GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, through Secretary, Home Department, Lahore vs ZIA ULLAH KHAN and others
The Government of the Punjab sought leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court that examined the establishment and continuance of Special Courts for Speedy Trials under Act XV of 1987 as amended by Ordinance No. XIX of 1988. The core legal questions involved whether the impugned legislation was discriminatory, violated Articles 10 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and whether the Ordinance had expired, rendering the courts incompetent to continue proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions raised involved the interpretation of constitutional provisions of general effect and public importance. Consequently, the Supreme Court suspended the effect of the impugned judgment so as not to affect proceedings taken by the Special Courts after 13th February 1989 until the date of the impugned judgment. The key principle laid down is that matters concerning the constitutional validity and interpretation of special trial legislation of public importance warrant a full appeal before the apex court.
- Whether the establishment of Special Courts for Speedy Trials under Act XV of 1987 violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the impugned legislation afford adequate protection to the accused as required by Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- What is the effect of the expiration of Ordinance No. XIX of 1988 on the continuance of proceedings before the Special Courts?
- Article 10, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 25, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The Government of the Punjab seeks leave to appeal against the consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 30-9-1989 passed in a number of Constitution Petitions and two Criminal Petitions wherein the establishment and the continuance of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials under Act XV of 1987 as amended by Ordinance No,XIX of 1988, was challenged.
2. The argument advanced was that the legislation was discriminatory, violated Article 25 of the Constitution, did not afford adequate protection to the accused as required by Article 10 of the Constitution and the Ordinance having expired on 12th February 1989, the Courts did not function or continue the proceedings. After hearing elaborate arguments and by a detailed judgment, the High Court recorded the following findings which have been summarised in Para.47 of the judgment as hereunder:-
3. The conclusions that follow from the foregoing discussion are summarised hereunder:-- "(i) that the impugned legislation though discriminatory on account of some of its provisions being disadvantageous/prejudicial to the accused subjected to trial before the Special Courts for Speedy trials are not hit by Article 25 of the Constitution as the impugned law has provided for reasonable classification permissible in law."
4. We consider that the questions raised in this Petition are common to a large number of other cases and relate to interpretation of constitutional provisions having general effect. The questions raised are of public importance and leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. The effect of impugned judgment is suspended so as not to affect the proceedings taken by the Special Courts after the 13th of February, 1989, till the date of impugned judgment.