P L D 1998 SC 823
SYED MASROOR AHSAN AND OTHERS
ARDESHIR COWASJEE AND OTHERS
Present: Ajmal Mian, C.J., Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Munawar Ahmad Mirza, Sh. Ijaz Nisar, Abdur Rehman Khan, Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Preamble—Interpretation of Constitution of Pakistan—Principles.
We have a written Constitution, which is an organic document designed and intended to cater to the needs for all times to come. It is like a living tree; it grows and blossoms with the passage of time in order to keep pace with the growth of the country and its people. Thus the approach while interpreting a Constitutional provision should be dynamic, progressive and oriented with the desire to meet the situation, which has arisen effectively. The interpretation cannot be narrow and pendantic but the Courts’ efforts should be to construe the same broadly, so that it may be able to meet the requirements of an ever-changing society. The general words cannot be construed in isolation but the same are to be construed in the context in which they are employed. In other words, their colour and contents are derived form the context.[p. 1005]S
(b) Interpretation of Constitution
It may be observed that one of the settled principles of construction of provisions of a Constitution/statute is that they are to be construed in a manner which may give effect to each and every word of the same and which may harmonize the working of the same and which may achieve the object under-lined in the relevant provisions. If I were to accept the contentions of Messrs Ch. Muhammad Farooq, S. Sharifudding Pirzada and S.M. Zafar, the words “Subject to the Constitution” appearing in clause (1) o f Article 66 of the Constitution will be rendered redundant/surplusage which will run counter to the well-settled principle of interpretation of a Constitutional provision and also against the intention of the Framers of the Constitution as the above words were not used in the corresponding provisions of late Constitution of 1962, namely, Article 111. The above words were deliberately used by the Framers of the Constitution. This will also run counter to the independence of Judiciary which is one of the main feature/hallmark of our Constitution. [p. 1018, 1019] CC
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Arts. 2A, IJ
I may also observe that we as the Pakistani nation should learn tolerance and inculcate the habit of appreciating the opposite point of view. Furthermore, our approach should not be short-sighted or prompted by expediency, but should be oriented with the object to promote Islamic, social and political justice and to achieve the goal of establishment of an egalitarian society, which cannot be attained unless we strive to strengthen the institutions including the Judiciary. I may state that without an independent Judiciary neither there can be stability in the country nor the rule of law, which are sine qua non for a progressive State.[p. 1124] NNNN
(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Preamble
It may be seen that Constitution envisages trichotomy of powers whereby rights and responsibility of three organs of the State namely (i) Legislature, (ii) Executive and (iii) Judiciary; have been expressly specified. These organs are exclusive in themselves with regard to respective domain or jurisdiction, and cannot make inroad or transgress spheres of each other. However, each of these organs may be fashioned and function in variety of different shapes and forums.[p. 1245] II
(e) Interpretation of Constitution
It may be seen that comprehensive interpretation of Constitution is not only inherent prerogative of Superior Courts but also their obligation under the Constitution. Principle of law in this behalf by examining precedent case-law was elaborately interpreted in Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324 and Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 84.[p. 1252] KK
Per Raja Afrasiab Khan, J.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article. 67, 69 &199—
A personal of Article 69 ibid shows that validity of any proceedings in the Parliament cannot be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure while Article 67 shows that any proceeding in the House shall not be rendered invalid on the ground that some persons, who were not entitled to do so sat, voted or otherwise took in the proceedings. The proceedings of the House are being challenged before us on the premises of the participation of respondents Nos. 4 to 110, who allegedly were not competent to sit in the House. Apart form the position that the allegations are not well founded the proceedings would not be open to question legally in view of the cumulative effect of Articles 67 and 69 of the constitution. We are fortified in our view by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lt.-Col. Farzand Ali as well as full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of A.M. Khan Laghari v. Government of Pakistan (P L D 1967 Lahore 227) and Lt.- Col. Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan 1980 S C M R 909. The relevant portion of the judgment in case of Lt.- Col. Farzand Ali and others. [p.492] A, B & C.
This brings us to the third proposition as to whether it is a fit case for issuance of writ of quo warranto. Suffice it is to observe that Assembly having been dissolved over two years back, it is not a for case for issuance of a writ of quo warranto and not a case covered by Article 199(1)(b)(ii). The following passage of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lt.-Col. Farzand Ali may be reproduced hereunder as the same squarely answers this proposition as well: — [p.497] D