Stretching of meaning
Stretching of meaning legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Constitution is a living and organic document prone to evolve and adapt to new circumstances even if it is not formally amended
Courts are required to adopt a broad based, dynamic, and progressive approach
Words either in the entries or in any provision of the Constitution are to be given a dynamic interpretation in keeping pace with development of society and exigencies of time
Entries do not confer any legislative power but only point out to the broad fields/legislative heads in which legislative powers can be exercised
Words have to be given ordinary, grammatical and natural meaning and cannot be construed in a narrow or pedantic manner
Limit to which a word can be stretched for a meaning is determined by the principle of 'pith and substance'
Pith detonates 'essence of something' or the 'true nature', while substance means 'most significant or essential part of something'
As such the doctrine is applied to ascertain purpose of a given law, its essential character and whether subject matter legislated on is related to Federation or not
By applying the doctrine, basic purpose and effect of the law are discovered and so also so the fact as to which level of government has jurisdiction or authority to frame the law
It can also be found out whether legislation, under challenge, made by one of the Legislatures, is rightly enacted or it has trespassed or encroached upon domain of other Legislature
By applying the doctrine, it can be determined whether or not Parliament has the authority to deal with a given subject.
Interpretation should be such that if stretched to its maximum elasticity it should not cross limits of rationality.
"Stretching of meaning", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124955432
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Stretching of meaning"
2016 P T D 622
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others Versus PAKISTAN THE SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION and others
Court: Sindh High Court1977 P L C 666
LAGHART CORPORATION, SADIQABAD Versus ALLAH DIWAYA
Court: IVth Labour Court PunjabP L D 2019 Federal Shariat Court 13
FAREHA BOKHARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
Court: High Court2008 Y L R 2505
REHAN NASIR — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, RAIL BAZAR, DISTRICT FAISALABAD and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore1991 C L C 1797
A. STRATTA ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondent
Court: LahoreP L D 1956 (W
GHULAM SARWAR‑Defendant‑Applicant Versus ALLAH BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents
Court:1986 P Cr
WARYAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
Court: Lahore2020 Y L R 1354
FAHEEM AHMED — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Sindh (Larkana Bench)2001 P T D 1328
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus HALAI MENON. ASSOCIATION
Court: 244 I T R 3572015 P T D (Trib
NIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, FBR, QUETTA
Court: Customs Appellate Tribunal