Home Maxims & Terms Parliamentary supremacy meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Parliamentary supremacy

Parliamentary supremacy legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2012 PLD 774 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Part III, Chap.2 [Arts.50 to 89]Parliamentary supremacyConcept of Parliamentary supremacy in the context of the Constitution of PakistanScope

His Lordship observed that there was no justification in our dispensation, for muddying the crystal and undefiled waters of our constitutional stream with alien and antiquated, 19th Century Diceyan concepts of Parliamentary supremacy, and that it was about time, that we unchained ourselves from the shackles of obsequious intellectual servility to colonial paradigms and started adhering to our own peoples' Constitution as the basis of decision making on constitutional issues.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Parliamentary supremacy", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124938126

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Parliamentary supremacy"

CLC 2017
2017-February-27

2017 C L C 1204

MAL PAKISTAN LTD. through Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division and Ex-Officio Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue and another — Respondents

Court: Sindh
PLD 2019
2018-June-26

P L D 2019 Sindh 209

K-ELECTRIC (PVT) LTD. through authorized Officer/Attorney and others Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 2022
their own merits by the regular Bench(es) of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of the Sacked Employees Reinstatement Act 2010, subject to the declaration made at para (i) above

P L D 2022 Supreme Court 64

HADAYAT ULLAH and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 2001
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13 of 2001 in Constitutional Petition No.NIL/2001 and Crl. O.P. Nil/2001, decided on 13th June, 2001.

P L D 2001 Supreme Court 1028

Dr. A. BASIT, ADVOCATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court:
PTD 2016
Civil Appeals Nos.1428 to 1436 of 2016, decided on 18th August, 2016.

2016 P T D 2269

Messrs MUSTAFA IMPEX, KARACHI and others Versus The GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 2022
2021-October-1

P L D 2022 Islamabad 64

PAKISTAN MUSLIM LEAGUE (N) through Parliamentary Party Leader in Senate — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice and 3 others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 2016
2016-August-18

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 808

Messrs MUSTAFA IMPEX, KARACHI and others — Appellants Versus The GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 2025
2024-December-12

P L D 2025 Supreme Court 319

ADIL KHAN BAZAI — Appellant Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and another — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1990
Writ Petition No. .3972 of 1990, decided on 17th June, 1.990.

L D 1990 Lahore 401

WASI ZAFAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SPEAKER PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY ‑‑‑ Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑ Art. 199 ‑‑‑ Proceedings in Constitutional petition ‑‑‑ Adjournment ‑‑‑ Advocate General remained present on the last date of hearing ‑‑‑ Advocate‑General seeking adjournment through a private legal practitioner instead of deputing any one out of the Additional Advocates‑General and the team of the Assistant Advocates‑General, the Law officers appointed by the Provincial Government‑‑‑ Request for adjournment was opposed by the petitioner saying that adjournment was being sought to frustrate the petition as well as the prayer for interim relief and, if the request for adjournment was allowed petition would be rendered infructuous ‑‑‑ High Court, in view of such unprecedented conduct of Advocate General, and other Law Officers and the fact that no justification was made out for adjourning the petition, decided to proceed with the same and not to adjourn it and allowed the petitioner to continue with his arguments.‑‑Advocate General ‑‑‑ Adjournment.
SCMR 2013
Constitutional Petition No.126 of 2012, decided on 14th December, 2012.

2013 S C M R 1062

NADEEM AHMED ADVOCATE — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan