2002 PLP 39 (CLC)
Miss ROBINA SHEIKH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 39 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J |
| Parties | Miss ROBINA SHEIKH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 39 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 39 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 39 (CLC) (Miss ROBINA SHEIKH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Farooq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court ‑‑‑Scope‑‑ Constitutional petition was based upon the petitioner's personal perceptions about different concepts of religion and not upon any Constitutional or legal issue‑‑‑Petitioner sought direction of the High Court to the Federal Government to amend certain law so as to highlight the difference between "Jihad" and "Terrorism" and not to persecute certain organizations by branding them as terrorist organizations‑‑‑ Validity‑‑‑High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution cannot direct the Government to amend any law‑‑‑Courts of justice are not proper fora for canvassing matters which essentially lie in the sphere of public policy or interpretation of religious beliefs‑‑‑Constitutional petition, being misconceived, was dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the present petition is that in the wake of terror? attacks on some buildings in the United States of America on September 11, 2001 a war has been waged by the United States of America, and its allies against some Muslim countries and organizations and under the pressure of the United States of America and its allies the Government of Pakistan has been forced to adopt a blurred vision confusing the concept of Jihad with terrorism. Thus, through the present writ petition the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the Government of Pakistan to distinguish between Jihad and terrorism, to suitably amend section 6 of the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997 so as to highlight the difference between Jihad and terrorism and not to persecute the so‑called Jihadi organizations in Pakistan by branding them as terrorist organizations.
2. I have felt that the present writ petition is based upon the petitioner's personal perceptions about different concepts and not upon any, Constitutional or legal issue. It is not within the domain of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to direct the Government of Pakistan to amend any law. Even otherwise Courts of justice are not proper fora for canvassing matters which essentially lie in the sphere of public policy or interpretation of religious beliefs. This petition is misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. M.B.A./R‑88/L Petition dismissed.