P L D 1989 SC 229




Per Muhammad Haleem, C.J.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Articles 185, 48, 91 & 92:

Article 185 — Miscellaneous application in appeal already decided — Locus standi — Miscellaneous application calling upon Supreme Court to (i) clarify the full and correct implication of its judgment; (ii) proceed in contempt against those alleged to have deliberately misinterpreted Supreme Court judgment to derive political advantage out of it and (iii) to end the alleged legal chaos and constitutional crisis into which the country allegedly had been plunged — Supreme Court, holding petitioner to have locus standi to the matter, issued notice only in respect of matter seeking clarification of the judgment and not in other ones and observed that judgment in question maintained and upheld the judgment of High Court and did nothing more than record additional grounds and reasons therefor — Press Note issued by the Federal Government did not appear to correctly reflect the judgment so far as it stated the consequences of the judgment — Findings recorded by the High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court relatable to the reliefs granted and refused were reproduced and correct reflection of the judgment was stated. [p.230]A

Articles 48(5)(b), 91 & 92 — Dissolution of National Assembly by the President — Appointment of Care-taker Cabinet without a Prime Minister — Interpretation of judgment of Supreme Court in Federation of Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan PLD 1989 SC 166 by the Federal Government that “actions taken, orders passed or appointments made after 29th May, 1988 up to 2nd December, 1988 by the President which were required to be taken, passed or made on the advice of the Prime Minister were illegal and required regularisation and re-affirmance awaiting which appointees should suspend the performance of their duties”, does not correctly reflect the Judgment — Such a relief though had been asked for from the Supreme Court but was not granted — Judgment contained findings on all the matters in controversy which were recorded to remove all doubts and ambiguities with regard to distribution of functions and powers under the Constitution for guidance in the future — When in a case, Federation of Pakistan wanted to seek a different conclusion, it was open to it to bring appropriate proceedings before Supreme Court for consideration on merit. [p.231]B

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: