1998 PLP 1161 (SCMR)
WUKALA MAHAZ BARAI TAHAFAZ DASTOOR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1161 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, C. J., Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Irshad Hasan Khan, Raja Afrasiab Khan, Mamoon Kazi, Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | WUKALA MAHAZ BARAI TAHAFAZ DASTOOR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑, Per Majority 6 to 1‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1161 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑, Per Majority 6 to 1‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1161 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, C. J., Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Irshad Hasan Khan, Raja Afrasiab Khan, Mamoon Kazi, Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1161 (SCMR) (WUKALA MAHAZ BARAI TAHAFAZ DASTOOR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court along with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P.No.24 of 1997).
- Syed Iftikahr Hussain Gilani, Advocate Supreme Court along with Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P.No.25 of 1997).
- Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Fazal‑e‑Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent/Federation.
- Dates of hearing: 17th to 20th March, 1998.
- Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court along with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P.No.24 of 1997).
- Syed Iftikahr Hussain Gilani, Advocate Supreme Court along with Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P.No.25 of 1997).
- Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Fazal-e-Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent/Federation.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Arts. 63A, 66 & 19‑‑‑Disqualification of member of a Parliamentary party on ground of defection etc. ‑‑‑Provision of Art.63A, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) is intra vires but subject to clarifications rendered by Supreme Court. Article 63A of the Constitution is intra vires but subject to the following clarifications: (i) That paragraph (a) to be read in conjunction with paragraphs (b) and (c) to Explanation to clause (1) of Article 63A of the Constitution. It must, therefore, follow as a corollary that a member of a House can be disqualified for a breach of party discipline in terms of said paragraph (a) when the alleged breach relates to the matters covered by paragraphs (b) and (c) to the Explanation to clause (1) of Article 63A of the Constitution and that the breach complained of occurred within the House. (ii) That paragraph (a) to Explanation to clause (1) of Article 63A of the Constitution is to be construed in such a way that it should preserve the right of freedom of speech of a member in the House subject to reasonable restrictions as are envisaged in Article 66 read with Article 19 of the Constitution. Notice. Ch. Muhammad Farooq,' Attorney‑General for Pakistan on Court's
Judgment & Decree
Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court along with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P.No.24 of 1997). Syed Iftikahr Hussain Gilani, Advocate Supreme Court along with Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P.No.25 of 1997). Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Fazal-e-Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent/Federation. Notice. Ch. Muhammad Farooq,' Attorney-General for Pakistan on Court's Dates of hearing: 17th to 20th March, 1998. By majority of 6 to 1 it is held that Article 63A of the Constitution is intra vires but by 4 to. 2 subject to the following clarifications: (i) That paragraph (a) to be read in conjunction with paragraphs (b) and (c) to Explanation to clause (1) of Article 63A of the Constitution. It must, therefore, follow as a corollary that a member of a House can be disqualified for a breach of party discipline in terms of above paragraph (a) when the alleged breach relates to the matters covered by aforesaid paragraphs (b) and (c) to the above Explanation to clause (1) of the aforementioned Article and that the breach complained of occurred within the House. (ii) That the above paragraph (a) to Explanation to clause (1) of Article 63A is to be construed in such a way that it should preserve the right of freedom of speech of a member in the House subject to reasonable restrictions as are envisaged in Article 66 read with Article 19 of the Constitution. Whereas by minority view paragraph (a) in the Explanation to clause (1) of Article 63A and clause (6) in the said Article of the Constitution are violative of the fundamental rights and are to be treated as void and unenforceable. M.B.A./W-10/S Order accordingly.