1989 PLP 523 (SCMR)
Grp. Capt. (Retd.) CECIL (SOHAIL) CHOWDH RY — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 523 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | Grp. Capt. (Retd.) CECIL (SOHAIL) CHOWDH RY — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 523 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 523 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 523 (SCMR) (Grp. Capt. (Retd.) CECIL (SOHAIL) CHOWDH RY — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzur Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th October, 1988.
- Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzur Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.184--Constitutional jurisdiction of Supreme Court--Petition by a non Muslim against manifesto of a political party apprehending that due to said manifesto certain restrictions were likely to be imposed upon the educational institutions run by the petitioners community--Competency of--Manifesto, being a public declaration of a political party, apprehension, if any, in the mind of petitioner was unfounded--Mere issuance of a manifesto does not give a cause of action or right of grievance to a person especially when no question of law of public importance is to be examined by Supreme Court or violation of any Article of the Constitution is involved--Petition being devoid of merit dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Cecil (Sohail) Chaudhry, Christian,, resident of 72/H Gulberg‑3, Lahore, has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184 by means of this petition. He has cited three respondents‑‑Federation of Pakistan; Election Commission of Pakistan and Maulana Fazalur Rehman, President of Jamiat‑e- Ulama‑e‑Islam (Fazalur Rehman Group) D.I. Khan. The petitioner is a retired Group Captain from the Pakistan Air Force. He rendered meritorious services as a result of which he was awarded Sitara‑e -Jur'at and Sitara‑e‑Basalat. He is proud of his career. The case of the petitioner is that being a law abiding citizen and loyal to the state he has always been obedient to the Constitution and the law. As such he is entitled to equal protection of law as envisaged by Article 25 of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The constitution provides guarantee for his rights. Non-Muslims are at par with their Muslims brethren so far as enjoyment of fundamental rights are concerned. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted that the election manifesto issued by respondent No3 offends against the very spirit of the Constitution. It was argued that according to the manifesto if respondent No3 comes into power he or his party would put a ban on the non‑Muslims on their being appointed to the key posts. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner apprehends that due to the manifesto certain restrictions are also likely to be imposed upon the educational institutions run by the Christian community. Learned counsel then referred to certain Articles of the Constitution. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Manifesto is a public declaration of a political party. The apprehension, if any, in the mind of the petitioner is unfounded. Respondent No3 is yet to go a long way. We don't think that the mere issuance of a manifesto gives a cause of action or right of grievance to the petitioner especially when we have not come across any question of law of public importance to be examined or violation of any Article of the Constitution. Leave is declined; petition dismissed. AA./C‑28/S Petition dismissed.