MR. JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, HCJ MR. JUSTICE FAQIR ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2008 AND CMA NO. 994 TO 996 OF 2008 26 contained in Article 62 and the law including the law made under Article 62(i) and do not suffer from disqualifications laid down in Article 63 of the Constitution and the law.” 18. The learned counsel further submitted that in PML (Q)’s case, on the question of reasonable classification permissible under Article 25, the Court noted the principles stated in I.A. Sharwani’s case and summed up the discussion with the following remarks:- “We need not refer to the plethora of case-law on the subject because the above principles summarize the entire case-law. Judging the Election Order in the light of the above principles, we are of the view that the education related qualification is reasonable and not arbitrary or whimsical because firstly, being a step towards transformation of the political culture it is founded on reasonable basis and secondly, it equally applies to all the graduates and does not discriminate any graduate or create a class within the graduates.” Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that not only there was divergence in the approach of the Court towards the two cases involving similar issues, it also did not advert to the fundamental question requiring determination whether the impugned educational qualification was reasonable on the touchstone of Articles 17(2) and 25 of the Constitution. He submitted that in PML (Q)’s case the Court held the graduation qualification as reasonable because of its equal application to all the graduates and there being no further classification of the graduates. But, in Javed Jabbar’s case, the Court held that the impugned legislation, although competently enacted and immune from challenge on the ground of mala fides, could not be allowed to remain on the statute book being violative of the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution. It could well be said that the disqualification applied to all those persons who had lost election of
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2008 AND CMA NO. 994 TO 996 OF 2008 27 the National or a Provincial Assembly and no class was created within them. 19. The learned Attorney General for Pakistan made reference to the case of Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 57) to contend that all efforts were to be made to preserve and to enlarge the scope of fundamental rights while interpreting the constitutional provisions. 20. The question of infringement of fundamental rights has engaged the attention of the Superior Courts, which have always dealt with these matters in all earnestness. In the case of F.B. Ali v. State (PLD 1975 SC 506) this Court elucidated the equal protection clause as under: - “Equal protection of the laws does not mean that every citizen, no matter what his condition, must be treated in the same manner. The phrase ‘equal protection’ of the laws means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other class of persons in like circumstances in respect of their life, liberty, property or pursuits of happiness. This only means that persons, similarly situated or in similar circumstances, will be treated in the same manner. Besides this, all law implies classification, for, when it applies to a set of circumstances, it creates thereby a class and equal protection means that this classification should be reasonable. To justify the validity of a classification, it must be shown that it is based on reasonable distinctions or that it is on reasonable basis and rests on a real or substantial difference of distinction. Thus different laws can validly be made for different sexes, for persons in different age groups, e.g., minors or very old people; different taxes may be levied from different classes of persons on the basis of their ability to pay. Similarly, compensation for properties acquired may be paid at different rates to different categories of owners. Such differentiation may also be made on the basis of occupations or privileges or the special needs of a particular locality or a particular community. Indeed, the bulk of the special laws made to meet special situation come within this category. Thus, in the field of criminal
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (O
Page 3 and 4: CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2008
Page 25: CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2008
Page 77 and 78:
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2008
show all

MR. JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, HCJ MR. JUSTICE FAQIR ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?