h1

P L D 2000 SC 84

AL-JEHAD TRUST through Raeesul Mujahidin Habib-ul-Wahab-ul-Khairi

V/S

THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and others

Per Irshad Hasan Khan, J.(a) Constitution of Pakistan(1973) Art. 184

It is true, that a direct petition under Art. 184(3) of the constitution is maintainable if the supreme court considers that a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the fundamental Rights conferred by chap. 1 of part II of the constitution is involved–if the petitioner succeeds in establishing breach of any of the fundamental Rights involving a question of “public” importance” he is entitled to the appropriate relief. [p. 88]A

(b) Constitution of Pakistan(1973) Art. 184

The allegations levelled in the petition that religious elements in the Army were being victimized were too vague and had been expressed in general terms not supported by any cogent material on record. It is true, that while considering the question of cause of action, the court should apply its mind to the facts given in the petition, and even if there is any vagueness about the pleadings, the party can take appropriate steps with permission of the court to remove the vagueness. This fact simpliciter was not enough to reject a plaint or a petition. In the present case, however, even during the course of arguments, the petitioner had failed to state with particularity the relief sought by him with reference to violation of any fraction of the fundamental Rights. [p. 88]B
(C) Constitution of Pakistan(1973) Art. 2 & 31

There is no force in the plea of the petitioner that the officers and men in the Armed forces are afforded full opportunity to lead their lives in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set-out in the Holy Qur’an and sunnah. Islam is the state religion of Pakistan as envisaged by Article 2 of the constitution. Islam is the basis of a complete code of life not for the individuals alone but for the entire humanity. It makes adequate provisions for every human being to order to his life in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam. It does explain the methodology as well as the means which the individual or the or the Government should adopt. It is also one of the principles of policy enshrined in the constitution of vide Article 31 of the constitution which enjoins that steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam and to provide facilities whereby they may be enabled to understand the meaning of life according to the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. No order has been passed by the Government/Armed forces and/or policy decisions taken by either of them not to follow the teachings of Islam. [p. 88, 89]C

(d) Constitution of Pakistan(1973) Art. 184

The petition when read as a whole shows that real grievance of the petitioner relates to the holding of trial and the procedure adopted by the Field General Court Martial at Attack under section 84(a) of the Pakistan Army Act by the Commander Rawalpindi Logistic Area in respect of the trial of then Major-General Zahirul Islam Abbasi and others inter alia on the allegation that they conspired to wage war against Pakistan so as to overthrow the Federal Government of Pakistan by means of criminal force. the holding of the aforesaid trial and the procedure adopted therein was challenged before this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, but the same was dismissed by majority of two to one on the ground that no question of public importance conferred by Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the Constitution was involved . [p. 89]D

Review Petitions bearing Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1996, filed against the said judgment were also dismissed by this Court. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to re-argue the same matter by adding few additional grounds. Even otherwise, the pleas raised in the petition are of academic nature based on vague, bald and general allegations, on the basis whereof no writ can be issued.

Resultantly, this is not a fit case for entertaining a direct petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which is hereby dismissed.[p. 89]E

(e) Constitution of Pakistan(1973) Art. 184

The allegations levelled in the petition that religious elements in the Army were being victimized were too vague and had been expressed in general terms not supported by any cogent material on record. It is true, that while considering the question of cause of action, the court should apply its mind to the facts given in the petition, and even if there is any vagueness about the pleadings, the party can take appropriate steps with permission of the court to remove the vagueness. This fact simpliciter was not enough to reject a plaint or a petition. In the present case, however, even during the course of arguments, the petitioner had failed to state with particularity the relief sought by him with reference to violation of any fraction of the fundamental Rights. [p. 88]B

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: