Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    P L D 2013 Supreme Court 501

    Uploaded by

    Ahmad Bin Amjad
    The Supreme Court held that the right of access to justice and an independent judiciary is a fundamental right under Article 9 of the Constitution. It is the judiciary's duty to examine the constitutionality of legislation and ensure the separation of powers. The Court also held that a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of chairpersons and members to service tribunals was maintainable, as civil servants have fundamental rights and the functioning of impartial service tribunals is a matter of public importance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    P L D 2013 Supreme Court 501

    Uploaded by

    Ahmad Bin Amjad
    27 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court held that the right of access to justice and an independent judiciary is a fundamental right under Article 9 of the Constitution. It is the judiciary's duty to examine the constitutionality of legislation and ensure the separation of powers. The Court also held that a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of chairpersons and members to service tribunals was maintainable, as civil servants have fundamental rights and the functioning of impartial service tribunals is a matter of public importance.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that the right of access to justice and an independent judiciary is a fundamental right under Article 9 of the Constitution. It is the judiciary's duty to examine the constitutionality of legislation and ensure the separation of powers. The Court also held that a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of chairpersons and members to service tribunals was maintainable, as civil servants have fundamental rights and the functioning of impartial service tribunals is a matter of public importance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views3 pages

    P L D 2013 Supreme Court 501

    Uploaded by

    Ahmad Bin Amjad
    The Supreme Court held that the right of access to justice and an independent judiciary is a fundamental right under Article 9 of the Constitution. It is the judiciary's duty to examine the constitutionality of legislation and ensure the separation of powers. The Court also held that a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of chairpersons and members to service tribunals was maintainable, as civil servants have fundamental rights and the functioning of impartial service tribunals is a matter of public importance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    P L D 2013 Supreme Court 501

    Before Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Gulzar Ahmed and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ

    Sh. RIAZ-UL-HAQ and another---Petitioners

    Versus

    FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Law and others---Respondents

    Constitutional Petitions Nos.53 of 2007 and 83 of 2012, decided on 9th January, 2013.

    (a) Constitution of Pakistan---

    ----Art. 9---Access to justice, right of---Scope---Right of access to justice was a well-recognized


    inviolable right enshrined in Art.9 of the Constitution and was equally found in the doctrine of
    "due process of law"--- Such right included the right to be treated according to law, the right to
    have a fair and proper trial and a right to have an impartial court or tribunal.

    (b) Constitution of Pakistan---

    ----Arts. 9 & 175(3)---Access to justice and independent judiciary, right of---Scope---Right of


    access to justice and independent judiciary was one of the most important rights of the citizens
    and if there was any threat to the independence of judiciary, it would tantamount to denial of
    access to justice, which was a fundamental right under Art.9 of the Constitution.

    Baz Muhammad Kakar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 923 ref.

    (c) Constitution of Pakistan---

    ----Art. 184(3)---Public interest litigation, nature of---Jurisdiction of Supreme Court---Scope---


    Public interest litigation was inquisitorial in nature and not adversarial---Supreme Court had the
    jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a case if it fell within the ambit of inquisitorial proceedings.

    Wattan Party v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011 SC 997; All Pakistan Newspapers Society v.
    Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 1 and Workers' Party Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan
    PLD 2012 SC 681 ref.

    (d) Words and phrases---

    ---"Court"---Meaning.
    Corpus Juris Secundum Vol 21; Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol. 10; The Oxford
    Companion to Law by David M. Walker; Words and Phrases Legally Defined (1969 Edn. Vol 1,
    p.367); The Major Law Lexicon, 4th Edn. 2010; Black's Law Dictionary and Ballentine's Law
    Dictionary ref.

    (e) Constitution of Pakistan---

    ----Arts. 175(3), 2A, Preamble & Part.II, Chap. 1 [Arts. 8 to 28]---Independence of judiciary-
    Scope and significance---Independence of judiciary was a basic principle of the constitutional
    system of governance---Constitution made it the exclusive power/responsibility of the Judiciary
    to ensure the sustenance of the system of "separation of powers" based on checks
    and balances and this was a legal obligation assigned to the Judiciary---Judiciary was called upon
    to enforce the Constitution and safeguard the Fundamental Rights and freedom of individuals,
    and to do so, it had to be properly organized and effective and efficient enough to quickly
    address and resolve public claims and grievances, and also had to be strong and independent
    enough to dispense justice fairly and impartially.

    Zafar Ali Shah v. Pervez Musharraf PLD 2000 SC 869 ref.

    (f) Constitution of Pakistan---

    ----Art. 8---Vires of legislation---Judiciary, duty of---Scope---Judiciary had the duty to examine


    vires of a legislation at the touchstone of the Constitution.

    Shahid Nabi Malik v. Chief Election Commissioner PLD 1997 SC 32; Chenab Cement Products
    v. Banking Tribunal PLD 1996 Lah. 672 and Kilbourn v. Thompsons [103 US 168; 26 L ED
    377 ref.

    (g) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---

    ----S. 3---Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 3---Balochistan Service Tribunals Act
    (V of 1974), S. 3---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), S. 3---Sindh Service
    Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 212(1)(a), 9 & 184(3)---
    Constitutional petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution---Maintainability---Appointment of
    Chairman and Members of Federal and Provincial Service Tribunals---Procedure---
    Constitutionality---Plea that petitioners had no cause of action to file the present petition as the
    Chairman and the Members of Service Tribunals were appointed in accordance with law, and
    that the present matter was not one of great public importance and no Fundamental Rights of the
    petitioner had been infringed---Validity---Civil servants being citizens of Pakistan had
    Fundamental Rights including the right of access to justice as envisaged under Art.9 of the
    Constitution---Enforcement of terms and conditions of service of civil servants depended upon
    an impartial, independent and unbiased Tribunal---(Civil) services were the backbone of the
    State as the affairs of the Government were performed by the civil servants, therefore, ultimately,
    the general public got affected from the functioning of the Service Tribunals; as such, present
    case involved a question of public importance---Constitutional petition was maintainable
    accordingly.

    You might also like