Haji Muhammad Saifullah vs Federal Government

IN THE FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT

# ( O riginal Ju risd ictio n )

PRESENT

Mr. J u stic e D r. T anzil-ur-R ahm an CHIEF JUSTICE M r.Ju stic e D r.F id a Muhammad Khan M r.Ju stic e N azir Ahmad B hatti SHARIAT PETITION N o,2/1 of 1991 Haji Muhammad Saifullah — P e titio n er son of Haji Muhammad A tta Ullah K h a n ,re sid e n t o f Allah A b ad .T eh sil Liaqat P u r, D is tric t, Rahim Y ar Khan

V ersus

F ed eral G overnm ent R espondent Counsel fo r th e P e titio n er in p erso n p e titio n e r

Counsel fo r the M r.Aziz A .M unshi, re sp o n d e n t A tto rn e y G eneral of P a k is ta n .

C h.E jaz Ahmad, D ep u ty A tto rn ey G eneral of P a k ista n .

Date o f in s titu tio n 27-1-1991 Date o f h e a rin g 20-2-1991 Date o f decision 20-2-1992

JUDGMENT:

DR.TANZIL-UR-RAHMAN , CHIEF JU S T IC E . - The

P etitio n er h a s ch allen g ed sev eral p ro v isio n s relating to the jurisdiction and powers of this Court and terms and conditions of th e Ju d g e s of th is C ourt as co n tain ed in P re s id e n t's O rd e r N o .l of 1980 title d as C onstitutional (A m endm ent)O rder, 1980, prom ulgated on 27th May, 1980, amended b y P re s id e n t's O rd e r No. 7 of 1983 and f u r th e r am ended b y P re s id e n t's O rd er N o .2 of 1984 an d P re s id e n t's O rd e r N o .14 of 1935,on the ground that they are repugnant to the Injunction of Islam laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah o f th e Holy P ro p h et ( f-J— a—

I—

11 1>5-La).

2.The p e titio n e r, to be e x a c t, ch allen g ed th e provisions of Articles 203 B (c), 203C (4B )(5) and item N o.43 of th e Schedule u n d e r A rticle 2 of P re s id e n t's O rd er No. 14 o f 1985 (R evival of th e C o n stitu tio n of 1973 O rd e r, 1985) prom ulgated on 2nd M arch, 1985. The said p ro v isio n s re a d as u n d e r

A rticle 2 0 3 B (c). "Law", in clu d es any custom o r u sag e h a v in g the force o f law b u t does n o t in clu d e th e C o n stitu tio n , Muslim p erso n al law , an y law re la tin g to th e p ro c e d u re of any c o u rt o r trib u n a l o r , u n til th e e x p ira tio n of te n y e a rs from th e commencement of th is C h a p te r, an y fiscal law o r an y law re la tin g to th e levy and collection of ta x e s and fees o r b a n k in g o r in s u ra n c e p ra c tic e and p ro c e d u re ; and

A rticle 203C (4B ). "T he P re sid e n t may, at any tim e, b y o rd e r in w ritin g ,-

(a)modify th e term o f appointm ent of a Ju d g e;

(b ) a ssig n to a Ju d g e any o th e r office; and

(c)re q u ire a Ju d g e to perform su ch o th e r fu n ctio n s as th e P re sid e n t may deem fit;

and p a ss su ch o th e r o rd e r as he may co n sid er a p p r o p r ia te ."

A rticle 203C(5) "A Ju d g e of a High C ourt who does not accept appointm ent as a Ju d g e shall be deemed to have re tir e d from his office a n d , on su ch re tire m e n t, shall be e n title d to receiv e a pension calculated on th e b a sis of th e le n g th of his serv ice as Ju d g e and to tal s e rv ic e , if a n y , in th e serv ice of P a k is ta n ."

Item N o .43 o f th e Schedule

"S r.N o . N o.of A rticle Amendments made o f C h a p te r,e tc .

43.203C. A fte r clause (4A ), th e following new clauses sh all be in s e r te d , namely "(4B ) The P re sid e n t m ay, a t an y time, b y o rd e r in w ritin g ,-

(a)modify th e term of appointm ent o f a Ju d g e;

(b ) assig n to a Ju d g e any o th e r office; and

(c)re q u ire a Ju d g e to perform such o th e r fu n ctio n s as th e P re sid e n t may deem fit;

an d p a ss su ch o th e r o rd e r as he may c o n sid er a p p ro p ria te .

E x p la n a tio n .- In th is clause and clause (4 C ), "Ju d g e" in clu d es C hief J u stic e .

(4C) While he is perfo rm in g th e functions which he is re q u ire d u n d e r clause (4B) to p erfo rm , or h olding an y o th e r office assig n ed to him u n d e r th a t clau se, a Ju d g e shall be e n title d to th e same s a la ry , allowances and p riv ileg e s as are adm issible to th e C hief Ju stic e o r , as th e case may b e, Ju d g e of th e C o u rt". *

* of th e F ed eral S h ariat C o u rt.

• fj—

3.The p e titio n e r, in s u p p o rt of its p e titio n , subm itted th a t sev eral P re s id e n t's O rd e rs, as afo re sa id , contain in g th e p ro v isio n s, ch allenged b y him, in h is p e titio n ,a re 'Laws' and th e re fo re , th is C ourt has ju risd ic tio n to examine them . In th is re s p e c t he also re f e r r e d to A rticle 227(1) of th e C o n stitu tio n w herein it h as b een specifically p ro v id ed th a t "no law sh all be en acted which is re p u g n a n t to su ch In ju n c tio n s."

The subm ission o f th e p e titio n e r, who also h ap p en s to be an A dvocate, to say th e le a s t, is m isconceived an d not te n a b le . T his C ourt was c re ate d b y P .O .N o.1 of 1980 which is called th e C onstitution (Amendment) O rd e r, 1980,' w h ereb y a new C h ap ter as "C h ap te r 3A" was added t n +he C onstitution and an A rticle, a fte r A rticle 203.as A rticle 203A was new ly in s e rte d in th e C o n stitu tio n which specifically p ro v id es th a t -

A rt.203A "T he p ro v isio n s of th is C h ap ter shall have effe c t notw ith stan d in g a n y th in g contained in th e C o n stitu tio n ."

A rticle 203B (c), as c h allen g ed , f u r th e r p ro v id es th a t - "law" in clu d es an y custom o r u sag e h av in g th e force of law b u t does not in clu d e th e C on stitu tio n , Muslim P ersonal law, any law re la tin g to th e p ro c e d u re of an y c o u rt o r trib u n a l o r, u n til th e e x p iratio n of *ten y e a rs from th e commencement of th is C h a p te r, any fiscal law o r an y law re la tin g to th e levy and collection of ta x e s and fees o r b a n k in g or in su ra n ce p ra tic e and p ro c e d u re ; and

Sim ilarly, th e p ro v isio n s o f su b -c lau se (4B) o f S u b -A rticle (4) o f A rticle 203C o f th e C o n stitu tio n provides th a t - * * S u b stitu d e d su ccessiv ely b y P .O .N o .7 of 1983 an d P.O .N io . 2 o f 1984 and P .O .N o .14 o f 1985,A r t.2 and S c h .,to re a d as above.

S . P . N o . 2/1/91 -5-

"T he P re sid e n t may, at an ird e r in w riting

(a)modify th e term o f appointm ent of a Ju d g e;

(b ) a ssig n to a Ju d g e an y o th e r office; and

(c)re q u ire a Ju d g e to perform su ch o th e r functions as th e P re sid e n t may deem fit;

an d p a ss su ch o th e r o rd e r as he may c o n sid er a p p ro p ria te ."

A nd su b -c la u se (5) of th e said A rticle 203C f u r th e r p ro v id es th a t - "A Ju d g e of a High C ourt who does n o t accept appointm ent as a Ju d g e shall be deemed to have re tir e d from his office an d , on su ch re tire m e n t, shall be e n title d to receiv e a pension calcu lated on th e b a sis of th e le n g th of h is serv ice as Ju d g e and to tal s e rv ic e , if an y , in th e serv ice of P a k is ta n ."

4.The above p ro v isio n s, as ch allen g ed , do not come within the definition o f law. T hey a re , in fa c t, th e C onstitutional p ro v isio n s as in c o rp o ra te d , from time to time, d u rin g 1980 an d 1985 b y v irtu e of d ifferen t C on stitu tio n al Amendment O rd e rs prom ulgated b y th e P re sid e n t "in pursuance o f th e proclam ation of th e 5th d ay of J u ly , 1977, re a d w ith th e Laws (C ontinuance in Force) O rd e r 1979 C .M .L .A .N o .l of 1977 an d in ex ercise of all pow ers en ab ling him in th a t b e h a lf." It may be noticed th a t th e power o f P re sid e n t to amend C onstitution was recognized b y th e H on'ble Supreme C ourt in N u srat B h u tto 's case (PLD 1977 SC 657). *

5.It h as been p ro v id ed in su b -A rtic le (2) o f A rticle 175 of th e C o n stitu tio n th a t "No c o u rt shall have any ju risd ic tio n save as is o r may be c o n fe rre d on it b y th e C o n stitu tio n o r b y o r u n d e r any law ." The ju risd ic tio n o f th e F ederal S h ariat C ourt o r fo r th a t m atter of any o th e r C ourt is to be c o n fe rre d on it b y th e C onstitution * S u b s titu te d b y P .O .N o .5 of 1982 , which means Ju d g e of th e F ederal S h ariat C o u rt.

o r law. The ju risd ic tio n ex erciseab le b y th i las been

specifically c o n fe rre d on th is C ourt b y v irtu e of C h a p te r 3-A w ithin th e lim its p re s c rib e d b y A rticle 203B(c) of th e C o n stitu tio n , an d since th e C o n stitu tio n has been specifically sav ed from exam ination of th is C ourt o r ,in o th e r w ords, o u sted from th e ju risd ic tio n of th is C o u rt,th e p ro v isio n s ch allenged b efo re u s , b y th e p e titio n e r fall o u tsid e th e s p h e re of activ ity an d pale o f ju risd ic tio n of th is C o u rt. T h ere can h a rd ly be any cavil on th e po in t th a t o rd in a ry law an d th e C onstitution a re two d iffe re n t pieces of leg islatio n . In fa c t, th e d istin c tio n betw een th e law an d th e C onstitution is made cle ar b y th e p ro v isio n s of A rticle 203B(c) its e lf w hich h as removed any ii ii d ifficu lty in in te r p r e tin g th e word law which re la te s to n o n -co n stitu tio n al o r su b -C o n stitu tio n a l piece of leg islatio n . It f u r th e r goes to say th a t th e law in clu d es custom o r u sag es h a v in g th e force of law. R eliance may be placed on th e following p a ra g ra p h o f th e judgm ent a p p e a rin g a t p p . 66-67, in the case o f The S tate v s . Z ia-ur-R ahm an and o th e rs (PLD 1973 SC 49):- "T he C o n stitu tio n , as d efin ed b y K .C . W heare, fo r co u n tries which have a w ritten C o n stitu tio n , "is a selection of th e legal ru le s which g overn th e G overnm ent of th a t c o u n try and which have b een embodied in a document or collection of docum ents."

It g en erally em bodies, th e fundam ental p rin c ip le s upon w hich th e G overnm ent of th e C o u n try should be e sta b lish e d and co n d u cted , b u t th e re is no se t p a tte r n o r form p ro v id ed fo r a C on stitu tio n .

It may take a v a rie ty of form s. Some C o n stitu tio n s en deavour to lay down in detail th e whole G overnm ent s tr u c tu r e o f th e C o u n try while o th e rs m erely e sta b lish th e p rin c ip a l in stitu tio n s o f G overnm ent and fill in th e d etails b y su b -C o n stitu tio n a l laws o rg a n isin g th e in s titu tio n s and re g u la tin g to e x ercise of public

S .P .N o .2/1/91 -7-

pow er th ro u g h th e o rg a n s or in s titu tio n s so se t u p . Of la te , th e p ra c tic e h as also grow n u p of in c o rp o ra tin g w ithin th e C o n stitution its e lf a d eclaratio n of fundam ental rig h ts and even basic p rin c ip le s of S tate policy. In c o u n trie s which adopt a d etailed C o n stitu tio n , th e C o n stitu tio n is th o u g h t of as an in stru m e n t b y which G overnm ent can be c o n tro lled , and it is fo r th is reaso n th a t g en erally some m easure of rig id ity in the p ro c e d u re fo r th e amendment of th e C o n stitu tio n is also in tro d u c e d , an d th e C o n stitu tio n is concieved of as a fundam ental o r an o rg an ic o r a Suprem e law sta n d in g in a somewhat h ig h e r p osition th a n th e o th e r laws of th e c o u n try . It th e n assum es the p osition of a law on th e b a sis of which th e v ire s of all o th e r su b -C o n stitu tio n a l laws an d th e v alid ity of governm ental actions can be ju d g e d . T h u s, ev en n o n -C o n stitu tio n al p ro v isio n s, if in c o rp o ra te d in a C o n stitu tio n , acq u ire a h ig h e r sa n c tity and s ta n d on th e same footing as s tric tly C o n stitu tio n al p ro v isio n s.

No d ifferen tiatio n can be made betw een them , once th e y have been given a C o n stitu tio n al s ta tu s b y b e in g in c o rp o ra te d in th e C o n stitution its e lf ." (a t p p 66-67 o f th e R e p o r t).

6.The p e titio n e r n e x t sub m itted th a t b y v irtu e of A rticle 2-A o f th e C o n stitu tio n m aking O bjectives R esolution to be th e s u b sta n tiv e p a r t of the C o n stitu tio n th e p ro v isio n s of A rticle 203B(c) of th e C onstitution as to th e r e s tr ic te d ju risd ic tio n of th is C o u rt, tr a n s f e r of Ju d g e s from High C ourt to th e F ed eral S h ariat C o u rt an d th e ir co n seq u en tial re tire m e n t upon re fu sa l an d term s o f th e ir appointm ents an d th e ir tr a n s f e r a re not in conform ity with th e Islamic In ju n ctio n s an d as su ch th e afo resaid p ro v isio n s be s tru c k down as re p u g n a n t th e re to .

7.The p e titio n e r, in s u p p o rt of his subm ission, th a t b y v irtu e o f A rticle 2-A o f th e C onstitution th is C ourt has got pow er even to s trik e down th e p ro v isio n s o f th e C o n stitu tio n , 1973, placed h is reliance or.

S.P. No. 2/1/91

C o u rt,p ro n o u n c e d re c e n tly .

8.In th e K arachi case M essrs B ank of Oman L td . v s .M e ssrs East T ra d in g Co. L td ., and o th e rs (PLD 1987 K arachi 4 0 4 ),as re f e r r e d to by th e p e titio n e r, one of u s (D r.T an z il-u r-R a h m a n ) as th e n Ju d g e of the Sindh High C ourt in te rp r e tin g th e scope o f C h ap ter 3-A v is -a -v is A rticle 2 -A o f th e C o n stitu tio n , a fte r d isc u ssin g th e v ario u s a sp e c ts of th e m atter concluded h is d iscu ssio n as u n d e r :-

"T he u p sh o t of th e e n tire d iscu ssio n is th a t th e C ourts in P ak istan a re b ound b y th e C o n stitu tio n , an d any law re p u g n a n t to th e C onstitution is void. The p rin c ip le s and p ro v isio n s of th e O bjectives R esolution, b y v irtu e of A rticle 2-A, a re now p a r t o f th e C o n stitu tio n and ju stic ea b le . A ny pro v isio n of the C o n stitution o r law, found re p u g n a n t to them , may be declared b y s u p e rio r C o u rt, as v o id , s u b je c t, how ever, to th e lim itations imposed b y A rticles 203-A, B (c ), 203-D, 203-G and 203-GG of th e C o n stitu tio n , w hereby special and specific ju risd ic tio n h as b een c o n fe rre d on th e F ederal S h ariat C ourt to declare th e law (as defined b y A rticle 203-B (c) re a d with A rticle 203-G o r an y p ro v isio n th e re o f, as re p u g n a n t to th e In ju n ctio n s o f Islam laid down in Holy Q u r'an and S unnah of the Holy P ro p h et ( p . b . u . h . ) , an d th a t th e said law o r any provision th e re o f h as been so d eclared b y it (A rticle 203-G G )."

( P a ra g ra p h 58 page 445 of th e R e p o rt).

9.In another Karachi case, Habib B ank L td v s . Muhammad H ussain and o th e rs (PLD 1987 K arachi 612)as re f e r r e d to b y th e p e titio n e r, one of u s (D r.T an z il-u r-R a h m a n ) as Ju d g e of th e S indh High C ourt d iscu ssin g th e application o f A rticle 2-A again o b serv ed th a t -

"As it would a p p e a r, a special role h as been a ssig n e d b y the C o n stitu tio n to th e F ederal S h ariat C ourt an d in th e m atters *

S .P .N o .2/1/91 -9 -

en v isag ed in A rticle 203-G, b u t in all th e m atters re la tin g to th e C o n stitu tio n , Muslim Personal Law, an y law re la tin g to the p ro c e d u re o f a n y C o u rt o r trib u n a l o r , u n til ex p ira tio n of 10 y e a rs from th e commencement o f C h ap ter III-A , any fiscal law o r an y law re la tin g to th e lev y and collection of ta x e s and fees o r b a n k in g o r in s u ra n c e p ra c tic e and p ro c e d u re , th e F ed eral S h ariat C o u rt h as no ju risd ic tio n . T his b ein g so , in the afo resaid m a tte rs, th e ju risd ic tio n o f o th e r C o u rts does not s ta n d o u s te d ." (P a ra g ra p h 25 at page 629 of th e R e p o rt).

10.In th e Lahore case (n o t re p o rte d so fa r) M st.S akina Bibi v s .

F ed eratio n o f P ak istan (Writ P etition N o.26 of 1989) decided on 14-1-1992, a Full B ench o f th e L ahore High C o u rt while d isc u ssin g th e effect of A rticle 2-A with re fe re n c e to v a rio u s decisions of th e High C ourt of Sindh an d th e Suprem e C ourt came to th e conclusion th a t -

"In view of th e ab ove, o u r humble view is th a t A rticle 2A is an effectiv e an d o p e ra tiv e p a r t of th e C o n stitu tio n and no court may re fu s e to en fo rce i t . C o n seq u en tly , th e F ed eral S hariat C ourt shall ex ercise its ju risd ic tio n a ssig n e d to it u n d e r Ch.3A o f th e C o n stitu tio n , w h ereas, th e High C ourts shall ex ercise th e ir ju risd ic tio n w ith r e g a r d to all o th e r law s. T hey may declare them re p u g n a n t to th e Inju n ctio n s of Islam, as contained in Q uran an d S unnah of th e Holy P ro p h et ( P .B .U .H .) an d may also g ra n t re lie f, as may be called fo r in th e circu m stan ces of th e c a s e .” (p a ra 36 of th e ju d g m en t).

11.As it would a p p ea r from th e above cited c ase s th a t b y v irtu e of A rticle 2-A a High C ourt o r fo r th a t m a tte r an y o th e r C ourt is empowered to decide a q u estio n re la tin g to a law o r pro v isio n o f law ra ise d before him as to its re p u g n a n c y as laid down in th e Holy Q u r'an and S unnah and g ra n t su ch re lie f as perm issible in law ex cep t th e law o r a pro v isio n of law which

S .P .N o .2/1/91 10 -

falls w ithin th e ex clusive domain of th e F ederal S h ariat C ourt b y v irtu e o f A rticle 203B(e) of th e C onstitution. T h u s, none of th e th re e cases s u p p o rt th e p e titio n e r's plea th a t th e F ederal S h ariat C o u rt, n o tw ith ­ s ta n d in g th e above b a r , has ju risd ic tio n in all m a tte rs . On th e o th e r h a n d , th e above c ases go ag ain st th e p ro p o sitio n advanced b y the p e titio n e r.

12.M r.Aziz A .M unshi, le a rn ed A tto rn ey G eneral subm itted th a t th e p ro v isio n of A rticle 2-A of th e C onstitution was to be re a d with o th e r p ro v isio n s of th e C o n stitu tio n specially C h ap ter 3-A , inclu d in g A rticle 203A, 203B an d 203D. The C onstitution is to be re a d as an organic whole an d A rticle 2-A could n o t be s e p a ra te d and re a d in isolation of o th e r p ro v isio n on th e s u b je c t. He th u s subm itted th a t th e provision o f A rticle 203A of th e C o n stitu tio n re la tin g to F ederal S h ariat C ourt shall have effect "n o tw ith stan d in g a n y th in g contained in th e C o n stitu tio n ."

T his m eant, as sub m itted b y th e le a rn ed A tto rn ey G eneral, th a t th e fu n ctio n s o f th e F ed eral S h ariat C ourt an d its e x ercise of ju risd ic tio n would also be n o tw ith sta n d in g a n y th in g contained in A rticle 2-A . T his f u r th e r m eant, if an y lim itation was d e sc rib e d b y th e p ro v isio n s of C h ap ter 3-A on th e ex ercise o f ju risd ic tio n b y th e F ed eral S h ariat C ourt th e se were to be re s tric tiv e in term s o f th e p ro v isio n s of th e C o n stitu tio n . The le a rn e d A tto rn ey G eneral f u r th e r sub m itted th a t one has to see what fell w ithin th e ju risd ic tio n of th e F ederal S h ariat C ourt in term of A rticle 203B(c) which defines "law" to be exam ined b y th e F ederal S h ariat C ourt "as custom o r u sag e h av in g th e force o f law" b u t does

n o t in clu d e th e C o n stitu tio n , Muslim p erso n al l a w . . . . " . T h e re fo re , the p ro v isio n s of th e C onstitution an d Muslim p e rso n al law, were e x p re ssly ex clu d ed b y th e C o n stitu tio n its e lf from th e purview o f th e F ed eral S hariat C ourt and on th e b a sis of th is reaso n in g one has to examine w h eth er th e P resid e n tia l O rd e rs , in q u e stio n , nam ely, P .O .N o .l of 1980, N o .2 o f 1982, N o.7 of 1983 an d N o .14 of 1985 were p a r t of th e C o n stitu tio n or not o r w h eth er th e se O rd e rs w ere o rd in a ry statutory law of sub-C onstitutional n a tu re .

13.Exam ining th e P resid e n tia l O rd e rs , in q u e stio n , it may be o b se rv e d th a t each o f th e se P resid e n tia l O rd e rs now sought to be exam ined b y th e F ed eral S h ariat C ourt were C onstitutional am endm ents and form p a r t of th e C o n stitu tio n its e lf. T his being so, th e ju risd ic tio n of th is C ourt stan d s ex clu d ed in so fa r as th e exam ination o f th e p ro v isio n s o f th e C onstitution as co n tain ed in th e se P resid en tial O rd e rs is c o n ce rn e d . The P resid en tial O rd e rs a r e , in fa c t, a perm anent fe a tu re of th e C o n stitu tio n b y v irtu e of th e 8th Amendment to th e C o n stitu tio n . The p ro v isio n s of A rticle 2-A alongw ith th e lim itation co ntained in C h ap ter 3-A of th e C o n stitu tio n a re to be re a d to g e th e r b ein g th e same p a r t o f th e C onstitution an d we cannot s trik e down a p ro vision o f th e C onstitution b y v irtu e o f A rticle 2-A alone in e x ercise o f o u r ju risd ic tio n p re s c rib e d u n d e r C h ap ter 3-A o f the C o n stitu tio n .

14.It is an accepted notion in th e C onstitutional law th a t th e S u p erio r C o u rts a re ^ h e creatio n of th e C o n stitu tio n an d th e y ex ercise su ch ju risd ic tio n which is c o n fe rre d on them u n d e r th e C o n stitu tio n or Law in P a k ista n , A rticle 175(2) of th e C onstitution is specific on th e p o in t. It

s:P. N o .2/1/91

% p ro v id e s th a t "no c o u rt shall have any ju risd ic tio n save as is or may be c o n fe rre d on it b y th e C onstitution o r b y o r u n d e r any law ." T hus in P a k ista n , th e com petency and ju risd ic tio n of th e C ourts is re lateab le to pow er given to them b y th e C o n stitu tio n o r u n d e r th a t Law. T his C o u rt, th e re fo re , cannot s tr e tc h its ju risd ic tio n u n d e r A rticle 2-A to m atters specially ex cep ted and b a r r e d b y A rticle 203B (c). R eference h as also been made b y th e le a rn e d A tto rn ey G eneral to a Full B ench case of th is C ourt re p o rte d as D r.M ahm ood-ur-R ahtnan Faisal V s. S e c re ta ry , M inistry of Ju stic e and Law an d P arliam entary A ffa irs, Islam abad (PLD 1991 FSC 35) w herein it was h eld th a t Zakat an d U sh r O rd in an ce, 1980, b ein g applicable ex clu siv ely to Muslim citizen s of P ak istan as well as bodies co rp o ra te or in c o rp o ra te h a v in g su ch c itiz e n s, fell w ithin th e definition of Muslim p e rso n al law u n d e r A rticle 203B(c) of th e C o n stitu tio n of P ak istan an d was th u s immune from b ein g ch allen g ed b efo re th e F ederal S h ariat C o u rt. In th e a fo resaid judgm ent reliance was placed on th e case of F ed eratio n of P ak istan V s. M st.F a rish ta (PLD 1981 SC 120).

15.For th e afo resaid re a so n s , th is C ourt h as no ju risd ic tio n to exam ine th e above said p ro v isio n s as th e y a re s u b sta n tiv e p a r t o f th e C o n stitu tio n w hich do not fall w ithin th e ambit o f ju risd ic tio n of th is C o u rt. The P etition is , th e re fo re , dism issed. v

A . ^

V an ( D r.T ' *z il-u ' r-R ah m an ) Islam abad, 20th F e b ru a ry , 1992 iC hief Ju stic e

ABDUL RAHMAN

a -w**t*^t^* (D r.F id a Muhammad Khan) Ju d g e A pproved for re p o rtin g .

oL .. (N azir Ahmad JJfiatti) Judge

CHIEF JUSTICE