Oath of office

2023 PLD 105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 199 & 255Constitutional petitionOath of officeDelay, causing of

Dispute was with regard to administering oath to newly elected Chief Minister as Governor was reluctant either to take oath himself nor had appointed some other person in such regard

Validity

All enabling provisions/Articles of the Constitution, suggested prompt formation of Governments, i.e. Provincial and Federal

For such matter, expeditious administration of oath either by the President or by Governor or their nominee, as the case could be, was mandatory

All expected reasons/options causing delay were excluded/procured by suggesting/providing alternate mechanism

Vacuum or space existed in the Constitution for causing any delay in administration of oath required under the Constitution

Province of Punjab was being operated without functional Government for the last 25- days since acceptance of resignation of the then Chief Minister

Oath of newly elected Chief Minister, Punjab was being delayed on one pretext or the other, which was not only against democratic norms but also against scheme of the Constitution

High Court suggested / advised / proposed that Governor would ensure completion of process of administration of oath of Chief Minister Punjab, either himself or through his nominee, in terms of Art. 255 of the Constitution, within two days

High Court suggested the President of Pakistan to play his role mandated by the Constitution/Law, ensuring a functional Provincial Government in Punjab, as he was also under Constitutional obligation to facilitate expeditious administration of oath of Prime Minister or Chief Minister in any Province

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2013 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 255Oath of officeState functionaryOath of office, violation ofCommission of an illegal actEffect

Any violation of the oath of office or any other illegal act committed by a State functionary was a personal act for which the individual concerned would be liable in accordance with law, and the institution to which such individual might belong would not be involved in it in any way.