AAM LOG ITEHAD vs The ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN art — 2022 PLD 39 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

AAM LOG ITEHAD VS The ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN art. 218(2)(b)---Member of the Election Commission of Pakistan, office of---Said office was not quasi-judicial in nature. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 PLD 39 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case AAM LOG ITEHAD VS The ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Principle---Redundancy cannot lightly be read into a statute, let alone the Constitution. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 PLD 39 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case AAM LOG ITEHAD VS The ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN 'Reading in', doctrine of---Meaning---When a constitutional defect or violation was shown to exist, especially in a statute or other legal instrument, the Court had a whole array of remedies available to it---One such remedy was the doctrine of 'reading in' i.e. of adding such words to the statute as would remedy the constitutional defect---Doctrine of 'reading in' became available once a constitutional violation or defect was found to exist; it was a constitutional remedy to correct the defect without striking down the offending provision---Focus of attention was the Constitution and not just the statute in and of itself. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 PLD 39 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case AAM LOG ITEHAD VS The ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN arts. 207(2)& 218(2)(b)---Member of the Election Commission of Pakistan ('the Election Commission')---Two-year bar contained in art. 207(2) of the Constitution---Scope---Doctrine of 'reading in'---applicability---Question as to whether a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court could be appointed as Member of the Election Commission before expiration of two years after he had ceased to hold that judicial office---[Per Munib akhtar, J (Majority view): applying the doctrine of "reading in", from the Twenty-second (22nd) amendment to the Constitution (2016) onwards, the words "or member of the Election Commission" were to be read in into clause (2) of art. 207 of the Constitution after the term "Chief Election Commissioner"---Consequently the office of a Member of the Election Commission was not hit by the two-year bar contained in art. 207(2) of the Constitution]---[Per Maqbool Baqar, J (Minority view):Since the Majority view of the present judgment sought to "read in" a phrase in a constitutional provision Clause (2) of art. 207 of the Constitution), which approach/device would have far reaching implications for our jurisprudence, it would be appropriate to first hear the parties as well as the attorney General, before deciding to adopt such approach, more so when neither was it suggested, nor argued by anyone at the time of hearing---Present case may therefore be listed for rehearing according to the roster]. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 PLD 39 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case AAM LOG ITEHAD VS The ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Dynamic and progressive interpretation---Constitution was a living document, which must be given a dynamic and progressive meaning and interpretation---Constitution evolved and developed not just by way of textual changes (i.e., constitutional amendments) but also in a (continually) maturing understanding of the constitutional provisions, and this meant not just the very words of the Constitution but also the concepts and aspirations that laid behind and underpinned those words. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 PLD 39 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case AAM LOG ITEHAD VS The ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Doctrine of 'reading in'---Scope---In suitable cases and while maintaining all due care and caution, the doctrine of 'reading in' could be regarded as one aspect of the dynamic, evolving and purposive manner in which the Constitution must be interpreted, so as to give full effect to the constitutional intent behind especially, amendments to the Constitution---Doctrine of "reading in" could be invoked and suitably deployed in the narrow and limited sense in a situation where a constitutional amendment resulted in an imbalance (that was quite obviously unintentional) and had potential of defeating the obvious intent of the said amendment. Head NotesCase Description

AAM LOG ITEHAD vs The ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN art — 2022 PLD 39 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD