SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Supreme Court can only interpre

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

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Supreme Court can only interpret (the law), and not legislate. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1199 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD arts. 184(3), 186, 188 & 189---'advisory' and 'Constitutional' jurisdiction of the Supreme Court---Distinction---President may seek an opinion from the Supreme Court on a question of law under the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court gives its opinion on such question---Constitution does not state that the opinion given by the Supreme Court must be abided by nor does it state that if two or more opinions are given which one should be accepted---Opinion of the Supreme Court is just an opinion with explanation on the question of law and is not of binding nature and it is up to the President or the Federal Government to act upon it or not---an opinion is also not executable, however, an order passed by the Supreme Court (on a petition filed under article 184(3) of the Constitution) is binding (article 189 of the Constitution), and it is also executable---Therefore, if a decision (in terms of article 189) contradicts the Supreme Court's opinion (under article 186) the Supreme Court's decision (and not the opinion) will prevail---Furthermore, the review of 'any judgment pronounced or any order made' by the Supreme Court can be sought under article 188 of the Constitution, but this provision does not state that review of an opinion of the Supreme Court can also be sought. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1199 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Principles---Substituting constitutional provisions with personal likes (of a Judge) and moralisms must be avoided---What a particular Judge considers to be right or wrong, or ethical or unethical, is neither the law nor the Constitution---While law makers may transform moral precepts into law, however, the courts are concerned with what is lawful or unlawful---Parliament makes the law which the courts apply, and if there is any ambiguity in the law a judge interprets it, but this too must be done within the parameters of the law and as per the well settled rules of interpretation. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1199 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD art. 188---Review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court---Scope---Review jurisdiction is created by the Constitution and it may be invoked in respect of an order already made or judgment already pronounced, therefore, by its very nature a review petition should be fixed for hearing earlier than other cases---This is also because the Judges who had passed the order or judgment may not be available later. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1199 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Neither a court nor a judge can take away jurisdiction given by the law, let alone that which is conferred by the Constitution. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1199 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Smaller Bench cannot decide contrary to what a larger Bench has already decided. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1199 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD arts. 63(3), 63(4), 63a & 188---Review petition---Disqualification on the ground of defection, etc.---Parliamentarian votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he/she belongs---In the judgment under review the Judges (in majority) held that if a member votes against the dictates of his political party the member's vote would not be counted and the member shall be immediately disqualified---Constitutionality---article 63a of the Constitution does not state that the votes of any member should not be counted nor that a member who does not vote or abstains from voting contrary to the Parliamentary Party's direction would automatically be deseated---Clauses (1) to (5) of article 63a of the Constitution are unambiguous, self-executory and do not require any interpretation---Through the judgment under review the Party Head's jurisdiction to issue a declaration of defection has instead been conferred upon the Supreme Court; the Election Commission was also divested of its jurisdiction, and even the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under clause (5) of article 63a was effectively abolished---Judgment under review was against the clear language and mandate of the Constitution and also contrary to the decisions of the larger Benches of the Supreme Court---Review petition was allowed and the majority view in the judgment under review was set aside.

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Supreme Court can only interpret (the law), and not legislate — 2024 PLD 1199 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD