2014 PLP 111 (SCMR)
WUKALA MAHAZ BARAI TAHAFAZ DASTOOR — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 111 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | WUKALA MAHAZ BARAI TAHAFAZ DASTOOR — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 111 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 111 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 111 (SCMR) (WUKALA MAHAZ BARAI TAHAFAZ DASTOOR — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th September, 2013.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 27-10-2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in I.C.A. No.884 of 2009.)
Arts. 199 & 185(3)
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Matters relating to foreign policy, defence and security of the country
Constitutional petition was filed before the High Court with the prayers that Federation should be directed to command the Armed Forces of Pakistan to defend Pakistan against external aggression carried out by American Forces under the cover of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which was in occupation of Afghanistan; that an authoritative declaration be made declaring United States of America an enemy State and for taking all measures provided by domestic law such as expulsion of its diplomatic personnel and seizure of assets; that if nuclear arsenal (of Pakistan) was found to be incapable of protecting Pakistan and instead posed a threat to its survival, Federation might be directed to either sell it in the international market to the highest bidder or to place it in the safe-custody of Iran
Issues raised in the constitutional petition and prayers made therein were relatable to matters of foreign policy, defence and security of the country
Such issues were neither justiciable nor they fell within the judicial domain for interference under Art.199 of the Constitution
Any such interference by the courts would be violative of one of the foundational principles of the Constitution, which envisaged at trichotomy of powers between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Leave is sought against the order dated 27-10-2009 vide which petitioner's Intra Court Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in Chamber was dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge in chamber was upheld. Vide the latter order the learned High Court had dismissed petitioner's Constitution petition, wherein following prayers were made:-- "(iii) Respondent Federation be directed to command the Armed Forces of Pakistan to defend Pakistan against the external aggression currently carried out by the American Forces under NATO cover which are in occupation of Afghanistan. (iv) An authoritative declaration be made that USA is an Enemy State and for taking all measures provided by the domestic law such as expulsion of its diplomatic personnel and seizure of assets. (v) If Nuclear Arsenal is found to be incapable of protecting Pakistan and instead poses a threat to its survival, respondent Federation may be directed either to sell it in international market to the highest bidder or to place it in safe-custody of Iran."
2. A bare reading of the afore-quoted prayers would indicate that the issues raised in the Constitution petition and the prayer made are relatable to matters of foreign policy, defence and security of the country. Such issues are neither justiceable nor they fall within the judicial domain for interference under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Any such interference by the courts would be violative of one of the foundational principles of the Constitution, which envisages a trichotomy of powers between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. That being so, we do not find the concurrent orders of the learned High Court to be exceptionable, warranting interference. The petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. MWA/W-4/SC Leave refused.