𝐀𝐳𝐚𝐚𝐧 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬

13/11/2025

A black day in the judicial history of Pakistan, as two of the most brilliant judges Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah resign from the Supreme Court.

11/07/2025

The Usif Patel Case: A Constitutional Crisis Unfolds.

The Usif Patel Case has its roots in the landmark Molvi Tameez Ud Din Case, where Pakistan's Federal Court ruled that any law passed by the Constituent Assembly without the Governor General's assent was invalid. This decision sent shockwaves throughout the country, rendering 46 laws created by the Assembly null and void. These laws included crucial legislation affecting the functioning of the Constituent and Provincial Assemblies, plunging the nation into a severe constitutional crisis.

Governor General's Emergency Powers Ordinance

In an attempt to rectify this situation, Governor General Ghulam Muhammad issued the Emergency Powers Ordinance of 1955. Through this ordinance, he sought to:

- Retroactively approve all 46 disputed laws, effectively validating them after the fact.
- Grant himself the authority to create a new Constitution, thereby assuming unparalleled power.
- Approve the national budget himself, consolidating his control over the country's finances.
- Merge the western provinces into a single entity, West Pakistan, streamlining administrative control.
- Rename East Bengal to East Pakistan, marking a significant shift in the country's territorial nomenclature.

The Governor General based his actions on Section 9 of the Indian Independence Act 1947, which originally allowed for changes to the Constitution until March 31, 1948. However, the Constituent Assembly had extended this deadline to March 31, 1949, through the Indian Independence Amendment Act 1948, albeit without the Governor General's assent.

The Sindh Control of Gundas Act 1952

Utilizing the powers granted by the extended deadline, the Governor General added Section 92A to the Government of India Act 1935. This provision empowered Provincial Governors to enact laws when necessary. In Sindh, the Governor leveraged this authority to introduce the Sindh Control of Gundas Act 1952. This law allowed the government to demand security bonds from individuals suspected of involvement in criminal activities. Failure to comply would result in detention.

The Case of Usif Patel

Under this law, the District Magistrate of Larkana detained three individuals—Usif Patel, Agha Muhammad, and Syed Ali Shah—for failing to provide the required security. The detainees filed a writ petition in the Chief Court of Sindh under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that their detention was unlawful. However, the Chief Court upheld the detention, ruling it lawful, and dismissed the case.

Appeal to the Federal Court

Undeterred, the detainees appealed to the Federal Court of Pakistan, challenging the validity of the Sindh Control of Gundas Act 1952. The petitioners presented a compelling argument:

- The Indian Independence Amendment Act 1948 lacked the Governor General's assent, rendering it invalid in light of the Molvi Tameez Ud Din Case ruling.
- Consequently, Section 92A, which was added based on the extended deadline, was also invalid.
- This, in turn, meant that the Sindh Control of Gundas Act 1952, derived from Section 92A, was unconstitutional.
- Therefore, the detention of Usif Patel and the others was unlawful.

Government's Counterargument

The government countered with a different narrative:

- The Emergency Powers Ordinance 1955 had retroactively validated all 46 laws, including the Indian Independence Amendment Act 1948.
- This validation lent legitimacy to Section 92A and, by extension, the Sindh Control of Gundas Act 1952.
- As a result, the detention of the petitioners was lawful and justified under the provisions of the Act.

The Federal Court's Decision

The Federal Court was tasked with resolving two critical questions:

1. Can the Governor General validate constitutional laws passed without his assent through an ordinance?
2. Can he grant retroactive assent to laws?

The Court's ruling was unequivocal:

- The Governor General had no authority to approve constitutional laws after the fact through an ordinance.
- He also lacked the power to grant himself the authority to legislate or create a Constitution.
- Section 92A, added without proper assent, was invalid.
- Consequently, the Sindh Control of Gundas Act 1952 was unconstitutional.
- The detention of Usif Patel and the others was, therefore, illegal.

Conclusion

In a landmark judgment, the Federal Court, led by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir, reaffirmed the principle established in the Molvi Tameez Ud Din Case. The Court held that any law passed by the Constituent Assembly without the Governor General's approval was invalid. The Governor General could not rectify this through an ordinance, nor could he grant retroactive assent. The judgment underscored that the authority to frame the Constitution rested solely with the Constituent Assembly, not the Governor General. This decision was a significant milestone in Pakistan's constitutional history, emphasizing the importance of checks and balances in governance.
Team ALA !

27/06/2025

Great News for all LLB aspirants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has allowed the reduction of LLB from 5 to 4 years as requested by the Pakistan Bar Council/Directorate of Legal Education (DLE) and HEC. Moreover the discriminatory equivalence exam SEE-Law for foreign law graduates has also been suspended by the Apex Court.

14/06/2025

First judgment of the review series ;

The case of Molvi Tameez-ud-Din Khan vs. Federation of pakistan (PLD 1955 FC 240)

It is one of the most valuable constitutional decision in the early history of Pakistan. It arose in the backdrop of a constitutional crisis created where the Governor-General of Pakistan, Ghulam Muhammad, dissolved the Constituent Assembly on 24 October 1954.
The back reason was the intention of Constituent assembly to curb the powers of governor general by introducing section 223A to the Government of India act 1935 by the amendment act 1954z However under the section 6 of the Indian Independent Act 1947 Governor General hold the power to give assent to all newly makes laws .( Here’s his lordship Justice Munir thoroughly explained the historical context of the this Assent powers in context of England’s legal history with in-depth discussion on the democracy and king /Governor powers). The Constituent Assembly at that time was both the constitution-making body and the federal legislature of Pakistan. Molvi Tameez-ud-Din Khan, who was the President of the Assembly, challenged this dissolution in the Sindh Chief Court, arguing that the action was unconstitutional and beyond the powers of the Governor-General.

The Sindh Chief Court decided in favor of Molvi Tameez-ud-Din, holding that the Constituent Assembly was a sovereign body created under the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and the Governor-General had no power to dissolve it. The court found that the dissolution was ultra vires and without lawful authority. The federal government appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Pakistan, headed by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir.
Few hitting questions were came into discussion as ;
1- Jurisdiction of Sindh Chief Court .
2- Governor General rightly dissolved the Constituent assembly ?
For addressing the first query court held that the constituent assembly when functioning under Sub Section I of Section 8 of Indian Independence Act , as legislature of the dominion and by which as authority assent of governor general is necessary to all legislation. Hence the writ under 223 A was not valid because it was not yet law and courts lack his jurisdiction.

In a split decision, the Federal Court (now supreme court) overturned the judgment of the Sindh Chief Court. The majority of the bench held that the Constituent Assembly was not a sovereign body in itself but derived its powers from the Indian Independence Act of 1947, which was a British statute. They argued that since the Assembly was functioning under that statute, and because it had not repealed the Indian Independence Act or created a constitution, it remained subordinate to it. Therefore, according to the majority view, the Governor-General still retained certain powers under the Government of India Act, 1935, read with the Indian Independence Act, and the dissolution of the Assembly was not without legal basis.
Moreover it was further strengthened that until new constitution id formed , government of Pakistan was to carried the Act of 1935 in which his majesty was represented by governor general and assent of his majesty in England and in dominions this assent is to be given by Governor General.

Chief Justice Munir, delivering the majority opinion, made a strict interpretation of the law. He emphasized that the laws made by the Constituent Assembly had to be assented to by the Governor-General under the rules still applicable through colonial statutes. Since a bill passed by the Assembly without the assent of the Governor-General could not become law, the Assembly could not be considered sovereign. Thus, he justified the Governor-General’s action as valid within the legal framework inherited from the British era.

Justice Cornelius dissented strongly. He argued that with the creation of Pakistan and the grant of independence under the Indian Independence Act, the sovereignty had passed to the people of Pakistan, and the Constituent Assembly, as their elected representative body, was sovereign. He contended that the Governor-General, being a nominal head, could not override or dissolve a body that represented the will of the people. Cornelius warned against the dangers of judicial endorsement of executive overreach and defended the principle of parliamentary supremacy.

The verdict was criticized for being overly legalistic and for ignoring the democratic foundations of the state. ( I’m remembering the symbol case judgment in which the same trend was followed by justice faiz Isa , democratic will was undermined , democracy was leaved under the shoes of state establishment and peoples were deprived of their constitutional rights on grounds of legal complexity) Many scholars argue that the Federal Court had the opportunity to strengthen democracy and the role of representative institutions but chose instead to uphold colonial structures and executive dominance.

Regards; TEAM ALA.

06/06/2025

Eid-ul-Adha Mubarak!

Wishing you all who celebrated Eid today and those who will observe it tomorrow, along with your loved ones, a blessed Eid ul-Adha.
May the spirit of sacrifice bring peace, unity, joy, and justice to our lives. On this joyous occasion, let's commit to take the solid , bright , unshaken and unwavering stance for the rule of law and pursuing justice with full dedication.

Regards: Team ALA.

04/06/2025

Good Morning Pakistan!
With immense pleasure, we are launching a review series of landmark judgments laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. As a guiding light in interpreting the Constitution and laws of the land, these decisions are essential reservoir of knowledge and wisdom for every law student and member of the legal community.
Stay Tuned,
Regards: Team ALA.

03/06/2025

SUGHRAN BIBI VS THE STATE

Judges Penal:

Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa
Justice Mushir Alam
Justice Maqbool Baqir
Justice Manzoor A. Malik
Justice Sardar Tariq Masood
Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel
Justice Sajjad Ali shah

For the Federation , Mr: Ashtar Ausaf Ali
Petitioner : In Person
Amicus Curiae: Barrister Salman Safdar (personal favourite)

On March 21, 2008, Mohsin Ali was killed during a police encounter in Lahore. The police registered FIR No. 177, alleging that Mohsin and others had assaulted a police party, prompting the police to retaliate in self-defense, resulting in Mohsin's death. Subsequently, on January 12, 2010, Mohsin's mother, Sughran Bibi, filed a private complaint asserting that her son had been murdered by the police in a staged encounter. The Additional Sessions Judge summoned 16 accused officers, and charges were framed on June 18, 2015. However, the trial proceeded at a slow pace. Sughran Bibi then approached the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, seeking issuance directions for the registration of a separate FIR to record her version of the incident( a different perspective from the earlier on which the FIR was lodged )

Legal Issue:

The central issue as mentioned in paragraph 03 of the judgment,was whether a separate FIR could be registered for each and every new version of the same incident when a cognizable offence had already been reported and an FIR is registered by the police?

Pro’s and crontra judgments were kept in front of the bench , one set interpreting the law in terms the registration of separate and multiple FIRs can be made while the other set rebut the same . On addressing the proposition that, “Every FIR when registered have some back version so if the version twist or changed, lodging of second report will be considered as first for the that changed version”.
The Court held that multiple FIRs concerning the same incident should not be registered. Instead, all versions should be recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) during the investigation of the initial FIR. This approach prevents the fragmentation of the case and ensures a unified investigation.
The bench further explained that ,” FIR is not the version of the story to be recorded by the police rather the same is the first information given or received to the police regarding any cognizable offence. FIR to be specific more , is the “Incident Report informing police for the first time about an occurrence in which cognizable offence happened.

Role of the investigation Officer was thoroughly discussed;
The investigating officer is obligated to consider all versions of the incident brought to their notice and investigate the matter from all possible angles. According to police Rules 1934 the cognizable offence is recorded under Rule 24.1 & in 24.2( station diary) .Once the FIR is lodged in any cognizable offence it becomes the “case” a number is awarded to that case and it runs forever in the police record on that assigned number. Moreover as per Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934, the officer's duty is to uncover the truth and not prematurely commit to any view of the facts mentioned in the FIR .Additionally ,the IO is not bound or to be influenced by the contents of the FIR rather it’s the duty of the IO to search for the truth under the spirit of Section 157, 159,160 and so on. (TBH ,in very basic way all these sections were explained for addressing the issue in hand)

Arrest Protocol:
An individual should not be arrested solely based on being named in an FIR. Mere the allegations made in it or mere the name if present in the FIR is not enough ground provided to the police to arrest the person. Unless the investigating officer is satisfied that sufficient justification exists for the arrest, guided by the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. and Police Rules.( this vary point was endorsed by the Islamabad high court when tenths of FIR has been registered against the founding chairman of Pakistan tehreek inshaf, Imran khan)

In the said judgment supreme court put emphasis on that in the cases where multiple FIRs have been registered for the same incident, the Court directed that they be consolidated into a single case to avoid unnecessary harassment and abuse of legal processes.

01/06/2025

28/05/2025

𝐏𝐋𝐃 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟐 𝐋𝐚𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝟕𝟓𝟔
فیملی کورٹ شناختی کارڈ بلاک نہیں کر سکتی۔ شناختی کارڈ بلاک کرنا صرف وفاقی حکومت کا اختیار ہے، فیملی کورٹ ایسا نہیں کر سکتی۔ شناخت کا حق بنیادی حق ہے، بلا کنگ صرف نادرا آرڈینس کی خاص شرائط کے تحت ہی ہو سکتی ہے۔

20/05/2025

“A daughter was mercilessly murdered.” Justice kakar’s remarked in Zahir’ case.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has upheld Zahir Jaffer's death sentence , for the brutal murder of 27 year old Noor Mukadam in 2021 just before the dah of Eid Ul Adha. Noor was found murdered at Zahir's Islamabad residence, with evidence revealing she was tortured before being beheaded with some “sharp cutting instrument.
Zahir Jaffer was arrested of murdering Noor Mukadam,, from his residence at islamabad in 2021. The crime sparked widespread outrage and raised concerns about women's safety in the country.

On 24rth February 2022, a district and sessions court sentenced Jaffer to death for the murder, along with 25 years of rigorous imprisonment for the r**e with fine of Rs200,000 and 10 years imprisonment for the her kidnapping.
Trial court decision was challenged in IHC. The Islamabad High Court upheld Jaffer's death sentence and converted his jail term for r**e charges into a second death penalty in March 2023 with the acquittal of some of the accused in the case in discussion, as 12 accused were charged and specified different roles to them.

From then on accuseds approached the Supreme Court and with flow of time it was yesterday, SC dismissed Jaffer's appeal against his conviction under Section 302 (premeditated murder) of the Pakistan Penal Code, maintaining his death sentence. However, the court converted his death sentence for r**e to life imprisonment and overturned his conviction for kidnapping besides also reduced the fine to 100000.
A three-member bench led by Justice Hashim Kakar, comprising Justices Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Ali Baqar Najafi, announced the verdict.
POV ; The whole criminal justice system is based on the concept to favour the accused upto the possible extent . Unfortunately in many cases the accused is the active player behind an offence but is acquitted later on . CJS (criminal justice system) reforms is the need of the second and it should be done availing all the latest technologies to find the actual doer of an offence in nearest possible time and together with to educate the police department.
Pic courtesy to Dawn.com