Home Maxims & Terms Legislative immunity meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Legislative immunity

Legislative immunity legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

1992 SCMR 1496 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Legislative immunity

When could be extended

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Legislative immunity", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/14444

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Legislative immunity"

SCMR 1992
Civil Review Petitions Nos. 4-K and 5-K of 1983, decided on 29th April, 1992.

1992 S C M R 1496

SHAMIM-UR-RAHMAN — Petitioner Versus FAUJI FOUNDATION, RAWALPINDI

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PTD 1998
N/A

1998 P T D 34

HUDABIYA ENGINEERING (PVT.) LIMITED Versus PAKISTAN

Court: Lahore High Court
SCMR 2019
Decided on 5th October, 2018.

2019 S C M R 165

JACQUES CHAGNON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF QU BEC — Appellant Versus SYNDICAT DE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE ET PARAPUBLIQUE DU QU BEC — Respondent and HONOURABLE SERGE JOYAL, P.C., AND SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO — Interveners

Court: Supreme Court of Canada*
PLD 1954
Miscellaneous Case No. 66 of 1952, decided on 21st July, 1952.

P L D 1954 Dacca 51

KHAIRAT HOSSAIN, M. L. A. and another‑Security‑Prisoners‑Petitioners Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF EAST BENGAL‑Opposite‑Party

Court:
PLD 2018
2018-June-12

P L D 2018 Supreme Court 686

Suo Motu Case No.2 of 2018 and Constitution Petition No.72 of 2011

Court: High Court
PLD 2002
Criminal Revision Application No.42 of 2002, decided on 19th March,

P L D 2002 Karachi 374

HAKIM ALI ZARDARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus TEE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Although the immunity available under section 5 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, is not available to the applicant in the present case, the contention that there is overriding provision in section 3 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, is not available to the applicant in the present case, the contention that there is overriding provision in section 3 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, looses its significance. It is provided in section 3 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, that the provisions of said Act shall take effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, the Customs Act, 1969, the Income tax Ordinance, 1979 or any other law for the time being in force. This overriding provision shall become operative if there is any conflict in the provisions contained in the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, and the provisions contained in the laws enumerated in section 3 or any other law for the time being in force. Nothing has been shown to us pointing out any conflict in the provisions contained in the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 and the provisions in the NAB Ordinance, 1999. p. 392 H
SCMR 2000
Criminal Petition No.54-K of 1999, decided on 6th August, 1999. (On appeal from the order, dated 30-7-1999 of the Sindh High Court passed in Cr. Misc. A. No.371 of 1998).

2000SCMR814

IRSHAD AHMAD SHAIKH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 2021
N/A

P L D 2021 Islamabad 194

Syed YOUSAF RAZA GILANI — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and 5 others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1979
Writ Petition No. 5625 of 1978, decided on 21st December 1978.

THE ALL PAKISTAN LECAL DECISIONS

Before Mushtaq Hussain, C. J. and Zakiuddin Pal, J Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, RAWALPINDI AND

Court: .-- Arts. 248 & 47 read with Government of India Act, 1935, S. 306Immunity, duration of--Article 248, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) and S. 306, Government of India Act, 1935 being couched in present tense applicable only to persons actually holding office at tune of invocation of protection of such Article or section-Legislature being not ignorant of S. 306, Government of India Act, 1935, omission of words "against any person who has been" from Art. 248(1), held, clearly shows Constitution-maker's intention to limit protection only to period during which dignitary concerned served and such immunity vanishes once such person removed from office or ceased to hold office for any other reason.-Interpretation of statutes Immunity.
PLD 1998
N/A

P L D 1998 Lahore 90

HUDABIYA ENGINEERING (PVT.) LIMITED — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan and 6 others — Respondents

Court: High Court