Legislation

While determining vires of delegated legislation, it must be examined whether it exceeds the authority granted by the parent statute, whether the prescribed procedure for its formulation was followed, and whether it aligns with the object of the enabling law

Rules and regulations, being forms of subordinate legislation, cannot override or contradict the principal statute

Their purpose is to elaborate on procedural details, not to alter the core provisions of the parent law

While such rules may be treated as part of the statute for practical application, they retain their subordinate character and may only be struck down if found repugnant to the purpose or established principles of the parent legislation.

Where the statute provides a detailed framework, the scope for delegated legislation is narrow; conversely, where the statute lays down general principles, broader delegation is permissible to fill in administrative and procedural details

Delegated legislation serves to ease legislative burden and respond flexibly to evolving circumstances

Underlying assumption is that while the legislature sets the policy, the Executive is empowered to work out the operational specifics.

The doctrine of double aspect operates on the premise that a single subject may legitimately attract both federal and provincial legislative competence

Where federal and provincial laws on the subject offer different constitutional purpose then there will be no need to strike down either law

In such a case, the doctrine of double aspect, rather than the doctrine of pith and substance, offers the more appropriate approach to uphold the validity of both enactments.

Appellant (Insurance Company) was penalized by the Director /HOD of Adjudication Department of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Respondent)

Argument of the appellant was that delegation of powers under S. 156 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, to respondent amounted to sub-delegation

Validity

Section 156 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, was is a penal clause that was delegated in different persons to adjudicate the matters involving violations of the substantive provisions of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000

Furthermore, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan ('Commission') had delegated its powers through SRO No. 1545(I)/2019 ('the SRO') to various persons, therefore, it was not sub-delegation, rather it was a direct delegation of powers

Sub-delegation was the process whereby a delegatee further delegates powers delegated tohim to any third person, however, in the present case, the Commission directly delegated its powers to different persons including the Respondent (Director /HOD of Adjudication Department of Commission), therefore, it could not be considered as sub-delegation

Even the preamble of the SRO was self-explanatory, that the Commission had delegated its powers through the SRO to different officers, therefore, the question of sub-delegation did not arise

Even otherwise, S. 156 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, was not relevant to the present case because neither the Show Cause Notice was issued under the said section nor the impugned order had relied upon the said provision

Misreporting of financial facts was a serious violation and the misreporting of admissible assets by the Appellant for calculation of solvency had been duly established by the Respondent which included "related party" receivables while calculating solvency

Appeal, filed by Insurance Company, was dismissed.

Where words of statute are clear and unambiguous, provision should be given its plain and normal meaning, without adding or rejecting any words

Departure from literal rule, by making structural changes or substituting words in a clear statutory provision, under the guise of interpretation will pose a great risk as the changes may not be what the Legislature intended or desired

Court cannot recast or reframe legislation, as it has no power to legislate

Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there unless principles of interpretation of statute require otherwise

Legislature means what it says and says what it means

It is the obligation of Courts of law to further clear intendment of Legislature and not to frustrate it by ignoring the same

Legislative wisdom cannot be replaced by the Judge's views.

Where words of statute are clear and unambiguous, provision should be given its plain and normal meaning, without adding or rejecting any words

Departure from literal rule, by making structural changes or substituting words in a clear statutory provision, under the guise of interpretation will pose a great risk as the changes may not be what the Legislature intended or desired

Court cannot recast or reframe legislation, as it has no power to legislate

Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there unless principles of interpretation of statute require otherwise

Legislature means what it says and says what it means

It is the obligation of Courts of law to further clear intendment of Legislature and not to frustrate it by ignoring the same

Legislative wisdom cannot be replaced by the Judge's views.

Implementing and enforcing laws in right dimensions represents unfeigned strategy through which government authorities put laws into action for effective and meaningful compliance under their beneficiaries

Effectual and proficient implementation of law is not only essential for maintaining order but it also guarantees justice, evenhandedness and equality in society with impartiality

Tool of judicial review is also a significant modus operandi that authorizes Courts to dwell on legislative competence, the Constitutionality of law and executive actions, to analyze whether the law aligns with Constitutional mandates and whether its implementation is fair and just, without any arbitrariness or discrimination

This is necessary for safeguarding and upholding rights of people as a key element in strengthening rule of law.

Where words of statute are clear and unambiguous, provision should be given its plain and normal meaning, without adding or rejecting any words

Departure from literal rule, by making structural changes or substituting words in a clear statutory provision, under the guise of interpretation will pose a great risk as the changes may not be what the Legislature intended or desired

Court cannot recast or reframe legislation, as it has no power to legislate

Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there unless principles of interpretation of statute require otherwise

Legislature means what it says and says what it means

It is the obligation of Courts of law to further clear intendment of Legislature and not to frustrate it by ignoring the same

Legislative wisdom cannot be replaced by the Judge's views.

Legislature cannot enact any provision whatsoever which is inconsistent with, or violative of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution

Any such provision must be tested on the touchstone of Constitutionality and struck down if found to be inconsistent with fundamental rights.

Implementing and enforcing laws in right dimensions represents unfeigned strategy through which government authorities put laws into action for effective and meaningful compliance under their beneficiaries

Effectual and proficient implementation of law is not only essential for maintaining order but it also guarantees justice, evenhandedness and equality in society with impartiality

Tool of judicial review is also a significant modus operandi that authorizes Courts to dwell on legislative competence, the Constitutionality of law and executive actions, to analyze whether the law aligns with Constitutional mandates and whether its implementation is fair and just, without any arbitrariness or discrimination

This is necessary for safeguarding and upholding rights of people as a key element in strengthening rule of law.

The principle of non-retroactivity was first articulated in Roman law, where, already by the end of the second century B.C. it applied in both criminal and civil law to protect the existing legal order and economic interest

Its significance is such that the individuals should be able to rely on laws in the expectation that the State will not afterward interfere with individuals' rights

This expectation would help to ensure the equality of all before the law, guarding predictability and legal certainty

The principle of non-retroactivity is actually a fundamental concept (in law) and it makes sure that statute/law is applied prospectively, rather than retrospectively

Its basic and most important purpose is to protect rights of individuals and organizations by preventing arbitrary or unjust applications of the relevant law

This principle is essential in ensuring that the laws and regulations are applied in a fair and transparent manner

One of its legal features is to restrict the enactment of retroactive laws, which can undermine trust in the legal system and create uncertainty

So, it can be safely stated that non-retroactivity is the legal principle that laws do not apply retroactively and ex-post facto laws are forbidden

This principle may be applied to judicial decisions as well as statutory law.

Act or statute cannot be amended through a notification or subordinate enactment.

Policy, in absence of sanction of law or legislative authorization, cannot be acknowledged as a vehicle to restrict exercise and enjoyment of qualified fundamental rights

Executive authority cannot be allowed to expropriate the rights through policy-making mechanism, unless policy is hedged by law

Rules do not extend policy making authority without sanction of law/legislative authorization.

Courts have formulated the doctrine of judicial restraint which urges Judges considering constitutional questions to give deference to the views of the elected branches and invalidate their actions only when constitutional limits have clearly been violated

As the legislative acts of a legislature are the manifestation of the will of the people exercised through their chosen representatives, the courts tread carefully to judicially review them and strike them down only when their constitutional invalidity is clearly established beyond any reasonable doubt

Reasonable doubt is resolved in favour of the constitutional validity of the law enacted by a competent legislature by giving a constitution-compliant interpretation to the words that create such doubt.

Courts can judicially review the acts of the legislators if they offend the Constitution, in particular the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution

While examining this conflict of rights and the legislation, the courts must consider that they are dealing with a legislative document that represents multiple voices, myriad policy issues and reflective of public ethos and interests, voiced through the chosen representatives of the people; and remembering that undermining the legislature undermines democracy

With this background, only if such a legislation is in conflict and in violation of the fundamental rights or the express provisions of the Constitution, can the courts interfere and overturn such a legislation.

Courts cannot force the legislature to act upon their recommendations nor can they strike down any law competently enacted by the legislature which does not commensurate with their recommendations.

Parliament is a constitutional body, but being comprised of the chosen representatives of the people of Pakistan it attains the status of a prime constitutional body

Any action made or decision taken by the majority of a constitutional body is taken to be and treated as an action or decision of that body as a whole comprising of all its members, not only of those who voted for that action or decision

Any member of a constitutional body who was in the minority in making that decision can not challenge the validity of that decision in court

Principle that decisions taken by a majority of members in a constitutional body (like a parliament or legislature) usually cannot be directly challenged in court by those in the minority is rooted in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers

Democratic systems are often built on the principle of majority rule; this ensures that decisions reflect the will of the majority while still respecting the rights of the minority

Allowing minority members to easily challenge majority decisions would undermine this fundamental democratic principle.

Legislative power of Parliament does not exhaust by enactment of any law nor does Parliament become functus officio by making a law, on a particular subject

Doctrines of exhaustion and functus officio are not applicable to legislative powers

Legislature that has made any law is competent to change, annul, re-frame or add to that law

Even the legislature of today cannot enact a law, whereby the powers of a future legislature or of its own to amend a law are curtailed.

Parliament can legislate on any matter it is authorized under the Constitution, but it cannot reverse or set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court

Even an express pronouncement in a statute, and that too, through a non-obstante clause, cannot render the decision of the Supreme Court non-binding

Such an action would constitute an attempt to reverse a judicial decision rendered in the exercise of judicial power, which lies beyond the legislative domain

However, it cannot be denied that the effect of a judicial decision can be nullified by legislative action

Legislature can alter even with retrospective effect, the law which formed the basis of the judicial decision; the provisions on which the decision of the Court was based on may be altered, so fundamentally that, the decision no longer remains applicable to the altered circumstances

More importantly, the vires of any such law cannot be questioned on the ground that it nullifies the judgment of the Court

However, the same may be questioned being violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is competent to examine the vires of a statute, if it has been enacted in derogation of any of the provisions of the Constitution.

If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of the legal process, it is for the legislature to amend, modify, or repeal it, if deemed necessary

If blunders are found in legislation, they must be corrected by the Legislature, and it is not the function of the Court to repair them.

Rules are progeny of a statute, which are made by competent authority in exercise of its delegated legislative power under such Act and application thereof is empowered, confined and limited to the law under which those are framed.

Federal Shariat Court directed Secretary Law and Justice to ensure special care in legislative drafting.

Strong presumption of constitutionality, legislative competence, legality, reasonableness and intra vires was attached with subordinate legislation

To strike down such delegated legislation, the challenger was required to show that the same impinged upon Fundamental rights, or conflicted with any Constitutional provision, or there was lack of legislative competence on part of the delegatee making it, or it was being beyond the scope of the parent statute.

Such legislation was always aimed to further the object and purpose of the law and was deemed as an effective measure to keep the law well abreast with the change of time and embrace modernism in functional efficiency by exercising the mandate provided under the law.

Strong presumption of constitutionality, legislative competence, legality, reasonableness and intra vires was attached with subordinate legislation

To strike down such delegated legislation, the challenger was required to show that the same impinged upon Fundamental rights, or conflicted with any Constitutional provision, or there was lack of legislative competence on part of the delegatee making it, or it was being beyond the scope of the parent statute.

Such legislation was always aimed to further the object and purpose of the law and was deemed as an effective measure to keep the law well abreast with the change of time and embrace modernism in functional efficiency by exercising the mandate provided under the law.

Legislature had the right to re-enact a law on the same subject, which on account of legal infirmities in its enactment process had been declared invalid by a Court of law, by removing the causes that led to its invalidity

Legislature was also competent to make the re-enacted law applicable retrospectively in order to bind even the past transactions that had been declared invalid.

Delegatee must have legislative guidelines to formulate Rules and Regulations, and such guidelines, contours or boundaries must come from the Legislature (Parliament) itself

Legislature could confer upon any person or body the power to make subordinate/delegated legislation (Rules, Regulations or byelaws, etc.) in order to give effect to the law enacted by it yet it must perform itself the essential legislative function, i.e. to exercise its own judgment on vital matters of policy and enact the general principles providing guidance for making the delegated legislation.

Such declaration may be given on the ground of incompetence of Parliament to enact the law or for a violation of Fundamental Rights by the enacted law

Declaration given solely on the ground of incorrect arithmetical calculation, lack of rational basis or reasonableness of the statute was devoid of legal foundation

Such grounds, if at all, were criteria for testing the validity of executive action and not legislative measures.

To validate any action or omission, declared not in accordance with law, retroactive laws were enacted to supply validity through Legislative fiat

Ex post facto law was one which operated upon a subject not liable to it at time the law was made

Ex post facto law or retroactive law was which retroactively changed the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to enactment of the law.

Subordinate legislation, which did not follow the relevant provisions and was so declared by a Court, could be validated by the same Legislature, which had delegated such powers, to be exercised in a particular manner under the relevant provisions

When a condition could be imposed by the Legislature for exercise of delegated power, it could also be waived by the same Legislature for a particular subordinate legislation, and such waiver could not said to be a Legislative judgment.

To validate any action or omission, declared not in accordance with law, retroactive laws were enacted to supply validity through Legislative fiat

Ex post facto law was one which operated upon a subject not liable to it at time the law was made

Ex post facto law or retroactive law was which retroactively changed the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to enactment of the law.

Subordinate legislation, which did not follow the relevant provisions and was so declared by a Court, could be validated by the same Legislature, which had delegated such powers, to be exercised in a particular manner under the relevant provisions

When a condition could be imposed by the Legislature for exercise of delegated power, it could also be waived by the same Legislature for a particular subordinate legislation, and such waiver could not said to be a Legislative judgment.

Moment a law was passed it carried impression of perfection/completion to meet the situation (objective) for which it was

Time or change in situations may open the possibilities of 'amendments' in a law but such plea (of making amendments in the law) could never be an excuse not to give effect to the same.

Law may be regarded as reasonably appropriate and adapted or proportionate to the achievement of a legitimate purpose consistent with the system of representative and responsible government if the law was suitable, necessary and adequate in its balance

Law was suitable in that sense if it exhibited a rational connection to its purpose, and a law exhibited such a connection if the means for which it provided were capable of realising that purpose

Where a law had a significant purpose consistent with the system of representative and responsible government mandated by the Constitution (of Australia) and it was suitable for the achievement of that purpose, such a law was not ordinarily to be regarded as lacking in necessity unless there was an obvious and compelling alternative which was equally practicable and available and would result in a significantly lesser burden on the freedom/right in question

If a law was presented as suitable and necessary in such senses, it was regarded as adequate in its balance unless the benefit sought to be achieved by the law was manifestly outweighed by its adverse effect on the freedom/right.

When a certain provision was of procedural nature, retrospective effect could be given by the legislature.

Fiscal notifications-Regulation and issuance of fiscal notifications was in the nature of subordinate legislation.

Regulation and issuance of fiscal notifications was in the nature of subordinate legislation

Legislature while enacting a special law for awarding punishment for a crime, in its wisdom, may or may not describe any particular category of persons who could be prosecuted

Where a special law after making a particular act an offence also described the category of persons who could be prosecuted then unless such person fell within the described category, he could not be prosecuted

Where the special law only described the offence or a set of offences and sought to punish any person and every person who was found to have committed the described offence then terms like `anyone', 'any person' `whoever' and 'whosoever' were used for the offenders in order to include all offenders without any distinction

In such a case, the offender may belong to any class of offenders, he as an accused could be prosecuted under such law.

Law should be saved rather than be destroyed and court must lean in favour of upholding constitutionality of legislation

Rule of constitutional interpretation is that there is a presumption in favour of constitutionality of legislative enactments unless ex facie it is violative of constitution.

Legislative power cannot be delegated as the same would tantamount to violation of letter of Constitution.

Many verses of the Holy Quran prohibited evil and unjust practices/transactions (prevalent before Islam), with immediate effect and stopped them forthwith, however such verses expressly provided that past and closed transactions were left untouched and, rather, waived off, even from the "Akhirath" point of view.

Such a commitment made either through a resolution or legislation, whereby the powers of a future legislature to amend a law were abridged would not bind a successor legislature or even the same legislature.

Delegated legislation entitled the delegate to carry out the mandate of the legislature, either by framing rules, or regulations, which translated and applied the substantive principles of law set out in the parent legislation or by recourse to detailed administrative directions and instructions for the implementation of the law

Delegated legislation was intended to enforce the law, not override it, and it could be used to fill in details but not vary the underlying statutory principles

In case of conflict delegated legislation must yield to the legislative will, as it was below and not above the law

Minutiae could be filled in but the basic law could neither be added to nor subtracted from.

Delegated legislation entitled the delegate to carry out the mandate of the legislature, either by framing rules, or regulations, which translated and applied the substantive principles of law set out in the parent legislation or by recourse to detailed administrative directions and instructions for the implementation of the law

Delegated legislation was intended to enforce the law, not override it, and it could be used to fill in details but not vary the underlying statutory principles

In case of conflict delegated legislation must yield to the legislative will, as it was below and not above the law

Minutiae could be filled in but the basic law could neither be added to nor subtracted from.

Where the legislature had given an enactment retrospective effect with clear intendment spelt out from its language, then no protection to the alleged vested rights of a party could be offered contrary to it.

Legislature had the authority to promulgate or amend a law with retrospective effect by intendment.

Where the legislature had given an enactment retrospective effect with clear intendment spelt out from its language, then no protection to the alleged vested rights of a party could be offered contrary to it.

Legislature had the authority to promulgate or amend a law with retrospective effect by intendment.

Court could not sit in judgment over the wisdom of the legislature and strike it down except on two grounds, namely, lack of legislative competence and violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision

Presumption was always in favour of the constitutionality (of an enactment) and a law would not be declared unconstitutional, unless the case was so clear as to be free from doubt and that too on the basis of the said two grounds

No enactment could be struck down just by saying that it was arbitrary and illegal or that the Court thought that it was unjustified

Motive of the Legislature in passing a statute was beyond the scrutiny of Courts coupled with any irregularity of procedure under Art.69 of the Constitution

Nor could the courts examine whether the Legislature had applied its mind to the provisions of a statute before passing it

Propriety, expediency and necessity of a legislative act was to be determined by the legislative authority and not the courts

Where the validity of the statute was questioned and there were two interpretations, the one which would make the law valid had to be preferred over the other which would render it void.