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

Const. Petition No.127 of 2012 3324. In the case of Miss Asma Jillani (supra), dealing with acriminal appeal wherein question arose, whether the High Courthad jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan(1962) to enquire into the validity of detention under the MartialLaw Regulation No.78 of 1971 in view of the bar created by theprovisions of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Removal of Doubts) Order,1969 and the doctrine of law enunciated in the case of State versusDosso (PLD 1958 S.C. (Pak.) 533), the successive manoeuvrings forusurpation of power under the Pseudonym of Martial Law werejustified or valid, the Court while discussing various principles ofinterpretation of statutes held that: no duty is cast on the Courtsto enter upon purely academic exercise or to pronounce uponhypothetical questions: Courts’ judicial function; is to adjudicateupon real and present controversy formally raised before it by thelitigant; Court would not suo moto raise a question or decide it;doctrine of stare decisis is not inflexible in its application; lawcannot stand still nor can the Courts and Judges be made mereslaves of precedent. In this case finally upholding the doctrine ofnecessity it was further observed that the transactions which arepast and closed may not be disturbed as no useful purpose can beserved by reopening them.25. In the case of Sh. Liaqat Hussain (supra) reviewing thejurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 184 (3) of theConstitution, it was held that law if validly enacted cannot bestruck down on the ground of malafide but the same can be struckdown on the ground that it was violative of Constitutionalprovision. Further with reference to Article 6 of the Constitution,application of doctrine of necessity was rejected. Moreover, theconcept of public importance within the meaning of Article 184 (3)