Statute, vires of
Statute, vires of legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Where validity of a statute or provision thereof is questioned and there are two interpretations, one which makes the law valid, is to be preferred over the other which renders it void
Criteria before Court, for determining vires of a provision of law is that Court must be able to hold beyond any iota of doubt that violation of Constitutional provisions was so glaring that Legislative provision under challenge could not stand
Without such violation of Constitutional provisions, law made by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be declared bad.
Where validity of a statute or provision thereof is questioned and there are two interpretations, one which makes the law valid, is to be preferred over the other which renders it void
Criteria before Court, for determining vires of a provision of law is that Court must be able to hold beyond any iota of doubt that violation of Constitutional provisions was so glaring that Legislative provision under challenge could not stand
Without such violation of Constitutional provisions, law made by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be declared bad.
Provision in a statute which was unconstitutional, must be struck down and erased from the statute.
"Statute, vires of", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124959181
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Statute, vires of"
P L D 1980 Peshawar 137
Haji MULTAN ZAREEN AND 56 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W. F. P. AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 2026 Lahore 190
QASIM ALI — Appellant Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 2 others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1977 Lahore 1426
MESSRS IQBAL & Co., JHANG‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑ Vires of legislation‑Legislative Assembly unless satisfactorily established to be incompetent to legislate ‑Mere doubt, cannot be considered enough to vitiate a law made by such Assembly‑Any reasonable doubt in respect of legitimacy of Parliament‑Enough for superior judiciary to declare it incompetent to bring about any change, in Constitution, superior judiciary being under oath to preserve, protect, and defend Constitution.‑‑Legislature.2022 P T D 1730
Messrs PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. and others Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others
Court: Islamabad High CourtP L D 1997 Lahore 499
and Muhammad Asif Jan, JJ Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑‑Respondent Writ Petition No.2694 of 1990, decided on 2nd February, 1997. (a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑‑
Court: ‑‑‑‑S. 3(f)‑‑‑"Public purpose"‑‑‑Definition‑‑‑"Public purpose" which has not been defined in its generic sense in S.3(f), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an expression which is a relative term and will depend and vary from one particular set of facts and circumstances to another such set‑‑‑"Public purpose" is an object in which the general interest of the community as opposed to the particular interest of individuals is directly and vitally concerned‑‑‑ "Public purpose", however, will have to be a purpose which is in furtherance of the general interest of the community at large as opposed to the particular interest of an individual but at the same time "public purpose" does not cease , to be so simply because incidental benefits will ensure to private individual.‑‑Words and phrases.P L D 1976 Supreme Court 277
MESSRS AMIN SOAP FACTORY‑Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Court:2015 S C M R 1739
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through D.-G. and others — Appellants Versus Ms. IMRANA TIWANA and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 2026 Lahore 262
FAHAD AKRAM BHATTI and another — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1988 Q uetta 22
ZAHIRUDDIN and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑‑Ss.367, 424‑‑Five appeals decided by one common judgment‑ Effect‑‑Appellate Court had dealt with the legal as well as factual aspects of case‑‑Point was common in all appeals as nature of offence was same; all of the accused took a common stand and point for determination was same‑‑Common judgment, held, could not be. said to have prejudiced accused in any manner and Appellate Court had not failed to abide by the provisions of Ss.367 and 424, Cr.P.C. in circumstances.‑‑Judgment.2020 M L D 2049
ARWEN TECH (PRIVATE) LTD. Through Authorized Representative — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law and another — Respondents
Court: Sindh