State Necessity, Doctrine of
State Necessity, Doctrine of legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Scope of doctrine of necessity; the circumstances in which it can be invoked and the Court's power to judicially review the exercise of such doctrine by the Government explained.
Inevitable necessity; exceptional circumstances; no other remedy to apply; measures taken being proportionate to the necessity and of temporary character, limited to the duration of exceptional circumstances, were the elements for application of the doctrine
Doctrine of State necessity is recognised not only in Islam and other religions of the world but also accepted by the eminent international jurists to fill a political vacuum and bridge the gap.
Conditions detailed.
"State Necessity, Doctrine of", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/1137
Precedents & Case Laws citing "State Necessity, Doctrine of"
PLD 2001 S C 233
WASIM SAJJAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Cabinet Division and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2000SCMR1137
Syed ZAFAR ALI SHAH and others — Petitioner Versus General PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1973 P L C 61
Ch. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM HALEEM Versus DR. M. S.H. SIDIDIQI AND ANOTHER
Court: 1st Sind Labour CourtP L D 1977 S C 657
BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO-petitioner Versus CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF AND FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN-Respondents .
Court: High CourtP L D 1979 Lahore 941
Before Aftab Farrukh, J Versus Talc STATE-Respondent
Court:PLD 2000 SC 869
Syed ZAFAR ALI SHAH and others — Petitioners Versus General PERVEZ.MUSHARRAF, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 1978 Lahore 478
GHULAM MUHAMMAD -Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And another Respondents
Court: --- S. 115-Estoppel-Doctrine 0f-Held, based on theory of plaintiff by acting on statement or conduct of defendant leaving changed his position arid likely to suffer loss if defendant allowed to go back on his statement or conduct.-Estoppel.2013 C L C 714
Makhdoom M. NIAZ INQLABI, ADVOCATE and others — Petitioners Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
Court: Islamabad2001 Y L R 1
PAKISTAN LAWYERS FORUM‑‑‑Appellant Versus General PARVEZ MUSHARRAF and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1979 Karachi 524
MUMTAZ ALI BHUTTO-Petitioner Versus MR. JUSTICE ANWARUL HAQ AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
Court: -- Art. 199(1), (5) read with Laws (Continuance in Force) (Fifth Amendment) Order, 1977 C. M. L. A.'s No. 6 of 1977, para. 2 Contention : Chief Martial Law Administrator having no legislative power to amend Constitution of Pakistan and such legislative exercise being not within scope of doctrine of State necessity, Bench of Supreme Court, headed by respondent No. 1 (appointed Chief Justice consequent upon promulgation of C. M. L. A's. Order 6 of 1977) not validly constituted and as such respondent No. 1 could not preside over Bench hearing a named appeal-No allegation in petition of respondent No. 1 being not qualified to be a Judge of Supreme Court or to hold office of Chief Justice of Pakistan-Petition quite clearly challenging act of respondent No. 1 as Chief Justice in constituting Bench of Supreme Court deciding named appeal and judgment given by respondent No. 1 in said appeal-Challenge thus laid to action of Chief Justice as a Court and not as a Judge in his individual capacity-Decision of Supreme Court reported as P L D 1976 S C 315, held, clearly leads to conclusion of petitions like present one being not maintainable.-Legislation.