Pakistan Case Law
2010 PLD 1161

SINDH HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2010 PLD 1161
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.C.M.A. No.2981 of 2010 in Constitutional Petition No.9 of 2009
Date2010-10-18
Judge(s)Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Javed Iqbal, Mian Shakirullah Jan, Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Nasir-ul-Mulk, Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Muhammad Sair Ali, Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Jawwad S. Khawaja, Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Khilji Arif Hussain, Rahmat Hussain Jafferi, Tariq Parvez Khan, Mian Saqib Nisar, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Ghulam Rabbani and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter came up for implementation and compliance regarding earlier orders passed by the Supreme Court concerning the executive order and notification on the restoration of judges dated 16-3-2009. The core legal question involved ensuring compliance by State functionaries with binding judicial directions and reviewing the interim progress report of an inquiry committee constituted to probe media reports regarding potential withdrawal of the restoration order. The Court held that its previous order constitutes a binding decision under Article 189 read with Article 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and granted further time to the inquiry committee to submit its final report after addressing judicial reservations regarding certain expressions used in the preliminary observations. The key principle laid down is that all constitutional and State functionaries are bound to strictly observe judicial orders and maintain the rule of law and constitutionalism.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether constitutional and State functionaries are bound to comply with judicial orders under the Constitution?
  • Can an inquiry committee established pursuant to a court order be granted further time to submit its final report?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 189, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
  • Article 190, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
restoration of judgesconstitutionalismrule of lawcompliance reportbinding orderinquiry committee

ORDER

1. IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C J.--- Vide order dated 15-10-2010 while disposing of C.M.A. to the extent of the matter of withdrawal of executive order/notification vis-a-vis restoration of Judges dated 16-3-2009 pronounced by this Court in Sindh High Court Bar Association's case (PLD 2010 SC 1151), final order was passed and in paragraph 8(1) of the order following directions were issued:--

2. "8. In the light of the above, we direct:

(i) All the constitutional and State functionaries and administrative heads in the country to ensure that no action qua initiation of proceedings concerned withdrawal of the executive order (order of "restoration of Judges") dated 16-3-2009, status whereof has already been determined by this Court in its judgment in Sindh High Court Bar Association's case (PLD 2009 SC 789), is taken, intentionally or otherwise, by any of the functionaries as noted hereinabove, and all the constitutional and administrative heads/functionaries were restrained/refrained from doing so."

2. The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan has stated that in compliance with the order of the Court dated 15-10-2010 whereby he was required to communicate immediately the said order to all concerned, he has served the same upon 105 constitutional and State functionaries and administrative heads and also has already sent the compliance report to the Registrar.

3. The matter was postponed to enable the authorities/functionaries to put up report and statements, if desired. As far as reference to the statement is concerned, it pertains to the denial issued by the Chief Executive/Prime Minister, although the matter was finally disposed of, but to know about the desire of the concerned functionaries, the matter was fixed for today. The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan has categorically stated that no one has desired to submit a statement. Be that as it may, as the case has been disposed of by a binding order in terms of Art. 189 read with Article 190 of the Constitution, as noted hereinabove, therefore, it is up to the concerned authorities/functionaries to submit the statement or not.

4. According to Paragraph 8(ii) of the order dated 15-10-2010, the Government of Pakistan/Prime Minister was required to conduct an inquiry through an appropriate responsible functionary that if the statement of the former that no such action was being contemplated was true, then how that news in the print and electronic media was spread, and who was responsible for it, the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan has submitted that a Committee comprising of the following persons has been constituted:--

3. 1.

4. Mr. Hameed Haroon, President, All Pakistan Newspapers Society

5. Chairman

6. 2.

7. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Kazi, Secretary General, Pakistan Broadcasters' Association.

8. Member

9. 3.

10. Mr. Pervez Shoukat, President, Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists

11. Member

12. 4.

13. Mr. Najibullah Khan, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad

14. Member

15. 5.

16. Dr. Abdul Jabbar, Executive Member, PEMRA

17. Member

18. 6.

19. Mr. Muhammad Azam, Director-General (IP) M/O Information and Broadcasting

20. Member

21. He further submitted that preliminary observations of the Committee of Inquiry serve as an interim report. Perusal of the observations indicates that in one of the paragraphs, appropriate expressions have not been used for which the Court has its reservations and it wants to make it clear that the judiciary believes in the rule of law and constitutionalism and is performing its duty, and shall continue to perform it in future as well, according to the Constitution. However, the Committee may remove such expression in due course of time.

5. The learned Attorney General for Pakistan has stated that as the Committee could not complete its deliberations, therefore, for submitting final report, further time be given. We concede to the request so made by him. Case is adjourned to a date in office. However, on receipt of the report from the Committee, if need be, matter shall be heard in Court.

22. (Sd.)

23. Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.

24. (Sd.) (Sd.)

25. Javed Iqbal, J. Mian Shakirullah Jan, J.

26. (Sd.) (Sd.)

27. Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, J. Nasir-ul-Mulk, J.

28. (Sd.) (Sd.)

29. Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, J. Muhammad Sair Ali, J.

30. (Sd.) (Sd.)

31. Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, J. Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.

32. (Sd.) (Sd.)

33. Khilji Arif Hussain, J. Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J.

34. (Sd.) (Sd.)

35. Rahmat Hussain Jafferi, J. Tariq Parvez Khan, J.

36. (Sd.) (Sd.)

37. Mian Saqib Nisar, J. Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.

38. (Sd.) (Sd.)

39. Ghulam Rabbani, J. Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, J.

40. M. A. K./S-40/S Order accordingly.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.