Home Maxims & Terms Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex meaning in Urdu
Maxim Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex

Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2013 PLD 38 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Salus populi est suprema lex

2000 SCMR 1137 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Salus populi suprema lex

:-Applicability.

2000 PLD 869 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
"Salus populi est suprema lex"

Applicability.

1998 SCMR 1462 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex ......Salus populi est suprema lax" (regard for public welfare is the supreme law).

1990 MLD 2123 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

"Salus populi suprema lex" connotes that interests of public are supreme and that private interests are subordinate to the interests of the State.

1990 MLD 1232 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex"Salus populi suprema lex"Interests of public are supreme

Private interests are subordinate to the interests of the State.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3410

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex"

PLD 1979
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3836/B of 1979, decided on 12th November,1979.

P L D 1979 Lahore 941

Before Aftab Farrukh, J Versus Talc STATE-Respondent

Court:
CLC 1998
Intra‑Court Appeals Nos. 379 to 382 of 1998, decided on 11th May, 1998

1998 C L C 1585

Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mian MANZOOR AHMAD WATTOO‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Lahore
CLC 2020
2019-October-24

2020 C L C 1279

ABDUL WAJID and 10 others — Petitioners Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION and others — Respondents

Court: Peshawar
PLD 2003
Constitutional Petition No.36 of 2002, decided on 7th October, 2002.

P L D 2003 Supreme Court 74

Khan‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE/PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN, and another‑‑‑Respondents

Court:
MLD 2001
Writ Petition No. 1309 of 1987, decided on 16th November, 2000.

2001 M L D 729

and Physical Planning Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REV.) and 6 others ‑‑‑ Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 1999
Writ Petitions Nos., 4417, 3330, 4753 and 4006 of 1998, decided on 2nd May, 1998.

P L D 1999 Lahore 115

Mian MANZOOR AHMAD WATTOO‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents

Court: ‑‑‑‑Ss. 3(xxvi‑a), 6‑A, 9‑A, 12(2), proviso, 12‑B, 49‑A as added by Punjab Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance (I of 1998)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 2A, 4, 25, 32 & 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition ‑‑‑Vires of Punjab Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 1998‑‑‑Petitioners in their Constitutional petitions had challenged validity of certain provisions of Punjab Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 1998 which had introduced Punchayat System in rural areas and had provided for nomination of members of Panchayats and Union Councils, instead of elected representatives ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Nomination was a word unknown in realm of elections which could not be countenanced in present progressive times‑‑‑Fate of people could not be subjected to choice of Deputy Commissioner who would nominate members, as choice of people through election was a norm which had been recognised by all civilized societies‑‑‑Nomination which would be made by Government in power, would negate commands of Art.32 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973), whereby State would encourage Local Government institutions composed of elected representatives of the area‑‑‑Amending Ordinance which had introduced Panchayat System and nomination at grass roots, was retrogressive and against commands of Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑Every citizen having the right to be equally treated as provided under Arts. 4 & 25 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973) urban population could not be treated differently than rural population and urban population could not be placed at higher footing than rural population‑‑‑Right of vote which had been snatched from rural population by promulgation of Amending Ordinance was discriminatory and could not be sustained‑‑‑Contention that Union Council was redundant in rural areas and that by removal thereof rural population had been brought at par with urban population suffered from in‑built fallacy‑‑‑If a Union Council was surplus, legislative measure should have been taken to remove same rather than to keep it with a different composition and that, too, of nominated members which was highly undemocratic‑‑‑Provision of Punjab Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 1998, which had introduced Panchayat System and had provided for nomination of members of Panchayats and Union Councils instead of elected representatives were declared to be ultra vires of Constitution of Pakistan (1973) and were struck down.
PLD 2013
2012-November-13

P L D 2013 Peshawar 38

BILAWAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus AMIR SABAR RAHMAN and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
SCMR 1998
Civil Petition No.457 of 1998, decided on 13th May, 1998.

1998 S C M R 1462

Rana MUHAMMAD ARSHAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), MULTAN DIVISION and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
CLC 2010
2010-April-6

2010 C L C 1362

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ TAHIR — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Local Government Department, Peshawar and 3 others — Respondents

Court: Peshawar
PLD 2008
2007-November-23

P L D 2008 Supreme Court 178

TIKA IQBAL MUHAMMAD KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus General PERVEZ MUSHARAF and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan