P L D 2000 Supreme Court 84 (PLP)

(Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 184(3)‑‑‑Constitutional petition before Supreme Court under Art. 184(3) of Constitution ‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Direct petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution is maintainable if the Supreme Court considers. that a question ok public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chap. 1 of Part II of the Constitution is involved‑‑‑If the petitioner succeeds in establishing breach of any of the Fundamental Rights involving a question of "public importance", he is entitled to the appropriate relief. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 184(3)‑‑‑Constitutional petition before Supreme Court under Art. 1840) of the Constitution‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Allegations levelled in the petition that religious elements in the army. were being victimized, were too vague and had been expressed in general terms not supported by any cogent material on record and even during the course of arguments, petitioner had failed to state with particularity the relief sought by him with reference to violation of any fraction of the Fundamental Rights‑‑‑Pleas raised in the petition being of academic nature based on vague, bald and general allegations, no writ could be issued on the basis thereof. In the present case the allegations levelled in the petition that religious elements in the Army were being victimized were too vague and had been expressed in general terms not supported by any cogent material on record. It is true, that while considering the question of cause of action, the Court should apply its 'Mind to the facts given in the petition, and even if there is any vagueness about the pleadings, the party can take appropriate steps with permission of the Court to remove the vagueness. This fact simpliciter was not enough to reject a plaint or a petition: In .the present case, however, even during the course of arguments, the petitioner had failed to state with particularity the relief sought by him with reference to violation of any fraction of the Fundamental Rights. Pleas raised is the petition were of academic nature based on vague, bald and general allegations, on the basis whereof no writ can be issued. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Arts. 2 & 31‑‑‑Islam to be State religion‑‑‑Islamic way of life‑‑‑Officers and men in the Armed Forces are afforded full opportunity to lead their lives in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah‑‑‑No order has been passed by the Government/armed forces and/or policy decisions taken by either of them, not to follow the teachings of Islam. The officers and men in the Armed Forces are afforded full opportunity to lead their lives in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set‑out in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. Islam is the State religion of Pakistan as envisaged by Article 2 of the Constitution. Islam is the basis of a complete code of life not for the individuals alone but for the entire humanity. It makes adequate provisions for every human being to order his life in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam. It does explain the methodology as well as the means which the individual or the Government should adopt. It is also one of the principles of policy enshrined in the Constitution vide Article 31 of the Constitution which enjoins that steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives to accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam and to provide facilities whereby they may be enabled to understand the meaning of life according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. No order has been passed by the Government/Armed Force and/or policy decisions taken by either of them not to follow the teachings of Islam. (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 184(3)‑‑‑Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX of 1952), S.84(a)‑‑‑Constitutional petition before Supreme Court under Art.184(3) of the Constitution‑‑?Maintainability‑‑‑Petition when read as a whole showed that real grievance of the petitioner related to the holding of trial and the procedure adopted by the Field General Court Martial under S.84(a), Pakistan Army Act, 1952‑‑?Procedure adopted in the trial was challenged before Supreme Court in a petition under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution which was dismissed on the ground that no question of public importance conferred by Arts. 9, 10 & 14 of the Constitution was involved‑‑‑Petitioner, in circumstances, could not be allowed to re‑argue the same matter by adding a few additional grounds. Mrs. Shahida Zahir Abbasi end 4 others v. President of Pakistan and others PLD 1996 SC 632 ref. ' (e) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑‑‑Art, 184(3)‑‑‑Constitutional petition before Supreme Court under Art.184(3), of the Constitution‑‑‑Cause of action‑‑‑Vagueness in pleadings ‑‑‑Remedy‑‑?While considering the question of cause of action, Court has to apply its mind to the facts given in the petition and even if there is any vagueness about the pleadings. the party can take appropriate steps with permission of the Court to remove the vagueness‑‑‑Such tact simpliciter is not enough to reject a plaint or a petition. Petitioner in person. JUDGMENT IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.‑ This petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), inter alia, calls in question the legality of proceedings of the Field‑General Court Martial of the then Major‑General Zahir‑ul‑Islam Abbasi. The reliefs prayed for read as under:

2. We have heard the petitioner and perused the material available on record. On Court's query, Mr. Habib-ul‑Wahab‑ul‑Khairi, petitioner, appearing in person, frankly conceded that there is no live issue to be adjudicated upon in these proceedings in so far as it relates to the reliefs claimed in sub‑clauses (1), (2), (3) and (8) of the prayer clause. He, however, pleaded that this Court in exercise of its powers under Artic4e 184(3) of the Constitution be pleased to issue the writ for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights in respect of remaining reliefs vide sub‑clauses (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the prayer clause reproduced above. 3.???????? It is true, that a direct petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is maintainable, if this Court considers that a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by A Chapter 1 of Part‑I1 of the Constitution is involved. If a petitioner succeeds in establishing breach of any of the Fundamental Rights involving a question of "public importance", he is certainly entitled to the appropriate relief. . 4.???????? The allegations levelled in the petition that religious elements in the Army are being victimized are too vague and have been expressed in general terms not supported by any cogent material on record. It is true, that while considering the question of cause of action, the Court should apply its mind to the facts given in the petition, and even if there is any vagueness about the s pleadings, the party can take appropriate steps with permission of the Court to remove the vagueness. This fact simpliciter is not enough to reject a plaint or a petition. In the instant case, however, even during the course of arguments, the petitioner has failed to state with particularity the relief sought by him with reference to violation of any fraction of the Fundamental Rights.

5. There is no force in the plea of the petitioner that the officers and men in the , Armed Forces are not afforded full opportunity to lead their lives in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set‑out in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. Islam is the State religion of Pakistan as envisaged by Article 2 of the Constitution: Islam is the basis of a complete code of life not for the individuals alone but for the entire humanity. It makes adequate provisions for every human being to order his life in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam. It does explain the methodology as well as the means which the individual or the Government should adopt. It is also one of the principles of policy enshrined in the Constitution vide Article 31 of the Constitution which enjoins that steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with I the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam and to provide facilities whereby they may be enabled to understand the meaning of lire according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. There is nothing on record to show that any order has been passed by the Government/Armed Force and/or policy decisions taken by IC either of them not to follow the teachings of Islam.

6. The petition when read as a whole shows that real grievance of the petitioner relates to the holding of trial and the procedure adopted by the Field General Court Martial at Attock under section 84(a) of the Pakistan Army Act; by the Commander Rawalpindi Logistics Area in respect of the trial of then Major‑General Zahirul Islam Abbasi and others inter alia on the allegation that they conspired to wage war against Pakistan so as to overthrow the Federal Government of Pakistan by means of criminal force. The holding of the aforesaid trial and the procedure adopted therein was challenged before this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, but the same was dismissed by majority of two to one on the ground that no question of public importance conferred by Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the Constitution was involved. Refer Mrs. Shahida Zahir Abbasi and 4 others v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD ..?1996 SC 632). In the above judgment the scope of Article 184(3) of the Constitution was also examined with reference to exhaustive case‑law on the subject. Review Petitions bearing Nos.50, 51 and 52 of 1996, filed against the said judgment were also dismissed by this Court. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to re‑argue the same matter by adding few additional grounds. Even otherwise, the pleas raised in the petition are of academic nature based on vague, bald and general allegations, on the basis whereof no writ can be issued.

7. Resultantly, this is not a fit case for entertaining a direct petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which is hereby dismissed. M.B.A./A‑203/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.