The suo moto jurisdiction is defined as when a court

This preview shows page 8 - 10 out of 15 pages.

jurisdiction. The suo moto jurisdiction is defined as when a Court takes notice or cognizance of a matter upon its own initiative. 42 Increasingly, the Higher Courts of Pakistan used this power widely, to protect the interests of voiceless people; particularly, public interest issues were addressed successfully by its use, under Article 9 of the Constitution. Impact of Islamic Provisions on Development of PIL in Pakistan Pakistan could not succeed to frame its Constitution after its Independence till 1956, due to the critical conflict of Islamic provisions, provincial autonomy, parliamentary representation, and national language. 43 Nonetheless, to lay down founding principles of the future Constitution, the Objectives Resolution was passed by the Constituent Assembly created under the Independence Act 1947. Thereafter, it was enumerated as a Preamble of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. Since the Preamble was inoperative part of the Constitution and no law could be tested on its touchstone except as a Grund Norm for interpretation, therefore, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Zia ur Rahaman , 44 speaking through Hamood ur Rahaman C J, observed that the Objectives Resolution, as a Preamble of the Constitution, would not have the same status as other provisions of the Constitution, until it was incorporated its substantive part. Due to the persistent demand of Islamic political parties, convinced by the judgment and to further the process of Islamization, it was inserted as a substantive part of the Constitution under Article 2A when the Constitution was revived in 1985. 45 Although these provisions were inserted in the Constitution in the reign of Zia ul Haq, however, they were used to expand the Independence of Judiciary and the powers of Judicial Review. 46
Public Interest Litigation: A Constitutional Regime to Access to Justice in Pakistan 175 Now, one million dollars question was whether any constitutional provision could be declared as null and void, being inconsistent with the Injunctions of Islam. For ages, the status of the Objectives Resolution as a substantive part of the Constitution remained highly confusing, uncertain and conflicting between the Supreme Court and the High Courts, until it was finally settled by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Hakim Khan. 47 Mostly, the conflicting opinions of different Courts came out of the challenge to Riba or Interest, prohibited in Islam. The Sindh High Court observed that the Objectives Resolution was supra-Constitutional and overrides and supersedes everything in all laws and even in the Constitution which comes into conflict with it. 48 Same was reiterated in the case of Bank of Oman v East Trading Co. 49 On the other hand, the same High Court held that, under Article 2A, it was not open to the High Court to hold that any of the Constitutional provisions is violative of the Objectives Resolution. 50 In Kaniz Fatma, 51 Lahore Court held that the Superior Courts may not strike down such laws, rules and regulations on the touchstone of Art. 2A or 227(1) of the

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture