h1

P L D 1979 SC 991

HAMID SARFARAZ

V/S

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER


Per Anwarul Haq, C.J.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Articles 188 & 184(3)

Constitution of Benches — Chief Justice, duty of — Constitution of Benches for hearing and disposal of cases coming before his Court — Undisputed privilege and duty of Chief Justice, whether of High Court or of Supreme Court — No litigant or lawyer permitted to ask for his case being hearing by a Bench of his choice — Even though instant petition may involve references to a previous decision of Supreme Court yet petition not a petition for review of judgement in aforesaid case — Every Bench of Supreme Court, as far as question of interpretation of previous judgment concerned, held, competent to undertake such exercise and to suggest otherwise amounted to uncalled reflection on ability and capacity of Judges not sitting on original Bench -[Practice and procedure]. [p.993]

BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO V. THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF PLD 1977 SC 657 REF.

CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN (1973), ARTICLE 184(3) — Judges of superior Courts — Duties and responsibilities — Court observations — Judges of superior Courts, particularly of Supreme do not think on regional lines nor do they decide matters on parochial and provincial considerations — Supreme Court Judges constantly mindful of having to thin, live, and act in terms of being Pakistanis, and cease to think and act as Punjabis, Sind his, Pathans or Balochis and every Judge fully conscious of great responsibility falling upon Court to do even-handed justice to all citizens of Pakistan, irrespective of their origin or domicile — Any insinuation to contrary condemnable in strongest terms and not to be countenanced — Petition under consideration filed at L and fixed for preliminary hearing immediately after ensuing holidays before all six Judges available at L according to regular roster of Court as previously notified before filing of said petition — Suggestion that all Judges comprising Bench hearing petition having been drawn from a particular region should not hear petition, held, most regrettable and even mischievous – [Court observations] (p.993)

CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN (1973), ARTICLE 100 & 207 —Attorney-General — Audience, right of — Merely prescribing certain qualifications for appointment as Attorney-General –Does not mean his being governed by same disability as applied to a Judge of Supreme Court — [correct position] Attorney-General functions under Article 100 and given right of audience in all Courts and Tribunals — Attorney-General also under duty to give advice to Federal Government upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character as may be referred or assigned to him by Federal Government — Irrespective of Attorney-General’s submission for having been functioning as Federal Law Minister mot under 1973 Constitution but under an ad hoc arrangement made by President and Chief Martial Law Administrator, Attorney-General, held could be required to undertake extra duties in terms of Article 100 and for such reason alone would not cease to be Attorney-General nor would lose his right of audience in all Courts and Tribunals of Pakistan — Contention that by being assigned extra functions of looking after portfolio of law and Parliamentary Affairs, incumbent of office of Attorney-General stood disqualified from appearing in Supreme Court accordingly erroneous – Incumbent of office of Attorney-General being present in Court in pursuance of a notice issued by Court to assist Court in his capacity as Law Officer of Court at preliminary hearing of petition, no occasion, held further, arose to object to his presence before Court. [Attorney-General] (p.994)

CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN (1973), ARTICLE 184(3) — Supreme Court Judges — Independence of — Court observations — Supreme Judges bound by their oath of office to do justice without fear or favour — Whether person appearing before Court combines in himself office of Attorney-General and Law Minister or any other offices of realm — Matters little — Insinuation that judges of Supreme Court would not be able to do justice in matter as either they would feel beholden to Attorney-General combining in himself office of Law Minister for their appointment, or they would feel intimidated in his presence because of his power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them, held, highly inappropriate and deprecable and made without fully realising its mischievous implications. [Court observations – Supreme Court] (p.995)

ARTICLE 184(3) – Court observations — Real intention all along having been to request for adjournment or withdrawal of petition — Court left with wonder as to what compelled petitioner’s counsel to cast unwarranted reflections on composition, independence, impartiality and competence of Bench to deal with matter to dispute competence of a person to appear before Court as Attorney-General. [Court observation] (p.995)

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: