1993CLC867 (PLP)
Dr. ABDUL MALIK IRFANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary, Ministry of Law
| Citation | 1993CLC867 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Sharlat Court |
| Bench Members | Fida Muhammad Khan, Mir Hazar Khan Khoso |
| Parties | Dr. ABDUL MALIK IRFANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary, Ministry of Law |
| Primary Law | Law Reports Act (XVIII of 1875)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993CLC867 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reports Act (XVIII of 1875)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993CLC867 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Sharlat Court bench comprising: Fida Muhammad Khan, Mir Hazar Khan Khoso.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993CLC867 (PLP) (Dr. ABDUL MALIK IRFANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary, Ministry of Law). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Petitioner in person. Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 6 [as amended by Law Reports (Amendment) Act 1989 (II of 1990)‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203‑D‑‑‑Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam ‑‑‑Vires of S.6, Law Reports Act, 1875 (as amended) on the touchstone of Injunctions of Islam‑‑‑Provision of S.6, Law Reports Act, 1875, has conferred discretion to a Court or Tribunal to approve any judgment or order to be published or not: it, however, does not put any restriction on publication of law but permits publication of orders/judgments which enunciate a principle of law or question of law which is of first impression or distinguishes one with permission of Court or Tribunal‑‑‑Such determination undisputedly could be better made by Authority, Court or Tribunal which had pronounced such judgment or order‑‑‑Petitioner having not been able to point out repugnancy of S.6, Law Reports Act, 18751, Injunctions of Islam, petition was dismissed. PLD 1980 SC 160 ref.
Judgment & Decree
For final determination. But no, by thy Lord, 'they can have No (real) Faith, Until they make thee judge In all disputes between them, And find in their souls No resistance against Thy decisions, but accept Them with the fullest conviction.
8. It may be observed that during the course of arguments attention of the petitioner was drawn to words of sub‑para. (2) of para. 6 of the petition and was asked as to who is competent to determine that publication of those laws which are necessary for information of people?
9. However, the petitioner could not submit valid explanation but while relying on PLD 1980 SC 160 stressed that every judgment and order was necessarily to be published for information and guidance of people.
10. It may be observed that in abovesaid sub‑para. the petitioner has stressed for publication of "Laws" when obviously this section also does not put any restriction on publication of laws but permits publication of orders judgments which enunciate a principle of law or a question of law which is of first impression or distinguishes one etc. with permission of a Court or Tribunal.
11. Undisputedly such determination could be better made. by Authority, Court or Tribunal which pronounces the judgment or order.
12. The view is supported by verse 83 of Sura Al‑Nisa. It reads as under:‑‑ When there comes to them Some matter touching (Public) safety or fear, They divulge it. If they had only referred it To the Apostle, or to those Charged with authority Among them, the proper Investigation would have Tested it from them (direct). Were it not for the Grace And mercy of Allah unto you, All but a few of you Would have fallen into the clutches of Satan.
13. So, is the intent of Articles 189 and 201 of the Constitution. They read as under:‑ "
189. Any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other Courts of Pakistan.
201. Subject to Article 189, a decision of a High Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all Courts subordinate to it."
14. The verses of the Holy Qur'an relied and quoted by the petitioner indeed are not relevant for declaring the impugned sections to be against the I Injunctions of Islam.
15. The petition is, therefore, devoid of force and is dismissed accordingly. This is the reasoning of our short order dated 2‑11‑1992. AA./767/FSC Petition dismissed.