P L D 1958 (W (PLP)

I. B. Khamisani A. A. G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th August 1958. INAMULLAH, J.‑

This is a petition under Article 170 of the Constitution by one Mst. Momina Khatoon wife of the detenu Ex‑Major S. M. Hasan, who had been detained by the Central Government since 29th March 1958 under subsection (1) of n9tion 3 of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952. The ground on which the detenu, as it would appear from the grounds supplied to him, has been detained, was, that he had been receiving substantial amounts of money from the diplomatic mission of a country, unfriendly to Pakistan, for organizing objectionable and subversive activities in furtherance of that country's designs, to disrupt the unity of the people of Pakistan and to cause serious cleavage between different sects of Muslims in this country. The grounds on which the order of the Central Government has been challenged, as given in the petition, are these :‑ (1) That the grounds supplied to the detenu are vague and indefinite. (2) That the order of‑detention is mala fide inasmuch as it is the result of the displeasure of Mr. A. T. Naqvi, the Secretary, Ministry of Interior. (3) That the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 having expired on 3rd October 1957, the same could not be amended by Amendment Act XIII of 1958. Mr. Lari, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, who appeared before us, confined his arguments to only two‑fold contention ; namely, (1) that an Act which has expired, cannot be amended by an Amending Act. (2) That the President has no power to extend an Ordinance by means of another Ordinance. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Lari, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it would be necessary to mention how the Security Act XXXV of 1952 was extended from time to time. The Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, was passed on 5th May 1952. It was to remain in force for a period of three years from the date of its commencement. This Act was extended by an Ordinance and thereafter by Act XVI of 1956, which received the assent of the President on 16th April 1956. According to this Act, the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 was amended so as to extend the life of the Act upto 30th April 1957. Before the expiry of the Act on 30th April 1957, Ordinance III of 1957 was passed by the President under Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan, whereby the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 was amended so as to extend the life of the Act upto 30th April 1958. The National Assembly met on the 22nd August 1957 and was prorogued on the 31st August 1957. Ordinance III of 1957 not having been laid before the National Assembly, under sub‑clause (2) of Article 69 of the Constitution, it was contended, ceased to operate from the midnight of 2nd October 1957. Before the expiry of six weeks, however, another Ordinance was promulgated by the President on 2nd October 1957, being Ordinance XI of 1957. According to this Ordinance, the life of the Security of Pakistan Act was extended up to 30th April 1958. The National Assembly thereafter met on 8th January 1958, and passed Act XIII of 1958. This Act was called Security of Pakistan (Amendment) Act 1958. This Act intro duced many changes in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and extended its life to 30th June 1958. On the statement of facts given above, Mr. Lari, in the first place, contended that the National Assembly having met after the President promulgated Ordinance III of 1957, the President had no power to promulgate Ordinance XI of 1957. His contention was that when the President had passed an Ordinance and the National Assembly met thereafter and the Ordinance was not laid before the National Assembly, the same ceased to operate after the expiry of six weeks after the meeting of the National Assembly. The Ordinance III of 1957, therefore, it was contended, ceased to be operative after the midnight of 2nd October 1957. In the next place, Mr. Lad contended that the Act having expired on the 2nd of October 1957; it could not be amended as there was no existing Act to amend. It was argued on this basis that Act XIII of 1958 cannot be said to be in operation and any action taken thereunder would be illegal. For the disposal of this petition, I think that it would be useful to dispose of the second contention first. If it is held that Act XIII of 1958 is valid and in operation, it would not be necessary to consider the question whether the President could legally promulgate Ordinance X

1. The present order of detention was passed after Act XIII of 1958 had received the assent of the President. Mr. Lari, in support of his contention that an Amending Act being not an Independent Act, but passed with a view to effect an improvement in the Original Act, could not be operative if the Original Act had already ceased to be in force, relied on a number of cases : namely, Jatindra Nath Gupta v. Province of Bihar, (A I R 1949 F C 175) ; In re Kalyanam Veerabhadrayya (A I R 1950 Mad. 243) ; Ram Kishan v. State (A I R 1951 All. 181) ; Mufti Masroor Ahmad v. R. M. Mithani (P L D 1953 Sind 20) and C. R. Gibbon and others v. Pakistan and others (P L D 1957 Kar. 950). The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon para. 115 at p. 170 of the "Interpretation of Laws" by Crawford 1940 edition, which runs as under :‑ "there are many different definitions of the terms "amendment" as it applies to legislation. Generally, it may be defined as "an alteration or change of something proposed in a bill or established as law". We are not, however, here concerned with the amendment of proposed bills, but with the amendment of existing laws. Thus limited, a definition, as suitable as any, defines an amendment as a change in some of the existing provisions of a statute." It was, however, conceded that the Legislature has full power to re‑enact and revive an Act which has expired. The) question, therefore, is whether Security of Pakistan (Amendment) Act, 1958 has purported to re‑enact the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952. On a perusal of Act XIII of 1958, I have no doubt that the Legislature intended to re‑enact the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952. In this connection, it would be useful first to reproduce section 2 of Act XIII of 1958, which reads as under:‑ "Amendment of section 1, Act XXXV of 1952.‑For sub section (3) of section 1 of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the said Act, the following shall be and shall be deemed always to have been substituted, namely :‑ "(3) It shall come into force at once and shall remain in force until the thirtieth day of June 1958"." The words, "shall be and shall be deemed always to have been substituted" are very significant. To my mind, the Legislature intended, while introducing these words, to re‑enact the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952. The effect of these words is that the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, was brought to life from the 5th of May 1952, when it came into operation, and was to continue till the 30th June 1958. There is no set rule of law as to how the Legislature should express its intention to revive or re‑enact an Act which has ceased to be in operation. All that the Court has to see is, whether the intention of the Legislature to re‑enact can be gathered from the language used by it. To my mind, the intention of the Legislature, as discloses in the words "shall be and shall be deemed always to have been substituted" is very clear. The intention is to revive and re‑enact Act XXXV of 1952. In this connection, a question may arise as to why the Legislature called Act XIII of 1958, as an Amendmen, Act. The reason, to my mind, is clear. If, once an expired Act is revived, it would be deemed to have been revived as a whole, and then, if any change is to be effected therein, it could only be done by an Amendment Act XIII of 1958, after reviving Act XXXV of 1952, brought about a number of changes therein. Moreover, Act XIII of 1958 would not be illegal merely because it is called an Amending Act, if it was otherwise valid. As I have taken the view that Security of Pakistan (Amendment) Act 1958, is a valid enactment inasmuch as it has revived and re‑enacted Security of Pakistan Act; 1952, the r question whether Act XXXV of 1952 is unconstitutional is not of much importance. The impugned order was passed on 29th 3 March 1958, after Act X111 of 1958 had come into operation: We would, for the reasons given above, dismiss the petition but would make no order as to costs. A. H. Petition dismissed.