Vires of Law

2026 PTD 816 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional jurisdiction of High CourtVires of lawJudicial reviewPrincipleIf, in essence, the law falls outside Constitutional domain of the Legislature, it is ultra vires ab initioIncidental encroachment does not invalidate a statute

Courts adopt liberal and pragmatic approach, sustaining legislation where its substance lies within competence.

2026 PLD 29 FEDERAL-CONSTITUTIONAL-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.3Balochistan Finance Act (I of 2020), S.7

Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.141, 142(a), 142(b), 142(c), 175F(3) [as inserted by Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Act (XXXII of 2025)] and Fourth Schedule, Entry No.44 [as amended by Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act (X of 2010)]

Petitioner (cement manufacturer) was served notice to pay enhanced excise duty on minerals

Legislative competence of Provincial Assembly to amend federal charging provision and revise rates of excise duty, challenge to

Vires of law

'Labour welfare' as provincial subject, effect of

Doctrine of pith and substance and double-aspect legislation, applicability of

Overlap of fiscal mechanism with welfare object

Scope

Brief facts of the matter were that Petitioner company was a cement manufacturer and was served with a notice by the Mines Labour Welfare Department, requiring payment of excise duty on minerals to the Labour Welfare Commissioner at revised rates introduced through the Balochistan Finance Act, 2020; its three representations for revision were declined, whereafter it filed constitutional petition before the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to filing of petition before the Supreme Court, which was transferred to the Federal Constitutional Court

Pivotal issue for determination before the Supreme Court was as to "whether the Provincial Assembly had legislative competence to amend Section 3 (charging provision) of the Excise Duty on Minerals (Labour Welfare) Act, 1967 through Section 7 of the Balochistan Finance Act, 2020 by enhancing/revising the excise-duty rates, or whether such amendment was beyond provincial domain?"

Held: Preamble of Excise Duty on Minerals (Labour Welfare) Act, 1967 clearly reflected the legislature's intention to advance labor welfare and as if for larger "public interest"

The objective of the 1967 Act, as revealed through its preambular language, was undoubtedly oriented toward the advancement of labour welfare; a domain constitutionally entrusted to the Provinces

Even if, by a rigorous reading of the preamble and the operative provisions of the 1967 Act, one was to conclude that its dominant character lay in the collection and imposition of a duty of excise, its underlying purpose still could not thereby be ignored

Such a conclusion merely revealed an overlap between two constitutional competences: the federal authority to levy excise duty and the provincial responsibility to advance labour welfare

Such an overlap did not warrant the Supreme court to invalidate the statute on this ground

Viewed from the fiscal aspect, the imposition of excise duty squarely fell within federal legislative competence; viewed from the "public interest" aspect, the advancement of labour welfare lay well within the provincial domain

Consequently, both enactments stood on firm constitutional footing, not in conflict but in constitutional harmony, each valid in its own aspect

Accordingly, the 2020 Act was sustained by applying the settled doctrine of "pith and substance" and "double aspect legislation", read in light of the Constitution's post-Eighteenth Amendment commitment to cooperative federalism

The impugned statute neither encroached upon nor displaced federal legislative authority; rather, it operated within a constitutionally permissible overlap to advance a legitimate provincial objective

Its fiscal mechanism served as an ancillary means to realize a substantive purpose squarely rooted in labour welfare

To strike down such legislation would have been a rigid and formalistic approach, inconsistent with constitutional design

The Act, therefore, represented a lawful and harmonious exercise of legislative power

Leave was refused and present petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2026 PLD 29 FEDERAL-CONSTITUTIONAL-COURT Judicial Precedent

Legislative competenceVires of law

Where the true nature and character of a statute is found to fall outside the legislative competence of the enacting body, the law must necessarily be declared ultra vires.

2026 PLD 1 FEDERAL-CONSTITUTIONAL-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199(1)(a)Constitutional jurisdiction of High CourtVires of lawScopeDeclaration concerning vires of a law falls within the ambit of Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution

This is because the act of striking down a law is not in the nature of a "direction" under Article 199(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution, nor does it correspond to habeas corpus, prohibition, or quo warranto

When a statute is invalidated, the Court effectively holds that "X," the assailed legislative provision, "is struck down" and is "without lawful authority and of no legal effect," language that encapsulates the concept of ultra vires

Writ of certiorari, that is more or less envisaged in Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution, may be issued against any individual performing functions connected with the affairs of the Federal, Provincial, or local authorities

It is not necessary that such a person be acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity

High Court is empowered to intervene whenever an act or proceeding is undertaken in violation of the law or any well-established legal principle.

2026 PLD 1 FEDERAL-CONSTITUTIONAL-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 109-AConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 202A [as amended by Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025]Constitutional jurisdiction of High CourtVires of lawScope

Petitioner assailed notices issued to him as well as vires of Section 109-A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on the plea that it was contrary to Entries 47 and 31 of the Federal Legislative List mentioned in the Constitution

Validity

Substance of the petition amounted seeking a writ under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution

If High Court were to allow the petition, Section 109-A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 would be declared "without lawful authority" and "of no legal effect" and, as a result, the notice issued thereunder would automatically become ineffective as an ancillary consequence

Even if the provision itself was upheld, the notice had independently been challenged on separate legal grounds that the High Court was competent to examine

Central relief sought in the petition was challenge to the vires of the law, which had constituted a relief under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution, namely a declaration that the challenged law was ultra vires

Under the erstwhile Article 202A [as it was prior to the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025] such a relief did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Bench

Interim relief could only be granted by a forum that was empowered to render a final decision

Constitutional Bench from the start lacked competence to hear a matter involving issuance of a writ under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution and the interim order that High Court had passed was without jurisdiction

Federal Constitutional Court set aside the order passed by High Court and remanded the matter to High Court for its fresh adjudication on the application for interim relief, before the Constitutional Bench

Appeal was allowed.

2025 PLD 394 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(1) & 2AConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 185(3) & 191A(4)Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 221A(2)Fixation of casesVires of lawJurisdiction of Benches

Question for determination was with regard to fixation of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal, challenging vires of section 221A(2) of Customs Act, 1969

Petitions in question were inadvertently fixed before Regular Bench of Supreme Court

Constitutional Committee of Supreme Court withdrew petitions in question and fixed the same before Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court

Validity

Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal in question, under Article 191A(4) of the Constitution, were mistakenly/inadvertently fixed before Regular Bench of Supreme Court and that Bench had assumed jurisdiction without lawful authority

Orders passed by Regular Bench of Supreme Court in Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal in question were non-est

Committees constituted under Article 191A(4) of the Constitution and under section 2(1) of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 were legal and Constitutional fora to determine as to which Bench of Supreme Court would hear what matters

Exercise of powers and performance of legal and Constitutional functions by both the Committees did not impinge upon judicial functions of any Bench of Supreme Court

Supreme Court directed the office to issue notices to respondents and also to Attorney General for Pakistan and fix the petitions before Constitutional Bench after completing codal formalities.

2025 PLD 394 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(1) & 2AConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 185(3) & 191A(4)Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 221A(2)Fixation of casesVires of lawJurisdiction of Benches

Question for determination was with regard to fixation of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal, challenging vires of section 221 A (2) of Customs Act, 1969

Petitions in question were inadvertently fixed before Regular Bench of Supreme Court

Constitutional Committee of Supreme Court withdrew the petition in question and fixed before Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court

Validity

Committee under section 2 of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 is responsible for handling and fixing cases before Regular Benches of Supreme Court, other than those falling within Article 191A(3) of the Constitution

Committee under section 2A of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 has been vested with jurisdiction to determine whether a case falls within Article 191A (3) of the Constitution, if it does, it should be heard by Constitutional Bench and if not, it may be referred to the Committee constituted under section 2 of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 for fixation and disposal by another Bench of Supreme Court

Both Committees are provided for under the provisions of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023

Second Committee is also protected under Article 191A(4) of the Constitution, a recognition not accorded to the First Committee

Supreme Court directed Registrar of Supreme Court that in order to provide effective administrative and sectoral support, he/she must take all reasonable precautions to prevent mistakes or oversight in case fixation

Supreme Court further directed that concerned branch/officials should be sensitized about the nitty-gritty of Article 191A of the Constitution so that they would not commit any such mistake or misadventure in future

Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court had rightly recalled orders passed by Regular Bench of Supreme Court as the same were without jurisdiction

On recalling such orders, the superstructure built thereon also collapsed and any proceedings taken, orders passed or actions made in pursuance of the orders in question had lost their status and effect.

2025 CLC 1902 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5A(1)(b) [as amended by Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils (Amendment) Act (XXXV of 2018)] & 9Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 18, 25 & 199Constitutional petitionQualification of candidateStanding at BarEnhancementVires of lawIntelligible differentia, principle ofApplicability

Petitioner assailed amendment made to S. 5A(1)(b) of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, enhancing period of an advocate's standing at the bar for contesting election as a member of a Provincial Bar Council (PBC) on the day of filing nomination papers, to fifteen (15) years

Validity

Key requirement for membership of PBC ensures a certain level of legal knowledge and competence

Such requirement involving a specific number of years of practice at the bar, helps guarantee that elected members have practical understanding of legal system and can effectively represent interests of lawyers across the province

Enhancement of threshold of experience was duly warranted as per functions of PBC stated in S. 9 of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973

Amendment in question did not bar petitioner or any advocate from practicing law but merely regulated eligibility for membership in a representative professional body, a regulation squarely within the permissible scope of Art. 18 of the Constitution

Provision of Art. 25 of the Constitution mandates equality before law and equal protection of law and reasonable classification is permissible if it is based on intelligible differentia and bears a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved

Classification drawn between advocates having less than fifteen years of standing and those exceeding it, rested on intelligible criterion of professional experience, which had a direct and reasonable nexus with effective performance of the functions of a PBC

High Court declined to interfere in the amendment in question as no element of invidious discrimination was shown by the petitioner

Amendment in question did not offend guarantees enshrined in Constitutional provisions

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 SCMR 1258 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Vires of lawJudicial reviewScope

If the constitutionality of any law is challenged in the High Court, the Court can scrutinize and survey such law and also strike it down if it is found to be offending the Constitution for absenteeism of law-making and jurisdictive competence or is in violation of fundamental rights

Where the vires of a law are challenged, the burden always rests upon the person making such challenge to show that the same was violative of any pf the fundamental rights or the provisions of the Constitution and where more than one interpretation is possible, the Court must prefer the interpretation which favours the validity without attributing mala fide to the legislature.

2024 PLC(CS) 900 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Vires of lawJudicial reviewScope

If the constitutionality of any law is challenged in the High Court, the Court can scrutinize and survey such law and also strike it down if it is found to be offending the Constitution for absenteeism of law-making and jurisdictive competence or is in violation of fundamental rights

Where the vires of a law are challenged, the burden always rests upon the person making such challenge to show that the same was violative of any pf the fundamental rights or the provisions of the Constitution and where more than one interpretation is possible, the Court must prefer the interpretation which favours the validity without attributing mala fide to the legislature.

2024 CLC 1108 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 11Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 201Constitutional petitionVires of lawJudgment of High Court of another provinceValue

Petitioners assailed provisions of Punjab Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2021, on the plea of same being ultra vires the Constitution

Same provisions had already been declared ultra vires the Constitution by Islamabad High Court

Effect

Judgment of Islamabad High Court had persuasive value for Lahore High Court which had persuaded the Court to follow the judgment without need to disagree and take a different view in order to reach the same destination

High Court declared that provision of Ss.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 of Punjab Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2021, were un-constitutional and without lawful authority and of no legal effect

High Court directed that the decision would be applicable to all matters before it including orders passed by Ombudsperson and under challenge in some petitions but were not applicable to matters which were not brought before High Court and had attained finality and were past and closed transactions

High Court directed Provincial Government to draft fresh law as the subject matter covered under Punjab Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2021, was an important issue relating to rights of female gender

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2024 CLC 615 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionVires of lawInterim reliefPrinciple

When vires of law is challenged interim relief cannot be granted.

2024 CLC 871 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25 & 32Direct to Home (DTH) Distribution Service Licensing Regulations, 2016, Reglns. 2.5 & 7Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityVires of law

Petitioner was Pakistan Broadcasting Association and assailed vires of Reglns. 2.5 & 7 of Direct to Home (DTH) Distribution Service Licensing Regulations, 2016, being ultra vires to Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

Validity

Provision of Regln. 2.5 of Direct to Home (DTH) Distribution Service Licensing Regulations, 2016, to the extent of allowing companies controlled or managed by foreign nationals / companies to apply for grant of license was framed beyond the permissible statutory mandate and was transgression of delegated authority

High Court struck down the provisions of Regln. 2.5 of Direct to Home (DTH) Distribution Service Licensing Regulations, 2016, as words 'with or' used after words 'if any' and before 'without' therein were in conflict with the provision of S.25(c) of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority was not vested with any power to grant exemption in vacuum in exercise of powers vested in it under S. 32 of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

Such powers were to be exercised on case to case basis, after recording of reasons in writing in compliance with criteria and guidelines identified by notified Rules that too in conformity with the principles of equality and equity enshrined in the Constitution keeping n view 'public interest' involved in a particular case

High Court declined to micromanage affairs of PEMRA and re-determine provisions of Regln. 7 of Direct to Home (DTH) Distribution Service Licensing Regulations, 2016, as the same was not in contravention of fundamental rights of petitioner / Association, provisions of the Constitution or the parent statute

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority was a statutory regulatory authority vested with power to regulate affairs of licenses and petitioner / Association could approach the Authority for redressal of grievance if any

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2022 CLC 142 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional jurisdictionVires of lawScope

Vires of a law can only be assailed if it is shown that either Legislature was not competent to enact it or there was any mala fide on the part of Parliament in the enactment

If none of the said elements exist then desired writ to declare the law ultra vires of the Constitution cannot be issued.

2020 PLD 105 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 27, 80, 81, 82, 141 & 172Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 175Vires of lawJudicial functionsRevenue Officers, jurisdiction of

Petitioner sought declaration to the effect that provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967 under which Revenue Officers were performing judicial functions, were ultra vires the Constitution

Validity

All those provisions wherein revenue officers performed functions as a revenue Court were against the provisions of Art. 175 of the Constitution and were non est in law

High Court directed the authorities to amend the law accordingly within reasonable time

High Court directed that all cases which fell within the purview of Ss. 27, 80, 81, 82, 141 & 172 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967, stood transferred to the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrates concerned and would be entrusted to the Court of District Judges

In such circumstances when such new occasion would arise resort was to be had to S.195, Cr.P.C. before a criminal Court

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2020 PTD 2095 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.2 (43A) & 50AConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 18 & 25SRO No.1360(I)/2018 dated 12-11-2018SRO No.1203(I)/2019 dated 10-10-2019DiscriminationVires of lawAmendment was introduced in law to file electronic invoicesTaxpayer assailed insertion of S. 2(43A) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, as discriminatory and ultra vires the ConstitutionSingle Judge of High Court dismissed the petition filed by taxpayerValidity

Held, in existing age of information technology, when all transactions from sales and purchase to interbank transfer of funds were being done online, introduction of any procedure of filing or report to Federal Board of Revenue electronically had become inevitable and to enforce the same, ample powers were given by S.50-A of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Any legislation including subordinate legislation could not be declared discriminatory due to intelligible classification for the purposes of levying or collecting tax or for that matter reporting of tax compliance did not offend Fundamental Right guaranteed under Art.25 of the Constitution

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Judge of High Court

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 PLD 114 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Repealed law'Past and closed transaction', principle ofPerson could not be allowed to challenge a law which stood repealed and no longer existed on the statute book

Such an eventuality shall be covered and protected by the rule of past and closed transactions.

2006 YLR 1915 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Action of authority contrary to provisions of law was ultra vires.

1989 PLD 513 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Declaration by Court of the unconstitutionality of a law or a provision of law does not nullify or abrogate the provision of law so as to wipe it off from the statute book.