should be utilized in mankind’s most crucial fundamental right, that a gainful and efficient manner. Nearly one and is, the right to life. Inherent in the depletion a half century ago, a wise Indian Chief, while of natural resources and environmental degra- responding to an offer of sale of his land to a dation is the clear and present danger to the white man stated: survival of life on planet earth. Mankind must exploit and enjoy natural resources by carry- How can you buy or sell the sky, the ing out development work in a balanced manner warmth of the land; the idea is strange with a view to getting optimal benefits that do to us. If you do not own the freshness not compromise the future of succeeding gener- of the air and the sparkle of the water, ations. how can you buy them? This we know, the earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. This we know, all things are connected like the blood Due to the continued and persistent inter- which unites one family. All things are ference in nature by Man and thanks to the connected. Whatever befalls the earth

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 96 befalls the sons of the earth. Man did 1951); the Convention Concerning the Protec- not weave the web of life; he is merely tion of World Cultural and Natural Heritage a strand in it. Whatever he does to the (World Heritage Convention, Paris, 1972); the web he does to himself. Convention on International Trade in Endan- gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, Washington, 1973); the Convention on the Con- This is indeed a profound statement and servation of Migratory Species of Wild Ani- epitomizes the whole philosophy of the ecologi- mals( Bonn, 1979); and the Vienna Convention cal balance of nature. for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (Vienna, The ever-increasing problem of environmen- 1985), as well as many others. tal pollution and degradation of the environment attracted the attention of the interna- The Constitution of Pakistan contains pro- tional community and voices were raised for visions for environmental protection and re- international efforts to respond to the emerg- source conservation. The Constitution men- ing threat. The international community must tions “Environmental Pollution and Ecology” be commended for a timely action. It succeeded as a subject in the Concurrent Legislative List, in convening the United Nations Conference on meaning that both the Federal and Provincial Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 to Governments may initiate and make legislation deliberate upon the issues and problems of the for the purpose. environment. The participating states agreed Several laws exist for the protection of the upon collaboration and cooperation in prepar- environment. Some of these laws are Federal ing and launching an action plan to prevent en- and the rest Provincial in character. The im- vironmental degradation and preserve nature. portant laws on the subject are the Canal and The Declaration issued by the Conference was Drainage Act, 1873; The Explosives Act, 1884; indeed a laudable achievement of mankind. The The Ports Act, 1908; The Forest Act, 1927; Declaration states, inter alia, that “man has the The Fisheries Ordinance, 1961; The Punjab fundamental right to freedom, equality and con- Wildlife (Protection, Conservation and Man- dition of life and bears a solemn responsibility agement) Act, 1964; The Fire Wood and Char- to protect and improve the environment.” The coal (Restriction) Act, 1964; Motor Vehicles Or- Conference further emphasized individual and dinance, 1965; The West Pakistan Regulation collective efforts to preserve the environment. and Control of Loudspeaker and Sound Am- The Government of Pakistan has actively plifier Ordinance, 1965; The Agricultural Pesti- pursued the cause of environmental protection. cide Ordinance, 1971; and The Antiquities Act, It has been party to several international dec- 1975. There are many other laws as well that larations, agreements and conventions on the deal with related issues. subject. Pakistan signed and ratified the U.N. Besides, the Pakistan Penal Code, 1861, Framework Convention on Climate Change. which is a general criminal law, and applies She has also ratified the Convention on Biolog- all over the country, contains specific provisions ical Diversity, participated in the 1992 Confer- on the subject. Thus, it prohibits mischief by ence at Rio-de-Jeniro and played an effective killing or maiming animals, or damaging works role in preparing and finalizing the guidelines of irrigation or a river or a road or a bridge for adoption by the member states. Pakistan or drainage or firing explosive substances with has also created structures and enacted rules intent to cause damage. The code also pro- for the implementation of various international hibits public nuisance by acting negligently to environmental agreements such as the Inter- spread infectious diseases, disobeying quaran- national Plant Protection Convention (Rome, tine rules, causing adulteration of food, drink

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 97 or drug, fouling water or making the atmo- 5. The imports of hazardous waste into the sphere noxious to health. The promulgation of country has been banned and the trans- the Environmental Protection Ordinance, 1983 port of hazards substance and danger- was the first codifying legislation on the issue ous chemicals, toxic material, or explosive of environmental protection. This was indeed a substances has been regulated, through consolidated enactment to plug the gaps and licenses, under prescribed rules and pro- remove defects/deficiencies in the existing leg- cedure. islation. 6. To ensure compliance with the NEQS, the Later, the Government passed and promul- law provides for an appropriate mecha- gated the Pakistan Environmental Protection nism including the installation of devices Act, 1997. The Act is fairly comprehensive, pro- so as to control the pollution caused by viding for the protection, conservation, rehabil- motor vehicles. itation and improvement of the environment. 7. A fairly high level body called, Pak- It contains action plans and programmes for istan Environmental Protection Coun- the prevention of pollution and preservation of cil, headed by the Prime Minister and clean and healthy environment. The salient fea- comprising the Chief Ministers of the tures of the law are: provinces, relevant Ministers of the Fed- eral and provincial governments, repre- 1. The Act covers air, water, soil, marine and sentatives of trade, commerce and indus- noise pollution including pollution caused try and members of the academia, has by vehicles. been constituted to formulate policy and provide guidelines for enforcing the law. 2. The Act provides for fixing the National 8. For the effective implementation of the Environment Quality Standards (NEQA) provisions of the law, the Pakistan En- and their strict enforcement. For default, vironmental Protection Agency, headed the Government has been empowered to by a Director General with other staff levy a pollution charge. has been constituted. This Agency is re- 3. The Government has been empowered to sponsible for enforcing policy and imple- issue environmental protection orders so menting the provisions of the law. On the as to effectively deal with and respond to same pattern, Provincial Environmental the actual or potential violation of the law Protection Agencies have been created in leading to environmental degradation. each province. 4. The law provides for Environmental Im- 9. A Provincial Sustainable Development pact Assessment (EIA) of various projects Fund has been established and is regu- being launched in the country including lated and managed by a Board. the construction of roads, buildings fac- 10. Environmental tribunals with exclusive tories or other installations, or any al- jurisdiction to try serious offences have teration, expansion, repair of the same, been provided by the law. The law also mineral prospecting, mining or quarrying. provides for the appointment of mag- The law states that no project may be istrates to try minor offences. Appeal launched without an EIA being carried against an order/judgment of a mag- out and safeguards provided to the effect istrate lies before the Court of Ses- that the proposed project will not pollute sion, whose decision is final. Appeal the environment. against the judgment of a Tribunal lies

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 98 to the High Court. Stringent punishment degradation of the environment and preserv- through heavy fines and imprisonment ing a sustainable ecological balance of nature. have been prescribed. Several judgments have been rendered in cases 11. The Act also empowers the Federal Gov- relating to the prohibition of environmental ernment to make rules for the imple- degradation and maintaining a clean and pure mentation of international environmen- environment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan tal agreements and conventions to which also resorted to the exercise of extraordinary Pakistan is a parry. jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Consti- tution by entertaining petitions pertaining to maintaining clean environment, this being an The Pakistan Environmental Protection issue of great public importance. In the case of Act, 1997 has been put into operation. The Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693) some requisite rules and regulations have been en- of citizens of Islamabad forwarded a petition acted including, National Environmental Qual- to the Supreme Court of Pakistan complaining ity Standards (Self-monitoring and Reporting about the construction of grid station in their by Industries) Rules, 2000; Pakistan Environ- locality. The Court formulated two questions mental Protection Agency (Review of Capital, for resolution: first, whether any government IEE/EIA) Regulations 2002; Provincial Sus- agency has a right to endanger the life of citi- tainable Development Fund (Utilization) Rules zens by its actions without the consent of such 2002; Composition of Offences and Payment of citizens, and secondly, whether zoning laws vest Administrative Penalty Rules 2002 and Haz- rights in citizens which could not be withdrawn ardous Substances Rules, 2002. or altered without the consent of the citizens? The Federal Government has established The petitioners had relied on Article 9 of the two Environmental Tribunals one each in Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, Karachi and Lahore. The Karachi Tribunal has liberty and security of person. While interpret- jurisdiction over the provinces of Sindh and ing this article, the Court observed that the Baluchistan, while the Lahore Tribunal covers word “life” is very significant as it covers all the provinces of the Punjab and NWFP. High aspects of human existence. Life has not been Courts have designated senior Civil Judges as defined in the Constitution, but it does not Environmental Magistrates to take cognizance mean that it can be restricted only to vegetative of all contraventions punishable in respect of or animal life or mere existence from conception handling of hazardous substances and pollution to death. The Court went on to state that life caused by motor vehicles. includes all such amenities and facilities that a Environmental Laboratory Certificate Reg- person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy ulation 2000 has been notified whereby a net- legally and constitutionally. The Court, there- work of ethnically sound laboratories is being fore, concluded that a person is entitled to the established through out the country. The certi- protection of law from being exposed to hazards fied laboratories will be authorized to test envi- of electrical magnetic fields or such hazards that ronmental samples and assist public and private may be due to the installation of a grid station, sector to get their levels of emission tested. in a factory, power station or a similar installa- The judiciary of Pakistan is alive to the sit- tion. In reaching this conclusion, the Court re- uation and has extended a helping hand to the ferred to two international declarations namely State in achieving the goals of environmental the Declaration of UN Conference on Human law. The superior judiciary, and in particular Environment at Stockholm 1972 and the Rio the Supreme Court of Pakistan, has played a Declaration 1992, and expressed the view that positive and constructive role in preventing the

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 99 an international instrument, even if not rati- unpolluted drinking water to the citizens was fied by the State, is of persuasive value and a fundamental right, enshrined in Article 9 of will be given due importance and weightage. the Constitution, and that any effort or activ- The Court added that the issue of environment ity that deprives the citizens of this right is protection transcends national frontiers and re- volatile of the Constitution. The Court, there- quires cooperation of nations. fore, prohibited further mining in the area as it In another case (PLD 1998 SC 102) the may contaminate the water reservoir or water Supreme Court took suo moto notice of a news course, used for drinking water by the residents. report to the effect that certain businessmen The Court went on to elaborate that the Consti- were purchasing land in the coastal area of tution provides for the right to life and ensures Balochistan for dumping hazardous nuclear and the dignity of man. With these two important industrial waste. The Court asked for a report rights, it would be difficult to conceive life in on the matter from the Provincial Government. which a person does not get the minimum clean It turned out that there was no substance in atmosphere and unpolluted environment. The the report. The Court nevertheless issued direc- Court further stated that it will not hesitate to tions to the Government that no person shall be stop the functioning of a factory that creates allotted land for dumping nuclear or industrial pollution and environmental degradation. waste. The Court directed that the Government The Supreme Court of Pakistan has always should submit a list of persons to whom land sought to enforce the laws and regulations per- in the coastal area of Balochistan has already taing to the protection of the environment. In been allotted. The Court further directed that reaching its conclusion, the Court has relied not the land should not be used for the dumping only on the law and Constitution of Pakistan, of nuclear or industrial waste. Furthermore, a which are binding on the Court, but has also similar undertaking was to be obtained from invoked international conventions, declarations the allottee of the land in the coastal area, the and protocols. In doing so, the Court favored Court concluded. the international conventions for the enforce- In another Human Right case (1996 SCMR ment of internationally recognized standards of 543), the Supreme Court directed the Provin- environmental protection. The issue of protec- cial Government of Sindh to take effective mea- tion of environment is of vital importance not sures for eliminating pollution caused by smoke only to the people of Pakistan but the peo- emitting vehicles. The Court ordered that all ple of the world. This issue transcends national vehicles, whether privately owned or owned by boundaries and geographical barriers. There is a government departments, should be regularly growing consensus among the nations, and the inspected and checked. The Court further asked people of Pakistan agree with this consensus, for emergency checks to be carried for the pur- that there is a definite need to consolidate and pose by the concerned officials. The Court di- strengthen the environment protection legisla- rected that motorcycles and auto rickshaws not tion. The judiciary of Pakistan is alive to its be allowed to ply without silencers and that the responsibility and has played and will continue use of pressure horns and multi-tone horns be to play its due role in preventing all forms of prohibited. environmental nuisance, pollution, degradation In General Secretary, W.P. Salt Mines and ecological disaster so as to protect and safe- Labour Union v. Director, Industries and Min- guard the ecological balance of nature in our eral Development, Government of the Punjab one and only planet, earth. (1994 SCMR 2061), the Supreme Court expressed the view that provision of clean and

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 100 5.2.3 Concluding Remarks of Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan at the Inaugural Session of South Asian Judicial Colloquium on Access to Justice at New Delhi on 1-3 November 2002

Hon. Justice B. N. Kirpal, Chief Justice of In- The benefits of law are for all citizens and dia; all sections of society, irrespective of any consid- Hon. Justice Leila Seth, Chairperson, Common- eration of colour, creed, caste, gender or socio- wealth Human Rights Initiative; economic background. Seen in this perspective, Hon. Judges of the Superior Courts from the access to justice, in my view, is a crucial con- SAARC region and elsewhere; cept. It is essential for dignified and civilised Hon. Delegates; existence. It is a very basic and fundamental Ladies and Gentlemen! right, because in its absence, the enjoyment of other rights, that is, civil, political, economic It is my proud privilege to say a few words or cultural rights, becomes illusionary. By en- by way of concluding remarks in this Inaugu- suring this right, the judiciary merely fulfils ral Session of the First South Asian Regional an obligation cast on it by the Constitution. Judicial Colloquium on Access to Justice. Due Such is a prerequisite of civilized governance to paucity of time, I shall be brief. Indeed I and an important State obligation. The State am privileged to have listened to the very il- and its organs including the judiciary cannot luminating and thought-provoking speech on avoid it. The extent to which and the manner “Access to Justice and Judicial Accountability” in which this obligation is fulfilled, is greatly de- by my friend, Justice B. N. Kirpal, the Chief pendent on the enabling legal or constitutional Justice of India. His observations are profound provisions and the approach of the judiciary to and provide adequate food for thought for the enforce it. The courts have to employ new and participants to ponder over and debate in the imaginative techniques to guarantee this essen- forthcoming sessions of the Colloquium. tial right to citizens, but especially to those in Access to justice is indeed a fundamental dire need of it, including weaker and vulnerable concept in the administration of justice. To sections of the society such as children, women, furnish access to justice is a crucial and pro- peasants, labourers, prisoners, minorities and found obligation of the State and the society. other similar groups. As a matter of fact, the edifice of administration of justice is based on its ability to pro- I should mention here that the Supreme vide a free and uninterrupted access to justice Court of Pakistan has been exercising its ju- to all—and more so, to the needy, poverty- risdiction of public interest litigation under stricken, deprived and socially disadvantaged Article 184(3) of the Constitution, and over sections of the society. This is indeed possible time, has rendered some landmark judgments. through the mechanism of public interest litiga- I am equally familiar with the important and tion. The essence of public interest litigation is landmark judgments rendered by the Supreme to facilitate the weaker and vulnerable people Court of India, and who can ignore the role to claim and enforce their rights and seek re- and contribution of the former Chief Justice dress for wrongs and grievances. It is to enable of India, Mr Justice Bhagwat, in this area. He them to get equality before law and acquire the can rightly be called the harbinger of change equal protection of law. It is to empower them and the propounder of this new and innovative to avail their fundamental rights and enjoy the mode of litigation in this region. I am sure that benefits of law. in the forthcoming sessions of the Colloquium,

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 101 the judgments of various courts in the region Sections including Women, Children, Minori- will be revisited by the participants. ties and Prisoners and Strengthening of Human The Colloquium is a unique opportunity Rights Norms, are crucial in the South Asian for judges, lawyers and academicians of the re- context. I am conﬁdent that there would be de- gion. They can renew their acquaintances, make tailed discussions and exchange of views among bonds of friendship and share their unique ex- the participants. The purpose is to share knowl- periences on issues of common interest. On this edge and learn from one another. It is a useful occasion, let me congratulate the organizers for opportunity to think of and devise innovative conceiving a forum of this kind, to bring to- means and techniques of improving the perfor- gether men and women of learning to meet, so mance of the courts. This event is also an im- as to discuss and deliberate, in order to learn portant opportunity for men and women of the from one another and improve their own per- region to put their heads together for regional formance and the performance of their institu- peace, stability, security and most importantly, tions. economic and social development. I am sure The topics for discussion in the Colloquium, that the deliberations will be useful and ben- namely, Access to Justice, Public Interest Liti- eﬁcial for all participants. gation, Judicial Independence, Impartiality and Accountability, Rights of Weak and Vulnerable 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 Justice of Pakistan

A clean and healthy environment is a basic 5. The Islamabad (Preservation of Land- human right embedded in the right to life. The scape) Ordinance 1966; and basic right can be ensured through a variety 6. The Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance of measures including legislation, policy guide- 1971. lines and the establishment of institutions and structures for the effective enforcement of law A major initiative by the Government of and policy. Pakistan was the enactment of comprehensive Besides, provisions in the Pakistan Penal law, titled, “The Pakistan Environment Protec- Code, for example fouling water reservoirs, tion Act 1997.” Salient features of this law are making the atmosphere noxious to health, negli- as follows: gent conduct in respect of explosive substances, poisonous substance, combustible matter and 1. The Act covers air, water, soil, marine and the like, there are several other laws on the pro- noise pollution including pollution caused tection of environment. These are: by vehicles. 1. The Epidemic Diseases Act 1958; 2. The Act provides for fixing the National 2. The West Pakistan Regulation and Con- Environment Quality Standards (NEQA) trol of Loudspeakers and Sound Ampli- and their strict enforcement. For default, fiers Ordinance 1965; the Government has been empowered to 3. The Pakistan Plant Quarantine Act 1976; levy a pollution charge. 4. The Pakistan Nuclear Safety And Radia- 3. The Government has been empowered to tion Protection Ordinance 1984; issue environmental protection orders so

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 102 as to effectively deal with and respond to same pattern, Provincial Environmental the actual or potential violation of the law Protection Agencies have been created in leading to environmental degradation. each province. 4. The law provides for Environmental Im- 9. A Provincial Sustainable Development pact Assessment (EIA) of various projects Fund has been established and is regu- being launched in the country including lated and managed by a Board. the construction of roads, buildings fac- 10. Environmental tribunals with exclusive tories or other installations, or any al- jurisdiction to try serious offences have teration, expansion, repair of the same, been provided by the law. The law also mineral prospecting, mining or quarrying. provides for the appointment of mag- The law states that no project may be istrates to try minor offences. Appeal launched without an EIA being carried against an order/judgment of a mag- out and safeguards provided to the effect istrate lies before the Court of Ses- that the proposed project will not pollute sion, whose decision is final. Appeal the environment. against the judgment of a Tribunal lies 5. The imports of hazardous waste into the to the High Court. Stringent punishment country has been banned and the trans- through heavy fines and imprisonment port of hazards substance and danger- have been prescribed. ous chemicals, toxic material, or explosive 11. The Act also empowers the Federal Gov- substances has been regulated, through ernment to make rules for the imple- licenses, under prescribed rules and pro- mentation of international environmen- cedure. tal agreements and conventions to which 6. To ensure compliance with the NEQS, the Pakistan is a parry. law provides for an appropriate mechanism including the installation of devices so as to control the pollution caused by Environmental legislation, all over the motor vehicles. world, is a relatively new phenomenon. With legislative framework in place, it is the respon- 7. A fairly high level body called, Pak- sibility of the judiciary to enforce the same. The istan Environmental Protection Coun- apex court of the land, that is, the Supreme cil, headed by the Prime Minister and Court of Pakistan has decided some important comprising the Chief Ministers of the cases on environmental protection, which are provinces, relevant Ministers of the Fed- enumerated below: eral and provincial governments, repre- Sheihla Zia v WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC sentatives of trade, commerce and indus- 693)—The Supreme Court in case under Article try and members of the academia, has 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan consid- been constituted to formulate policy and ered a question of the protection of human life provide guidelines for enforcing the law. as guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution. 8. For the effective implementation of the It was assailed that a grid station in constructed provisions of the law, the Pakistan En- in a residential area of the Capital by the Water vironmental Protection Agency, headed and Power Development Authority is in viola- by a Director General with other staff tion of Art. 9 of the Constitution. It was alleged has been constituted. This Agency is re- that the electromagnetic field by the presence sponsible for enforcing policy and imple- of high voltage transmission lines at the grid menting the provisions of the law. On the station would pose a serious health hazard to

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 103 the residents of the area particularly the chil- Juwani and the dumping waste materials in- dren, the infirm and the families residing at that cluding nuclear waste from the developed coun- time in the immediate vicinity. It was also urged tries would not only be hazard to the health of that the presence of electrical installation and the people but also to the environment and the transmission lines in close proximity are highly marine life in the region. dangerous to the life and security of the citizens. The Court observed, that if, nuclear waste Further, this may damage the green belt and is dumped on the coastal land of Balochistan, affect the environment. The court observed: In it is bound to create environmental hazard and the problem at hand the likelihood of any haz- pollution and will violate Art. 9 of the Consti- ard to life by magnetic field, its effect cannot tution. The Court directed that: The Govern- be ignored. At the same time the need for con- ment functionaries, particularly the Authorities structing grid stations which are necessary for which are charged with the duty to allot the industrial and economic development cannot be land on coastal area should insert a condition in lost sight of. The Court further held: Life (as the allotment letter/licence/lease that the allot- guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution) tee/tenant shall not use the land for dumping, does not mean nor can it be restricted only to treating, burying or destroying by any device the vegetative or animal life or mere existence waste of any nature including industrial or nu- from conception to death. For the purpose of clear waste in ay form. present controversy suffice to say that a person is entitled to protection of law from being ex- Noise pollution is another form of health posed to hazard of electronic fields. hazard, which is also a public nuisance. In the case Sltau v De Held [(1851) 2 Sim NS 133], Almostthesameviewistakenbythe a person residing in a house next to a Roman Supreme Court of India, in Mehta v. Union of Catholic Chapel where a bell was rung at all India (AIR 1988 SC 1115) in context of haz- hours of the day and night causing nuisance ardous industries. The Court observed that: to him was brought against the priest. It was “We cannot possible adopt a policy of not hav- held, that, ringing of a bell is a public nuisance ing any chemical or hazardous industries merely and the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction. because they pose hazard to risk to the commu- A similar situation was faced by the Indian nity...wecanonlyhopetoreducetheelement High Court [(1883) ILD 3 Bomb 35] where of hazard by taking all necessary steps in a man- the owners of a building brought a complaint ner that would pose the least risk of damage to against an adjacent cotton mill causing noise the community.” and smoke injurious to the residents. The plaintiff obtained compensation and an injunction In re: Human Rights Case (Environment prohibiting any increase of smoke, cotton-fluff Pollution in Baluchistan) (PLD 1994 SC 102), or noise of machinery. another memorable and very important issue was taken up suo moto by the Supreme Court In re: Pollution of Environment Caused By under Art 184 (3) of the Constitution 1973. Smoke Emitting Vehicles (PLD 1996 SCMR This was on the basis of a news item regarding 543), the Supreme Court of Pakistan took note dumping of nuclear waste in Balochistan. It was of pollution caused by traffic noise smoke/which reported that: the business tycoons are making is injurious to health and physical/mental dis- attempts to purchase coastal area of Baluchis- comfort and observed: “The concerned authori- tan and to convert it into dumping ground for ties should ensure that the motor rickshaws are waste material, which may bring hazard to de- notallowedtoplywithoutsilencer...intheex- veloping posts of Guwadr, Pasni, Ormana and isting circumstance, all the persons owning or

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 104 plying motor cycles, rickshaws should be given fit for human consumption is the worst exam- one months time to get the silencer fitted. ple of the negation of human rights and contrary to environmental laws.” The Court fur- The Court further took serious note of pres- ther held: “In case where the life of citizens is sure horn’s fitted in vehicles or vehicles fitted degraded, the quality of life is adversely affected with multi-tone horns giving unduly harsh shrill and health hazards are created affecting a large loud or alarming voice and directed the au- number of people, the Court under the Consti- thorities that the pressure horns be seized and tution is obliged to grant relief to the extent of destroyed. stopping the functioning of factories which create pollution and environmental degradation.” In General Secretary, West Pakistan Salt Water, which is necessary for existence of Miners Labour Union Khewra v. Director life, if polluted or contaminated, will cause se- Industries and Mineral Development Punjab rious threat to human existence. In such a sit- (1994 SCMR 206), the Supreme Court observed uation, persons exposed to such dangers are that “polluting a public spring or reservoir and entitled to claim that the fundamental rights fouling a water tank in a way to make it less be enforced.

5.2.5 Speeches of Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan During the Year 2002 1. Address on the retirement of Mr. Justice (R) Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri on 31-1-2002 at the 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 National Police Academy, Islamabad on 13-4-2002.

5. Address on the occasion of the Inauguration of the 15th Cultural Week of the International Islamic 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” held at Holiday Inn, Islamabad on 17-9-2002. 10. Address at the inauguration of the 12th IAS Conference held at Islamabad Serena Hotel on 14-10-2002.

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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 105 12. Speech on occasion of the launching ceremony of the English-Urdu Translation of Black’s Law Dictionary 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) Committee held 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 Association delivered 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 of Pakistan 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.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 106 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 the members of the Press. Rooms have been provided within the Supreme Court building to facilitate their work. In addition to this, the Press can now access the Court website and this website is growing by the day. In short, the Court encourages the Press to freely report on its proceedings.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 107 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 108 Code of Conduct for Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 109 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 110 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 amended up 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 the justice of the nation. As a member of this court, that duty is brought within the disciplines appropriate to a corporate body.

The Constitution, by declaring that all authority exercisable by the people is a sacred trust from Almighty Allah, makes it plain that the justice of this nation is of Divine origin. It connotes full implementation of the high principles, which are woven into the Constitution, as well as the universal requirements of natural justice. The oath of a Judge implies complete submission to the Constitution, and under the Constitution to the law. Subject to these governing obligations, his function of interpretation and application of the Constitution and the Law is to be discharged for the maintenance of the Rule of Law over the whole range of human activities within the nation.

To be a living embodiment of these powers, functions and obligations calls for possession of 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 behaviour in the Judges of the Superior Courts, conducive to the achievement of a standard of justice worthy of the nation.

ARTICLE I While dispensing justice, he should be strong without being rough, polite without be- On equiponderance stand the heavens and the ing weak, awe-inspiring in his warnings and earth. By equiponderance, oppression meaning faithful to his word, always preserving calm- unjust and unequal burdens, is removed. The ness, balance and complete detachment, for the Judge’s task is to ensure that such equality formation of correct conclusions in all matters should prevail in all things. coming before him. In the matter of taking his seat, of his per- ARTICLE II sonal behaviour when in his seat and of rising from his seat, he shall be punctilious in point A Judge should be God-fearing, law-abiding, of time, mindful of the courtesies, careful to abstemious, truthful of tongue, wise in opin- preserve the dignity of the Court, while main- ion, cautious and forbearing, blameless, and un- taining an equal aspect towards all litigants as touched by greed. well as all lawyers appearing before him.

17First printed in PLD 1967 Jour. 97.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 111 ARTICLE III To employ the influence of his position to gain undue advantage, whether immediate or To be above reproach, and for this purpose to future, is a grave fault. keep his conduct in all things, official and pri- A Judge must avoid incurring financial or vate, free from impropriety is expected of a other obligations to private institutions or per- Judge. sons such as may embarrass him in the perfor- ARTICLE IV mance of his functions. A Judge must decline resolutely to act in a case ARTICLE VII involving his own interest, including those of Extra-Judicial duties or responsibilities, offi- persons whom he regards and treats as near rel- cial or private, should be generally avoided. He atives or close friends. should equally avoid being a candidate, for any A Judge must rigidly refrain from entering elective office in any organisation whatsoever. into or continuing any business dealing, howso- ARTICLE VIII ever unimportant it may be, with any party to a case before him. Should the dealing be un- Gifts are to be received only from near rela- avoidable, he must discontinue his connection tives and close friends, and only such as are with the case forthwith. customary. Everything in the way of favours in A Judge must refuse to deal with any case in consequence of the office must be refused. In which he has a connection with one party or its accepting any entertainment offered, whether lawyer more than the other, or even with both general or particular, care should be taken that parties and their lawyers. its real purpose does not conflict with a Judge’s To ensure that justice is not only done, but duty to maintain detachment from likely liti- is also seen to be done, a Judge must avoid all gants, and from partisan activity. possibility of his opinion or action in any case ARTICLE IX being swayed by any consideration of personal In his judicial work, and his relations with other advantage, either direct or indirect. Judges, a Judge should act always for the main- ARTICLE V tenance of harmony within his own Court, as well as among all Courts and for the integrity Functioning as he does in full view of the pub- of the institution of justice. Disagreement with lic, a Judge gets thereby all the publicity that the opinion of any Judge, whether of equal or is good for him. He should not seek more. In of inferior status, should invariably be expressed particular, he should not engage in any public in terms of courtesy and restraint. controversy, least of all on a political question, notwithstanding that it involves a question of ARTICLE X law. In his judicial work a Judge shall take all steps ARTICLE VI to decide cases within the shortest time, con- trolling effectively efforts made to prevent early A Judge should endeavour to avoid, as far as disposal of cases and make every endeavour to possible, being involved, either on his own be- minimise suffering of litigants by deciding cases half for on behalf of others, in litigation or in expeditiously through proper written judge- matters which are liable to lead to litigation, ments. A Judge who is unmindful or indifferent such as industry, trade or speculative transac- towards this aspect of his duty is not faithful to tions. his work, which is a grave fault.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 112 The Supreme Judicial Council

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 113 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 114 7 THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Article 209 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, provides for a Supreme Judicial 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 Justices of the High Courts shall be determined with reference to their dates of appointment as Chief Justice, and in case the dates of such appointment are the same, with reference to 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 who is a member of the Council, or a member of the Council is absent or is unable to act due to illness or any other cause, then—

(a) if such member is a Judge of the Supreme Court, the Judge of the Supreme Court who 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 another High Court who is next in seniority amongst the Chief Justices of the remaining High 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 opinion amongst its members, the opinion of the majority shall prevail, and the report of the Council 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 opinion that 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 physical or 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, inquire into the matter. (6) If, after inquiring into the matter, the Council reports to the President that it is of the opinion—

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 115 (a) that the Judge is incapable of performing the duties of his office or has been guilty of 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 office except as provided by this Article. (8) The Council shall issue a code of conduct to be observed by Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 116 The Court Registry

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 117 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 118 8THECOURTREGISTRY

Under Article 208 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, with the approval of the President, may make rules providing for the appointment by the Court of officers and servants of the Court and for their terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court (Appointment of Officers 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 facilitating its 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, 3 Deputy Registrars, 11 Assistant Registrars and other officers and servants.

Mr. Muhammad Amin Farooqi is the present incumbent of the oﬃce of the Registrar having been appointed 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. The Registry 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 at Islamabad, 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 information relating to processing of cases pending in the Court;

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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 119 4. to prepare cause lists and intimate ﬁxation of cases to parties, advocates-on-record and advocates;

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 for early hearing, and it coveys to lawyers as well as parties to the case, information about fixing cases for hearing. After the judgement is pronounced, the Registry makes copies of the judgement available to the 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 by experienced personnel, have been established at the entrance halls of the Court Building with a view 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.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 120 Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 121 8.4 Staff Welfare Fund In July, 1990 by the order of the then Chief Justice of Pakistan, a staff Welfare Fund was established with a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The aim of the fund was to help the needy and low paid employees of this Court. On 27th July, 1990, the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the staff members of the Court donated a sum of Rs.50,000/towards the fund. The members of the staff contributed the sums of Rs.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, Rs. 2,74,000 Supreme Court Building Branch, Islamabad. 2. Amount invested in PLS-TDR. No.937782 with Habib Bank Rs. 3,50,000 Limited, Supreme Court Building Branch, Islamabad. 3. Amount invested in PLS-TDR. No.937787 with Habib Bank Rs. 500,000 Limited, Supreme Court Building Branch, Islamabad. 4. Amount given as loan and due from members of Staff. Rs. 45,700 5. Balance lying with Habib Bank Limited, Supreme Court Build- Rs. 464,938.59 ing Branch in Account No. PLS-375-0 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 (Steno Typist), as ﬁnancial assistance.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 122 Financing for the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 123 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 124 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....

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 125 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, 2002-2003 are 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....

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 126 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 allowances, overtime allowance and pay of contingent staff is due to revision of pay scales with effect from 1.12.2001 and also due to revision of salaries of Judges with effect from 1.12.2001. Increase in expenditure for purchase of library books is due to purchase of books for the libraries of the Branch Registries of the Courts at Lahore and Karachi. Increase in the purchase of machinery head is due to purchase of computers for the Court and purchase of walk-through gates for the Main Registry at Islamabad and Branch Registries of the Court at Lahore and Karachi.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 127 The Detailed Reconciliation Table Provided Goes Into this Page. Page 1. urm or nulRpr 02 128 2002: Report Annual Court Supreme The Detailed Reconciliation Table Provided Goes Into this Page. Page 2. urm or nulRpr 02 129 2002: Report Annual Court Supreme The Detailed Reconciliation Table Provided Goes Into this Page. Page 3. urm or nulRpr 02 130 2002: Report Annual Court Supreme 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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 131 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 132 Legal Research at the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 133 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 134 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 the Court and for legal research to support their needs. The Supreme Court Library is one of the best libraries in the country. Besides the Main Library at the Principal Seat of the Court, three Libraries have 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 collection of 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 the Main Hall, Law Reports of Pakistan and India have been shelved whereas in Hall No. 2 all the latest text books have been shelved and arranged subject wise. In the 3rd Hall Foreign Law Reports are available. All the Law Reports have been arranged alphabetically and are available from 1949 till the most recent. The All India Reports (AIR) is available from 1914 up to the most recent. All England Law Reports from 1558 till the present date. The Library also carries reference books like encyclopaedias, dictionaries and Halsbury’s laws of England, as well as Annual Law Digests from 1947. There is sufficient storage space for storing books. The Library has its own binding facilities with two Book Binders. During the last five years, a number of books have been added to the Library collection. The following 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.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 135 Besides the above Encyclopaedias, the Library has increased the available number of copies of the well known Law Reports, like PLD, SCMR, PLC, PTD, MLD and PLJ, as well as YLR that has 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 and the Court as and when needed. He is assisted by three Assistant Librarians. The Library employs 16 officials for the various functions of the Library. To meet the growing research needs a reference cell has been established. The reference cell is responsible for providing reference material to Judges in court as well as in their chambers. The Main Library also deals with administrative matters such as 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 available in the Library for this purpose. Among the components of the programme implemented are the automated 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 and to maintain an easily and swiftly accessible record of books and their movement. Almost all the books in the library have been fed into the programme. Besides this a programme, a Case Citation System is in the process of implementation. Once implemented fully, it will help in conducting quick searches through queries based on (1) name of the parties, (2) subject, (3) sub-subject and (4) case citation. 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 contract was 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 lack of funds no worthwhile progress could be made till 1998. In 1998 a study was carried out for computerisation 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 updated under Library Management System, the Constitution of Pakistan has been updated on the Statutes Programme; and the Case Flow Management System has been redeveloped. Consequently:

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 136 1. All judgements and short orders are automated through word processing software. In fact, all typing 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 are now 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 own desks. 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 word processing of all departments of the Court is complete. 11. Display boards showing the status of cases being heard in the Court Rooms will be installed shortly 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 is operative for approved Officers/Sections. In-house Case Flow Management Software is also available for all 84 Computers through the central Server via LAN. File transfer via Server is also achieved and actively in process via LAN. The setting up of a mail Server is in progress to facilitate internal mailing 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 and prepared by Malik Sohail Ahmed, Programmer, Computer Section. It displays essential information about 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 searchable as yet, however, this will be achieved in the near future. A plan is already underway. The cause lists are, therefore, available in static mode at present and not in dynamic mode.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 137 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 be searchable by case number, by parties, or by names of Advocates. Further, dynamic Advocates lists with 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 of law. Finally, facilities will be created for updating case data between the Main Registry and Branch Registries via websites through a dialup connection. At present facilities in the in Bar Room include viewing of cause lists and case progress. The display is a static display for the time being and the provision of search facilities for the Bar is under consideration.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 138 The Court Building

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 139

11 THE COURT BUILDING

The Supreme Court complex, situated on Constitution Avenue, Islamabad comprises a Main Central Block, Judges Chambers Block and two Administrative Blocks. The height of the Main Central Block is 167 feet above the ground. It is surrounded by Judges’ Chambers Block to the east and an Administrative Block each to the north and south. The total covered area of the building is 3,39,861 sq.ft. The building was designed by the Japanese ﬁrm, Kenzo Tange Associates. Pakistan Environmental Planning and Architectural Consultant (PEPAC) served as consultant and interior designer. 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 and European 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 Entrance Halls. The walls have detailed Islamic motifs on marble in inlaid brass. The forefront of the building is landscaped as a symbolic and ceremonial space, highlighting the dignity of Court. The fountain in 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 court rooms, the Ceremonial Hall, Auditorium of 550 seats and a Prayer Hall for 300 persons. The main court room, on the first floor, with seating capacity for 141 persons, is 125 ft high. It is surrounded by four court rooms, each having seating capacity for 72 persons. Six additional court rooms, each having 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 the oﬃce of the Registrar. The library containing a collection of 60411 books, reports and journals, is situated in the basement. This Block also contains an impressive entrance Hall, a Conference Room and 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 contains the Secretariat of Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, offices of the Attorney General for Pakistan, Advocates-General and the Pakistan Bar Council. The cafeteria is also situated on the ground floor of this Block.

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 143 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 144 Judicial Hierarchy of Pakistan

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 145 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 146 12 JUDICIAL HIERARCHY OF PAKISTAN

12.1 Strength of Judges and Administrative Staﬀ Within the Hierarchy

Supreme Lahore High Peshawar High Please do not print Court High Court of High Court of this table till the Judges of Pakistan Court Sindh Court Balochistan data is updated. Chief Justice & Judges 17 50 28 15 6 The existing data is Administrative OLD! Staﬀ 529 2022 695 345 294 District & Sessions Judges, Senior Civil Judges & Civil Judges cum-Judicial Magistrates under each High Court 879 407 212 146 Administrative Staﬀ of the District Courts under Administrative Control of High Courts 8088 3942 1976 951

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 147 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 148 Information on the Administration of Justice

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 149 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 150 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 the Advocates General in the Provinces

Federal Punjab Sindh NWFP Balochistan 31 27 20 12 4

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 151 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 152 Former Chief Justices, Judges and Registrars

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 153 THIS PAGE BLANK

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 154 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.JusticeAjmalMian 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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 155 14.2 Former Judges of the Supreme Court

S. Name of Judge/Chief Justice Nature of Ap- Date of Ap- Date of Re- No. pointment pointment 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 17.05.1950 to 23.05.1950 Judge 13.04.1954 01.04.1958 5. Mr. Justice Muhammad Munir judge 01.10.1951 to 22.11.1951 Chief Justice 29.06.1954 02.05.1960 6. Mr. Justice A.R. Cornelius Judge 22.11.1951 to 09.06.1952 Judge 17.10.1952 to 31.05.1953 Judge 10.10.1653 to 12.05.1960 Chief Justice 13.05.1960 29.02.1968 7. Mr. Justice M. Shahabuddin Acting Judge 06.10.1952 to 23.12.1952 Acting Judge 06.02.1953 to 07.06.1953 Judge 04.10.1953 12.05.1960 8. Mr. Justice S.A.Rehman Ad hoc Judge 02.03.1955 to 23.05.1955 Judge 02.04.0958 to 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 18.05.1960 to 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 22.12.1960 to 18.11.1968 Chief Justice 18.11.1968 31.10.1975. 13. Mr. Justice Muhammad Judge 04.01.1966 Yaqub 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 20.09.1974 Continued. . . .

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 156 S. Name of Judge/Chief Justice Nature of Ap- Date of Ap- Date of Re- No. pointment pointment tirement Ad hog Judge 23.05.1977 06.02.1979 18. Mr. Justice Salahuddin Ahmad Acting Judge 04.12.1970 to 28.02.1971 Judge 01.03.1971 31.12.1976 19. Mr. Justice S.Anwar-ul-Haq Judge 16.10.1972 to 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 08.10.1974 to 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 07.01.1977 to 25.03.1981 Acting Chief 26.03.1981 Justice to 22.03.1984 Chief 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 27.04.1978 to 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 14.06.1989 to 31.12.1979 Chief Justice 01.01.1990 18.04.1993 31. Mr. Justice Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah Ad hoc Judge 18.05.1977 to 14.06.1979 Judge 14.06.1979 to 16.04.1993 Chief Justice 17.04.1993 14.04.1994 32. Mr. Justice Shaﬁur Rehman Ad hoc Judge 14.06.1979 to 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 30.07.1981 Continued. . . .

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 157 S. Name of Judge/Chief Justice Nature of Ap- Date of Ap- Date of Re- No. pointment pointment tirement to 01.03.1982 Acting Judge 01.03.1982 30.09.1985 39. Mr. Justice Mian Burhanuddin Khan Acting Judge 02.03.1982 to 17.12.1984 Acting Judge 18.12.1984 17.12.1987 40. Mr. Justice Ali Hussain Qazilbash Acting Judge 17.04.1986 to 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 05.10.1986 to 24.03.1987 Judge 25.03.1987 30.06.1996 43. Mr. Justice Ghulam Mujadid Mirza Judge 25.03.1987 to 27.03.1987 Acting C.J.,LHC 28.03.1987 to 21.04.1988 Judge 22.04.1988 31.03.1990 44. Mr. Justice S.Usman Ali Shah Acting Judge 08.12.1987 to 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 13.12.1989 to 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 12.12.1989 to 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 28.10.1991 to 04.09.1993 Judge 05.09.1993 31.10.1994 56. Mr. Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui Judge 23.05.1992 to 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 26.05.1993 Continued. . . .

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 158 S. Name of Judge/Chief Justice Nature of Ap- Date of Ap- Date of Re- No. pointment pointment tirement to 04.09.1993 Judge 05.09.1993 24.03.1996 59. Mr. Justice Zia Mahmood Mirza Acting Judge 07.06.1993 to 18.10.1994 Judge 19.10.1994 20.04.1997 60. Mr. Justice Fazal Karim Acting Judge 07.06.1994 to 18.10.1994 Judge 19.10.1994 31.07.1996 61. Mr. Justice Muhammad Munir Khan Acting Judge 15.06.1994 06.08.1994 Ad hoc Judge 07.08.1994 06.08.1996 62. Mr. Justice Muhammad Ilyas Acting Judge 15.06.1994 to 18.10.1994 Judge 19.10.1994 30.09.1996 63. Mr. Justice Mir Hazar Khan Khoso Acting Judge 19.07.1994 29.09.1994 Ad hoc Judge 30.09.1994 29.09.1996 64. Mr. Justice Mamoon Kazi Ad hoc Judge 22.02.1995 to 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 28.01.1991 to 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.JusticeKamalMansurAlam 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

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 159 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.FaizulIslam 11-01-1971 17-07-1972 Chowudhury 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)

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 160 Index

Abdul Hameed Dogar, J., 26 Quetta, 72 advisory jurisdiction, 7 visible trends, 77 advocates, 151 distribution of work, 62 advocates on the rolls of the Court, 149 allocation of funds, 126 expenditure, 125 analysis last five decades, 89 Falak Sher, J., 28 analysis of pending cases, 82 Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J., 28 apex court foreword, 1 organisation, 5 former appellate jurisdiction, 6, 13 Chief Justices, 155 arbiter of the law, 5 Judges, 155, 156 Attorney General, 17 Registrars, 155, 160 automation plan, 133, 136 freedom of the Press, 33 Full Court, 3, 10, 16, 163, 164 branch registries guardian court, 5 Karachi, 14 Lahore, 13 Hamid Ali Mirza, J., 26 Peshawar, 14 Quetta, 14 Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, J., 23 budget of the Court, 125 inexpensive justice, 1 information technology, 136 challenges, 1 institution of cases, 67 Chief Justice all cases, 75 role and functions, 8 branch registries, 73 speeches, 96 Islamabad, 68 code of conduct, 109, 111 Karachi, 70 constitution of Benches, 62 Lahore, 69 court building, 139, 143 last fifty years, 85 court composition, 17 last ten years, 79 Chief Justices, 17 monthly average, 76 Judges, 17 Peshawar, 71 Shariat Appellate Bench, 17 principal seat, 73 court performace, 61 Quetta, 72 court registry, 117, 119 visible trends, 77 functions, 119 international interaction, 96 goals, 119 speeches, 96 organogram, 121 services, 120 Javed Iqbal, J., 25 judicial activity, 59, 61 disposition of cases, 67 judicial hierarchy, 145, 147 all cases, 75 jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 6 branch registries, 73 advisory, 7 Islamabad, 68 and FSC, 7 Karachi, 70 appellate, 6 Lahore, 69 original, 6 last fifty years, 85 review, 7 last ten years, 79 monthly average, 76 Karachi Branch Registry, 14 Peshawar, 71 court sessions, 65 principal seat, 73 Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J, 28

161 Khalid Mahmood, J, 29 riba case, 35 Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, J., 27 rise in litigation, 2

Lahore Branch Registry, 13 Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J., 27 court sessions, 64 Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J., 2, 19, 92 law officers, 151 bio-data, 20 legal research, 133, 135 Sheikh Rashid Ahmad v. Majid Nizami, 33 library, 135 significant judgements, 31, 33 social objectives Media, 107 contribution of Judges, 91, 93 Mian Muhammad Ajmal, J., 25 Judges on committees, 93 Muhammad Amin Farooqi, 119 speeches by Chief Justice, 96 Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J., 27 Staff Welfare Fund, 122 Munir A. Sheikh, J., 23 statistics, 59, 61 Superior Judiciary National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee, 1 code of conduct, 111 Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, J., 23 Supreme Court NJPMC, 1 action in aid of, 5 number of judges advisory jurisdiction, 7 last fifty years, 88 advocates, 151 and Media, 107 original jurisdiction, 6, 13 apex court, 5 Pakistan Muslim League (Q) v. Chief Executive, 49 branch registries, 13 pendency, 67 budget, 125, 131 Islamabad, 68 court composition, 17 Karachi, 70 decisions binding, 7 Lahore, 69 execution of process, 7 Peshawar, 71 Federal budget, 131 Quetta, 72 financial autonomy, 5 pending cases, 67 financing of, 125 according to age, 84 jurisdiction of, 6 Islamabad, 68 legal research, 133, 135 Karachi, 70 library, 135 Lahore, 69 organisation, 3, 5 Peshawar, 71 review jurisdiction, 7 Quetta, 72 rule making powers, 7 performance standards, 1 seat of Court, 13 Peshawar Branch Registry, 14 significant judgements, 31, 33 court sessions, 65 Supreme Court Bar Association v. Federation, 57 population, 2 Supreme Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pak- principal seat, 13 istan, 41 appellate jurisdiction, 13 Supreme Judicial Council, 113, 115 court sessions, 62 Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, J., 25 original jurisdiction, 13 system of statistics, 1

Qazi Hussain Ahmad v. General Pervez Musharraf, 38 Tanvir Ahmed Khan, J., 26 Qazi Muhammad Farooq, J., 24 United Bank Limited v. Farooq Brothers, 35 Quetta Branch Registry, 14 court sessions, 66 visits abroad, 96

Rana Bhagwandas, J., 24 Watan Party v. Chief Executive/President, 52 Rashid Ahmad Jullundhri, J., 29 Registrar, 17 Regstrar, 119 review jurisdiction, 7

Supreme Court Annual Report 2002: 162