Interference by courts

Where a scheme of amalgamation approved by the requisite majority appears to be fair, just, reasonable and prima facie fulfills statutory requirements then the Court does not sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the scheme.

Scope of judicial review of Government policies stated.

Scope of judicial review of Government policies stated.

Limited scope of judicial review of an Award announced by an Arbitrator stated.

Courts must sparingly interfere in the affairs of academic institutions, therefore, it is best to leave the disciplinary, administrative and policy matters of educational institutions to the professional expertise of the people running them, unless of course there is a blatant violation of any of the fundamental rights or the law.

High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction does not interfere in the matters of examinations and/or admissions to the educational institutions as the authorities concerned are sole judges of the criteria laid down by the institutions in their prospectus and/or calendar unless an ex-facie case of jurisdictional error is pointed out.

Prospectus, rules and regulations framed by the public educational institution are meant as administrative policy of the respective institute, which are recognized and made applicable to all the candidates without any discrimination

In academic matters the University authorities are the best judges to interpret their Rules and Regulations

Normally courts are reluctant to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is made out otherwise it would become difficult for the universities to run their affairs.

Said order had been passed after ascertaining that organization was involved in the activities as described in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Administrative order passed by the Government was that of State of Pakistan

Government had power to declare any organization as a terrorist outfit

Chief Court under its writ jurisdiction was supposed to interfere sparingly in the administrative acts of State machinery and had to ascertain before any such interference as to whether liberty of citizen had curtailed without exercising the authority of State lawfully-Petitioners, however, were free to challenge the administrative acts of the government in any civil court as question raised through present petition were question of fact and required to be proved through evidence

Petitioners, individuals, had not been restrained from professing and practicing any established religion or sect

Petitioners were not members of any organization registered under any law governing the registration of any organization

Writ petition was not competent which was dismissed in circumstances.

Investigating agency could not be legally directed or instructed even by Constitutional Court to conduct inquiry/ investigation into a particular manner as it amounted to interference.

Responsibility of deciding suitability of an appointment, posting or transfer fell primarily on the executive branch of the State which comprised of both the political executive and civil servants

Decision making in relation to tenure, appointments, promotions and transfers remained rule-based and was not susceptible to arbitrariness or absolute and unfettered discretion

Courts ordinarily would not interfere in the functioning of the executive as long as it adhered to the law and established norms and acts in furtherance of its fiduciary responsibility.