h1

1996 SCMR 1211

DR. AMANULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER

Versus

CHAIRMAN, MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL AND 3 OTHERS

Per Saad Saood Jan, J.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Articles 184(3), 4(2)(a), 25(1) & 9

The petitioner is no doubt a public spirited man and his efforts to cut down the menace of smoking in our country are indeed laudable. However, the jurisdiction of this Court to directly entertain applications under Article 184(3), ibid, is of a limited scope inasmuch as it is confined to the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights set out in Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution. On our inquiry the petitioner was unable to particularize the Fundamental Rights which he wanted to enforce through this petition. He made vague references to Articles 4(2)(a) and 25(1) of the Constitution. Article 4(2)(a) does not fall in Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution and in so far as Article 25(1) is concerned that deals with the equality of the citizens before law. The advertising campaign of cigarette companies on the television seem hardly to impinge upon his right to equal treatment before law. The only Fundamental Right which can possibly have any relevance to his application is contained in Article 9 which states that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty save in accordance with law. There is a possible justification for constructing this Article in a manner which will embrace quality of life as well. But then it may be mentioned that after every commercial shown on the television relating to the promotion of cigarette a warning by the Ministry of Health with regard to the hazard of smoking is invariably displayed. It is not case of the petitioner that he had attempted to run an anti-smoking campaign on the television on the same terms on which the cigarette manufacturing companies put on their commercials but he was denied the opportunity of doing so. This petition clearly does not fall within the restricted jurisdiction enjoyed by this Court under Article 184(3), ibid. In the circumstances, although we appreciate the efforts made by the petitioner for saving the nation from the hazards of smoking on the television for lack of jurisdiction. The application is dismissed. [pp. 1212 & 1213]A

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: