Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hakim Khan VS Govt of Pakistan
Hakim Khan VS Govt of Pakistan
By:
2. There are certain absolute rights and those rights are always protected
by the Constitution. A society where rule of law prevails, the people are
assured that their Fundamental Rights are protected. The Supreme Court has
laid down in PLD 1991 SC 412 that protection of social justice amounts to
eradication of social evils and protection of illiterate, poor persons in
accordance with the tenants of Islam, while co-existence of power and
corruption amounts to frustration of the Constitutional guarantees.
7. Loyalty to the State: Obedience to the Constitution and the law is the
basic obligation of every citizen. As envisaged by Article 244, "every
member of armed forces of Pakistan takes oath that he will uphold the
Constitution". But the Constitution was partially abrogated by General Zia-
ul-Haq subsequently twice by retired general Pervez Musharraf, thus,
violating the terms of oath. Present regime has also violated Article 5 of the
Constitution. The persons on the helm of affairs think themselves to be
above their respective oaths, thus failed to uphold the Constitution, as such,
they cannot claim loyalty to the state when they are not loyal to the
Constitution.
10. Article 10: This Article also safeguards the arrest and detention of the
citizens. The citizens are being illegally detained, thus the Fundamental
Rights guaranteed by this Article are frustrated. The detenue can file a
representation, and during the pendency of the representation the detention
period expires. Thus, the detenues are being deprived of legal remedies, and
they are debarred to seek the enforcement of Fundamental Rights through
the legislative process. Article 10 is ineffective due to the administrative
hurdles.
11. (Supreme Court of India has declared in AIR 1966 SC 239 (State of
MP Vs. Shuba Ram) that the right to defend the accused includes not only to
defend the citizens against the illegal arrest but legal advice should be
provided) but in the departmental inquiries the civil servants have been
denied the right to seek the assistance of the legal practitioners. Under Rule
8 of the Punjab Civil Servants E&D Rules, the civil servants cannot engage
or consult a legal practitioner; thus practically Article 10 has been frustrated
by incorporation of similar provision in the Civil Servants E&D Rules,
framed by the Central Government. These rules are violative of the
Fundamental Rights.
12. The delay on the part of the Government to consider the representation
was deprecated in writ petition and the detenue was released in India, when
any explanation for the delay was not forthcoming (AIR 1975 SC 367). But
in Pakistan representation has become a hurdle in the release of detenues
although the order of detention may be perverse thus practically nullifying
Article 10 of the Constitution.
13. Article 11: Provides safeguards against the trafficking in human beings
but unfortunately the girls and boys in Pakistan are being exported. The
citizens of this country are being plundered by the agents who are busy in
human trafficking and the Government has miserably failed to unearth the
said persons. And this culture has not been eliminated by the State which
resulted in negation of the Article 11 of the Constitution.
14. Article 12: The NAB Ordinance 1999 was enforced, wherein
according to Section 2, the Ordinance shall be deemed to have come into
force from the 1st January 1985, while the same violates Article 12 of the
Constitution; whereby any person cannot be punished when the act or
omission was not punishable by law at the time of such act or omission.
16. Article 14: This Article declares that dignity of the man is inviolable
and privacy of the person is also inviolable as such the police raids on the
dwelling house are violative of Article 14. It is held in PLD 1993 SC 473
that the President can neither dissolve National Assembly nor he can dismiss
the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. The charge of subversion against the
Prime Minister is violative of Article 14. The speech of the Prime Minister
does not amount to subversion, because subversion being high treason, the
same is the most serious offence that can be committed against one's own
country. The President has no authority to pronounce such a findings.
Although subsequently the same Prime Minister has been removed in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The dignity of Ex-Prime Minister
has been violated while he was expelled from the country.
18. In spite of the above observations of the Supreme Court, Mr. Shahbaz
Sharif as well as Mian Nawaz Sharif have not been allowed to enter in the
country and they have been deported from the country: thus this Article has
been frustrated by the present regime as such Article 15 has been defeated.
Even otherwise, the Charter of the Human Rights Declaration has been
vioalted and former Prime Minister of Pakistan has not been treated in
accordance with law and he has been deprived of the equal protection of law.
21. There is no such provision in the said Ordinance that classified record
will be declassified after 30 years, thus creating hurdle in the way of persons
who are in search of truth. The above said Freedom of Information
Ordinance does not fulfil the requirements of Fundamental Rights as
guaranteed by the Constitution, while the same frustrates the basic concepts
of the above said Article of the Constitution.
22. Article 24: After bare perusal of Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution,
it will transpire that under Article 23 every citizen has a right to acquire,
hold and dispose of property, while under Article 24 no person can be
deprived of his property compulsorily, save in accordance with law, and the
property cannot be acquired except for public purpose. As such any person
cannot be deprived of his property, but generally, without acquiring the
property, the same is utilized and usurped by the state functionaries. It was
declared in 1997 MLD 1792 that when an owner of property was deprived of
his property without payment of compensation, penalty was imposed by the
High Court; as such, it is evident that tendency of depriving the citizens
from their property without due process of law is the rule of the executive
while administration does not care for the Constitution and they are acting in
an unwarranted manner. Thus, the above said Article of Constitution is being
violated and the poor citizens are helpless against these atrocities. It will not
be out of place to mention here that the word “Public Purpose" has also been
interpreted in 2003 PSC 1196 and citizens are being deprived of their if
properties for the undue advantage of the land grabbers and Article 24 has
been practically been negated by the administration.
23. Article 25 envisages that all the citizens are equal before law and they
are entitled to equal protection of law. Equality before law is not present in
this part of the World. Civilians and political workers/opponents are being
prosecuted under the NAB Ordinance, and protection has been extended to
the Generals and the judiciary. Thus the concept of equality before law has
been frustrated NAB Ordinance because majority of NAB infected persons
are the ruling elite.
25. Article 27: Prescribe that no citizen shall be discriminated while in the
service of Pakistan. In the present set up according to some sources 600
Army officials have been inducted in the civil service thus the civil servants
are being prejudiced and discriminated due to this induction. They are
compelled to survive as OSD and Army officials are being inducted while
frustrating Article 27.
26. Article 35: (Protection of family life): The state is bound to protect the
matrimonial life of the families and state is bound to safeguard this
Fundamental Rights but the said rights are being violated by the police.
Knowingly that the girl is married to another person, despite the decision of
Full Bench case (Hafiz Abdul Waheed Vs. Asma Jilani) reported in PLD
1997 Lah: 301 which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in PLD 2004
SC 219, still Family Courts Act has not been amended and power of
registration of marriage has not been conferred upon the Family Courts.
Thus state has failed to protect family life of the citizens, resulting in the
violation of Article 33.
27. Article 37 envisages that state shall arrange for the technical,
professional education to all on the basis of merits but the poor students are
being deprived of their access to higher education due to introduction of
self-finance scheme. The children of middle and poor class have been
deprived lived of the right of professional education due to poverty.
32. Article 38: The state shall care for the well being of the people and
facilities should be provided for livelihood within the available sources of
the country: but millions of people of Pakistan are deprived of their
livelihood under the garb of golden shake hand. The state is exploiting the
situation, four years back Trading Corporation of Pakistan purchased sugar
from the Mills at the rate of Rs.17 per kg and it was sold to the public at
Rs.30 per kg. Similarly, prices of Petrol and diesel as well as natural gas are
exorbitant. The local manufactured cars are very expensive due to
collaboration of the establishment. The social and economic well being of
the people has never been kept in view and the poor citizens are victim of
exploitation by the administration. The opportunities have not been provided
to the people within the available resources of the country. The common
man has been squeezed. The middle class has been eliminated and has fallen
into the lap of poverty. The unnecessary expenses on VIP culture should be
curtailed, then a lot of money will be available for the welfare of the poor
man.
33. Article 38 (a): envisages that "the concentration of the wealth will be
prevented. It has been held in PLD 1992 Lah: 277 that concentration of
wealth in few hands must be avoided. It has been declared by the Supreme
Court in 2004 PSC 453 that we have no hesitation in our mind that land
cannot be allotted to any person who is in service of Central/Provincial
Government, any development authority, Semi-Government, Institution and
Local Bodies": as such, allotment of land to the Generals is unwarranted.
But in spite of the above said decision the land is being allotted to the
Generals thus frustrating the clause (a) of Article 38, whereby, the wealth is
being concentrated in a class. Objectives of Article 38 can only be achieved
and concentration of wealth can be prevented when the prices of the
commodities come out to affordable prices:-
i) When the corruption will not be validated and the same will be
unearthed.
iii) Allotment of land and plots to the Generals will be stopped and
these resources will be utilized for the masses, otherwise, this Article is
ineffective: The same may be deleted from the Constitution due to its
ineffectiveness.
34. Article 38 (e): The state shall reduce disparity in the income of earning
of individuals, but in Pakistan certain individuals are receiving exorbitant
remuneration and the services of subordinate staff are terminated and they
are being hanged at the altar of golden shake hand: as such, millions of
employees have been deprived of their livelihood. Article 38 (e) also
narrates that state shall eliminate RIBA but after the remand of the case by
the Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court has failed to perform its
Constitutional functions The state has failed to eliminate RIBA: thus Article
38 (e) has become redundant.
35. Article 63: In view of the rule laid down in PLD 1995 Lah: 541 (Ch.
Iltaf Hussain case), this Article has become redundant because at the time of
the filing of nomination papers, disqulaification cannot be kept in view and
only qualification can be taken into consideration. This rule of law has been
approved by the Full Bench (PLD 1998 Lah. 461, Mr. Rafique Tarrar case)
whereby the question of disqualification cannot be considered at the time of
filing of nomination papers; the same has resulted in the redundancy of this
Article because now a disqualified person can be elected. These judgments
have paved the way for unconstitutional protection to the violaters of the
constitution, on the other hand it has been held in PLD 2002 Lah: 521 (Umar
Ahmad Ghumman case), "the disqualification comes into play the moment a
person becomes a candidate or seeks election". It was also held in 1995 CLC
158 that Haji Aman Ullah Khan petitioner was an employee of Afghan
Refugee Foundation as such he cannot contest the election within bar of two
years. It is held in 1993 MLD 2489 that Article 62 and Article 63 are
interlinked and have to be read together and not in isolation. Abida Hussain
was an Ambassador on contract basis as such she was disqualified to contest
the election. The above interpretation has resulted to negate this Article.
Thus, the Supreme Court of Pakistan was penalized and scraped when the
Court was interpreting Article 63.
40. Article 175 (2): provides that any Constitutional Court shall not have
jurisdiction unless it is conferred by the Constitution or under any law. The
Constitution can only be amended by the parliament under Articles 238 and
239 of the Constitution and the Constitution can only be amended if not less
than 2/3 members of the total house pass the Constitutional amendment bill,
thus the powers for the amendment of the Constitution can neither be
exercised by any Court nor by any individual: but the powers of the
amendment of Constitution has been conferred by the Supreme Court of
Pakistan in Zafar Ali Shah case PLD 2000 SC 869 and subsequently in 2007
ignoring Article 175(2) of the Constitution.
41. Article 175(3): The judiciary has been separated from the executive
keeping in view the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharaf Faridi
case, PLD 1994 SC 105. The said Article is a self-operating provision of the
Constitution and separation has taken place since August 1987, while
keeping in view the direction by the Supreme Court, the process of
separation has been implemented, as such, Article 175(3) is a past and closed
transaction and is no more required for future guidance.
42. Article 203(d), (3-a): This clause was introduced when the Parliament
was not in existence. Now the laws cannot be amended by the President or
the Governor. Laws can only be amended by the Parliament as such this
clause is liable to deletion being superfluous one.
43. Article 212: The unfettered and unrestricted powers of the executive to
appoint Chairman and members of the Service Tribunal is affecting the
independent functioning of the tribunals, because members of the tribunals
carry a sense of obligation to the executive for having been appointed by
them. The appointment of the members and the Chairman has prejudicial
effect on the independence of the tribunal. Secondly, as envisage by the
proviso of Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 an appeal does not lie
to the tribunal unless the aggrieved person has preferred an appeal,
application, review or representation before the concerned authority and a
period of 90 days has not expired, thus, the aggrieved persons have been
deprived of any legal remedy till the expiry of 90 days which amounts to
denial of justice through the subordinate legislation. The aggrieved persons
cannot be deprived of right of judicial review for this long period of 90 days.
Even otherwise, the Service Tribunal has no original jurisdiction, as such,
the Article 212 and the law enacted by the legislature has practically
frustrated the right of judicial review available to the aggrieved persons
under Article 199 of the Constitution.
44. Article 230(4): The Islamic Ideology Council shall submit its final
report within 7 years of its appointment. The Constitution was enforced in
1973. Islamic Ideology Council has failed to submit its final report within
stipulated period. Such report has not been laid before the Parliament within
the requisite period nor the laws have been amended in accordance with the
final report, as such, it is a mockery with Constitution to retain such
provision which is ineffective.
45. Articles 238 & 239: Prescribe the procedure for amendment of the
Constitution. Only Parliament can amend the Constitution while the
Constitution cannot be amended by votes of less than 2/3 majority of the
total members of the House. The said Article does not confer powers upon
Supreme Court lo allow an individual to amend the Constitution: thus, the
said Articles have not been kept in view while granting permission to amend
the Constitution to the Chief of Staff in Zafar Ali Shah case, PLD 2000 SC
869 and subsequently by the newly inducted judges in 2007.
46. Article 244: This Article envisages that every member of armed forces
of the Pakistan takes oath prescribed in the III Schedule. Oath prescribed in
the Schedule clearly envisages that the deponent shall not be engaged in the
political activities: But needless to mention that the then Chief of Staff was
busy in the political activities, thus, frustrating his oath under Article 244 of
the Constitution. Engineer Jamil Malik was dismissed from service on this
ground that he is a government servant and is involved in political activities.
His order of dismissal was upheld by the Supreme Court in PLJ 2004 SC
108, but in violation of this judgment former Chief of Staff is busy in the
political activities. This attitude is haunting the public at large.
47. Article 253: envisages that the Parliament can prescribe maximum
limit of property that can be owned, possessed or controlled by any person,
but the land Reforms were declared to be against the injunctions of Holy
Qur'an and Sunnah in PLD 1990 SC 99; as such, this Article was practically
omitted from consideration. Now any person can retain unlimited holding.
This Article of the Constitution has become ineffective due to above said
judqment.
48. Article 270(c): is a new proivsion and the same was incorporated
through Legal Frame Work Order, 2002, whereby, the Judges of the
Constitutional Courts having taken oath under Oath of office (Judges) Order,
2002, the oath was validated. But on the other hand, the Judges who were
not given the oath they were not allowed to be restored. Nothing can be said
more than this that the amendment has frustrated the independence of
judiciary, even otherwise, the same is a stigma upon the Constitution and the
same should be deleted.
49. The self serving amendments have altered the basic structure of the
Constitution and the same has been mutilated by the rulers. The biggest
failure of the rulers is to develop a national consensus on workable
framework and the Constitution has lost its sanctity.
51. Only democracy can provide economic dividends to the people. Now
the people are suffering because we have failed to evolve a system of good
governance. We should follow the Constitution for achieving the welfare of
the people.
52 No doubt, the Constitution is a document for all times to come which
flourishes with the passage of time and in accordance with the requirements
of the society. The Constitution is a permanent document. Thus it is essential
that undemocratic amendments should be omitted from it.