Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar M

Const. Petition No.127 of 2012 19would be operative from the date of its announcement and wouldhave no retroactive legal implications. In the case of M/s HaiderAutomobile Ltd (supra) and other connected case titled Province ofWest Pakistan versus Manzoor Qadir Advocate and another,dispute revolved around the availability of right of practice to aretired judge of the High Court of West Pakistan in view of the barimposed by Ordinance II of 1964. The Court held that thelegislature is competent to make a law and has full and plenarypowers in that behalf and can even legislate retrospectively orretroactively. There is no such rule that even if the Legislature has,by the use of clear and unambiguous language, sought to takeaway a vested right, yet the Courts, must hold that such alegislation is ineffective or strike down the legislation on theground that it has retrospectively taken away a vested right. Afterdetailed discussion, the learned five members Bench of the apexCourt unanimously held that the two learned former judges weredebarred by Ordinance No. II of 1964 from practicing in the HighCourt of West Pakistan or any Court or tribunal subordinate to it.In the case of Elahi Cotton Ltd, discussing some broad principlesof interpretation of statutes qua constitutional provisions viewexpressed by the Court was that the law should be saved ratherthan be destroyed and the Court must lean in favour of upholdingthe Constitutionality of a legislation, keeping in view that the ruleof Constitutional interpretation is that there is a presumption infavour of the Constitutionality of the legislative enactments unlessex facie it is violative of a Constitutional provision. It was furtherheld that where power is contained in the Constitution to legislate,one's approach while interpreting the same should be dynamic,progressive and oriented with the desire to meet the situation,