Updated: Wednesday February 06, 2019/AlArbia'a Jamada El Thaniah 01, 1440/Budhavara Magha 17, 1940, at 06:58:12 PM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam
Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa
Suo Moto Case No. 7/2017
(Suo Moto action regarding Islamabad-Rawalpindi
Sit-in / Dharna)
In Attendance: Attorney
Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Sohail Mehmood.
Additional Advocate Generals,
Razzaq A. Mirza and Barrister Qasim Chauhan.
Secretary, D.G. Law and A.D.G. Law of the Election
Yaqoob Fateh, Mr. M. Arshad and Malik Mujtaba respectively.
Chairman, Head Legal, D.G. (Operation and Broadcast Media) and D.G. (Operation Distribution) of PEMRA, Mr. Saleem Baig, Mr. Ali Zeeshan Gondal, Mr. Sohail Asif and Mr. Muhammad Farooq respectively.
Director and Joint Director of I.B., Mr. Malik Aziz-ur-Rehman and Mr. Anwar-ul-Haq Khawar respectively.
Director (Legal) and Deputy Director (Legal), Ministry
of Defence, Brigadier Falak Naz and Lieutenant Commander Shafiq
Deputy Secretary Interior, Mr. Nasir Khan.
Assistant Director (Legal), Mr. Shafiq-ur-Rehman.
IGP and SP,
Mr. Liaqat Hayat Niazi respectively.
Dates of Hearing: 21st November, 2017, 23rd November, 2017, 30th November, 2017, 3rd January, 2018, 16th February, 2018, 19th March, 2018, 15th April, 2018, 11th October, 2018, 16th November, 2018 and 22nd November, 2018.
SMC. No. 7/2017 2
Qazi Faez Isa, J.
1. Muslim candidates contesting elections have to submit a declaration in a prescribed written form affirming that Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the last prophet sent by Almighty Allah. This declaration used to state, “I solemnly swear…” but the words were substituted, in the Elections Act, 2017 with, “I believe…”1. Due to the change in the wording of the declaration there were widespread protests. The Government decided to undo the change made to the wording of the declaration and revert the law to its original position.
2. The Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs on 5th October, 2017 introduced a bill to revert to the original text of the said declaration. The “Statement of Objects and Reasons” of the Bill2 is reproduced hereunder:
Subsequent to the enactment of the Elections Act, 2017 (XXXIII of 2017), misgivings have been expressed in the National Assembly and also reported in the media regarding the wording of the “DECLARATIONS BY THE CANDIDATE” in the nomination form (FORM A) attached with the Act.
2. In order to avoid further controversy, there is consensus amongst the political parties in the National Assembly that the original text of “DECLARATION AND OATH BY THE PERSON NOMINATED”, included in original Form-IA, should be restored in toto.
3. Misgivings have also been expressed regarding the omission of Articles 7B and 7C consequent upon the repeal of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 (Chief Executive’s Order No. 7 of 2002). Again to avoid further controversy, there is consensus amongst the political parties that the provisions of Article 7B and 7C ibid be retained through amendment in section 241 of the Elections Act, 2017. Hence this Bill.
1 The Elections Act, 2017, The Gazette of
2 National Assembly of
31st January, 2019.
SMC. No. 7/2017 3
Parliament accepted the aforesaid amendment and the Elections (Amendment) Act, 20173 was enacted on 19th October, 2017 and the words “solemnly swear” found their way back into the law. The relevant part of the declaration as it stands since 19th October, 2017 is reproduced hereunder:
I, the above mentioned candidate, solemnly swear that:
(i) I believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him), the last of the prophets and that I am not the follower of any one who claims to be a Prophet in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and that I do not recognize such a claimant to be Prophet or a religious reformer, nor do I belong to the Qadiani group or the Lahori group or call myself an Ahmadi.
(ii) I will be faithful to the declaration
made by the Founder of
3. Parliament had resolved the misgivings with
regard to the language of the declaration (on 19th October, 2017), however, the
SMC. No. 7/2017 4
effectively paralyzed the cities of
Those needing medical treatment could not reach doctors or hospitals. Ambulances transporting the seriously ill could not get to Emergency.
4. The leaders of the dharna intimidated, hurled threats, abused, provoked and promoted hatred. The media provided unabated coverage to TLP. Anyone having a grouse against the government joined in. The report4 submitted by Inter Services Intelligence (“ISI”) under the title “Public Support” and subtitle “Political Parties/Personalities” listed the following: “1) Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed (Chairman AML), 2) Ejaz-ul-Haq (PML-Z), 3) PTI Ulema Wing Islamabad released audio message and 4) Sheikh Hameed (PPP)”. Inflammatory speeches were delivered by irresponsible politicians. Some unscrupulous talk-show hosts incited and provoked citizens. The free publicity made TLP, a little known political party, into a phenomenon. Basking in the 4 C. M. A. No. 1229/2018.
SMC. No. 7/2017 5
limelight, TLP’s leadership became ever more intransigent, abusive and aggressive. With each passing day, as they grew in strength and number they became delusional and alleged that people would be rendered objects of Divine displeasure (which is a criminal offence5) unless they followed the chosen path of the TLP. Protests turned violent and spread to other cities.
5. It was in abovementioned background that on 21st November, 2017, this Court passed an order, the relevant part whereof is reproduced hereunder:
4. The prevailing situation demonstrates that the matter is one of public interest and a number of Fundamental Rights of citizens enshrined in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, including, right to life (Article 9), freedom of movement (Article 15), right to education (Article 25A) are prima facie being infringed, which enables this Court to take notice under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution…
6. We would therefore issue notices to the
Attorney General for
Article 184 (3) of the Constitution and Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction
6. This Court had invoked jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (“the Constitution”), which provision is reproduced hereunder:
Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 199, the Supreme Court shall, if it considers that a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II is involved, have the power to make an order of the nature mentioned in the said Article.
5 Section 508 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 makes it a punishable offence to induce a person to believe that he will be rendered an object of Divine Displeasure, and illustration (a) thereunder is with regard to a person who “sits dhurna”.
SMC. No. 7/2017 6
Chapter 1 of Part II referred to in Article 184 (3) of the Constitution is titled “Fundamental Rights” and Articles 9 through to 28 of the Constitution set out specific fundamental rights. These fundamental rights are categorized as human rights in many countries and in international treaties.
7. The jurisdiction invoked by this Court was neither questioned nor challenged. However, as the original jurisdiction of this Court was invoked we should ensure that it was done in accordance with the Constitution. Part VII of the Constitution is titled “The Judicature” and is divided into different chapters:
Chapter 1 – The Court, Chapter 2 – The Supreme Court of Pakistan, Chapter 3 – The High Courts and Chapter 3A – Federal Shariat Courts. The Constitution stipulates that, “No court shal have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law”6. The Constitution confers a number of different jurisdictions on the Supreme Court. The most commonly used one is this Court’s appellate jurisdiction whereunder appeals and petitions for leave to appeal are heard;
these arise from cases already decided by a High Court or tribunal8. Under its transfer jurisdiction this Court may, “transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High Court”.9 The advisory jurisdiction of this Court may be availed of by the President to seek the opinion of this Court, “on any question of law which he considers of public 6 Article 175 (2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
7 Article 185 of the Constitution of the
8 Article 185 of the Constitution of the
9 Article 186A inserted by the Revival of the Constitution of 1973 Order (Presidential Order No. 14 of 1973) affirmed by the Constitution (Eighth Amendment Act, 1985 and incorporated as Article 270A in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
SMC. No. 7/2017 7
importance”10. The Supreme Court is also empowered to decide, “Any dispute between any two or more Governments”
11. In the exercise of its review jurisdiction this Court has the power to review its own judgments and orders
12. The Supreme Court also has an ancillary power, “for doing complete justice in any case or atter pending before it”
13. Jurisdiction under Article 184 (3)
may be invoked by the Supreme Court if two preconditions are met. Firstly, the
matter must be one of public importance and, secondly, it must pertain
to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights. The term public importance
however is not defined in the Constitution. We may therefore, in accordance
with settled principles of interpretation, consider whether the same phrase – public
importance – is used elsewhere in the Constitution, and if so, by reference
thereto the scope of these words can be better determined. Every citizen has the
fundamental right to access “information in all matters of public
importance”14. The President may “obtain the opinion of the Supreme
Court on any question of law which he considers of public importance”15.
Appeals from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of an
11 Article 184 (1) of the Constitution of the
13 Article 187 (1) of the Constitution of the
14 Article 19A of the Constitution of the
15 Article 186 (1) of the Constitution of the
16 Article 212 (3) of the Constitution of the
matter isn’t, in itself, sufficient to invoke jurisdiction. The matter must be one of public importance, that is, it must involve the rights of the public too.
9. In the case of Benazir Bhutto v Federation of Pakistan17 this Court held that, “It is only when the element of “public importance” is involved that the Supreme Court can exercise its power to issue the writ”18. In the case of Manzoor Elahi v Federation of Pakistan19, this Court had deliberated on what is meant by public importance:
Now, what is meant by a question of public importance.
The term “public” is invariably employed in contradistinction to the terms private or individual, and connotes, as an adjective, something pertaining to, or belonging to, the people; relating to a nation, state, or community. In other words, it refers to something which is to be shared or participated in or enjoyed by the public at large, and is not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community. As observed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Hamabai Franjee Petit v. Secretary of State for India-in-Council ILR 39 Bomb. 279, while construing the words public purpose such a phrase “whatever else it may mean must include a purpose, that is an object or aim, in which the general interest of the community, as opposed to the particular interest of individuals, is directly and vitally concerned”. This definition appears to me to be equally applicable to the phrase “public importance”.
The aforesaid definition of public importance, has been consistently followed by this Court. In Suo Moto Case No. 1320 the definition as had been enunciated in the cases Manzoor Elahi and Benazir Bhutto (above) was reiterated:
The public importance of case is determined as observed by this Court in Manzoor Elahi’s case (supra) on question affecting the legal rights and liberties of the people at large, even though the individual who may have brought the matter before the Court is of no significance. Similarly, it was observed in Benazir Bhutto’s case (supra), that public importance should be viewed with reference to freedom and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution, their protection and invasion of these rights in a manner, which raises a serious question regarding their enforcement, irrespective of the fact whether such infraction of right, freedom or liberty is alleged by an individual or a group of individuals.
17 Benazir Bhutto v Federation of
18 Benazir Bhutto v Federation of
19 Manzoor Elahi v Federation of
20 Suo Motu Case No. 13 of 2007 (PLD 2009 SC 217, 229).
In Sohail Butt v Deputy Inspector General of Police21 this Court observed:
Public importance must include a purpose or aim in which general interest of the community as opposed to the particular interest of the individuals is directly and vitally concerned.
In Watan Party v Federation of Pakistan22 this Court said that the scope of public importance had been settled, and it related to the general interest of the community:
It is settled that public importance must include a purpose or aim in which the general interest of the community as opposed to the particular interest of the individuals is directly and vitally concerned.
Thus, a fortiori, this Court may invoke its power under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution provided the matter is one of public importance and pertains to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights.
10. To ensure that in matters of public importance the citizens are not deprived of their fundamental rights is the underlying objective of Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. Before an order is made under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution it would be appropriate if this Court identifies the public importance of the matter and the fundamental right/s requiring enforcement. And every possible care should be taken before making an order under Article 184 (3) since there is no right to appeal such an order.
Applicability of Article 184 (3) of the Constitution to this Case
11. Protestors had converged on major roads and highways, they pelted stones, damaged and burnt vehicles and properties.
Ambulances, doctors, paramedic staff and other organizations
21 Sohail Butt v Deputy Inspector General of Police (2011 SCMR 698, 704).
22 Watan Party v Federation of
providing emergency services, including those of firefighters, Bomb Disposal and Rescue were prevented from rendering emergency assistance or would get unreasonably delayed searching for alternative routes to the emergency. Deprived of access to doctors and medical facilities countless people suffered. An eight-year-old boy lost his life because the dharna on the Faizabad Interchange prevented the ambulance, in which he was being taken, to reach the hospital23. There may have been many more such similar cases which were not reported.
12. Preventing the sick from reaching doctors and hospitals infringes their right to life (guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution) which requires enforcement. Blocking roads for long durations prevents citizens from exercising their right to freedom of movement (guaranteed by Article 15 of the Constitution) and this right of theirs requires enforcement. When students cannot attend schools and educational institutions their right to education (guaranteed under Article 25A of the Constitution) requires enforcement. When litigants’ access to courts is blocked their right to fair trial and due process (guaranteed by Article 10A of the Constitution) requires enforcement. Abusing, threatening and attacking people undermines their right to live a life of “dignity” (guaranteed under Article 14 (1) of the Constitution) which requires enforcement. When shops and businesses are forced to shut, when people cannot pursue their vocation, when poor daily workers are denied the possibility of earning a livelihood their right to work (guaranteed by Article 18 of the Constitution) requires 23 ‘Army called in to restore peace after cop martyred, over 200 hurt in Islamabad clashes’ The News International (Islamabad, 25th November 2017) <https://www.thenews.com.pk/amp/248716-faizabad-sit-in-operation-todisburse-protesters-begins-as-deadline-ends> accessed 1st February, 2019.
enforcement. When property is damaged or destroyed the right to hold and enjoy property (guaranteed under Article 23 of the Constitution) requires enforcement.
Protests spread to other cities. The country effectively came under lockdown. The matter undisputedly was one of public importance and required the enforcement of the fundamental rights of nearly every citizen. This Court therefore invoked its jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
Reports and Proceedings
14. On 23rd November, 2017 the learned
Attorney General for
25 C. M. A. No. 8578/2017.
26 C. M. A. No. 8733/2017.
SMC. No. 7/2017 12
of the Inspector General of Police,
15. On 25th November, 2017 the law enforcement
personnel used tear gas and water cannons to disperse the protestors, but failed,
and gave up after a hundred and seventy-three of them suffered serious injury.
The law enforcement personnel were not allowed to use firearms and were
provided only with anti-riot equipment28. “The mob/protestors were so
prepared that they even cut the wires of all relevant cameras installed within
the jurisdiction of
16. We had sought additional information from PEMRA, the Ministry of Defence and the ISI on 19th March, 2018 and on 24th 27 C. M. A. No. 1229/2018.
28 C. M. A. No. 8733/2017.
29 C. M. A. No. 8733/2017, page 7.
30 C. M. A. No. 8733/2017, page 9.
31 ‘Why was
April, 2018. Inexplicably, the case was not fixed again for over five months. On 11th October, 2018, we directed the Election Commission of Pakistan (“the Election Commission”) to submit a report regarding the registration of TLP as a political party and the provisions whereunder it was registered. Information as to whether TLP abides by the political parties’ code of conduct, whether it is foreign funded and whether it has foreign membership was also sought. The matter next came up for hearing on 16th November, 2018 when it was noted (in the following paragraphs) that some of the information had still not been provided:
2. On the last date of hearing the Inter Services
Intelligence (“ISI”) submitted CMA No. 8712/2018 which was to be
considered today. With the assistance of the learned DAG, we have examined the
report which states that ISI can neither ascertain whether a person has a bank account
nor if he is a tax payer, and such information can only be obtained from the
State Bank of
5. We expect the learned AGP to come prepared
to attend to the matters noted herein as well as those in earlier orders. We
also need to determine the parameters of protests and how these have to be
handled by the State. In this regard whether there are parallels with earlier
protests and how those were handled, including those of 12th May, 2007 in
6. To be continued to be treated as part heard. To come up on 22nd November, 2018.
17. All the hearings in this case were conducted in open court.
We had permitted those aggrieved and those whose interest may be affected to come forward and had also permitted them to file documents and written submissions. Two applications were submitted. The first application32 was by Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gilani, a senior advocate of this Court, who stated that his normal 32 C. M. A. No. 8732/2017.
commute from his residence to the Supreme Court took about thirty-five minutes, which now, on account of the dharna, was taking three hours. He further complained that the administration had adopted a siege mentality by placing large shipping containers across roads to block the protestors from continuing their advance.
He also pointed out that the protest had
spread to other parts of
18. The last hearing in this case took place on 22nd November, 2018 when we again heard the learned AGP and others. After hearing them we permitted an additional four weeks for the submission of documents, reports and written arguments.
However, there was no filing and the four weeks ended on 22nd December, 2018.
33 C. M. A. No. 8803/2017.
34 C. M. A. No. 8803/2017, page 6.
19. When this case commenced, both in the
Federation and the
Previous Protests and TLP Dharna
20. Mr. Siraj Ahmed in his application35 complained that the protestors of the 2014 dharna by PTI-PAT were not treated like those of the TLP. We also wanted to understand the difference in approach and had referred to the 12th May, 2007 Karachi massacre, the 2014 dharna by PTI-PAT in Islamabad (referred to by Mr. Siraj Ahmed) and the TLP Faizabad Interchange dharna by TLP36. Were the earlier gatherings handled differently by the State?
21. 12th May, 2007
36 Order of 16th November, 2018.
express their support for him and an independent judiciary.
General Musharraf however did not want the Chief Justice to be welcomed. Massive shipping containers were brought from the port on trucks and by using mobile cranes were placed across all roads leading to the airport. But this did not deter the people, who abandoned their vehicles and peacefully proceeded on foot to the airport, and this is when they were targeted by gunmen. Fifty-five persons were mercilessly killed and hundreds suffered bullet injuries on 12th May. 2007. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (“MQM”) and its leader, Mr. Altaf Hussain, supported General Musharraf. Incidentally, the shipping containers used to block roads were brought from ports, which were under the domain of the Federal Minister incharge of ports, a nominee of the MQM.
22. 2014 dharna by PTI-PAT at
Litigants, and even judges, had to find
alternative routes to reach the Supreme Court. The PTI-PAT dharna took
Pursuant to allegation of rigging in the General Elections 2013 in particular by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, a political 37 The General Elections 2013 Inquiry Commission Ordinance, 2015, The Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part-I, dated 4th April, 2015.
party and denied by Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), a political party and a party in power, an accord was arrived at between them to setup a Commission to inquire into the allegation of rigging in the General Elections 2013. The Commission to be known as the General Elections 2013 Inquiry Commission shall comprise three Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to be constituted by the Chief Justice of Pakistan on the request of the Federal Government. The Commission shall inquire into and determine whether or not, the General Elections 2013 were organised and conducted impartially, honestly, fairly, justly and in accordance with law; the General Elections 2013 were manipulated or influenced pursuant to a systematic effort by design by anyone; and the results of the General Elections 2013, on an overall basis, are a true and fair reflection of the mandate given by the electorate.
The judicial commission which was constituted
was headed by Mr. Nasirul Mulk, the then Chief Justice of
23. We have considered three different protests and the State’s handling of them. On 12th May, 2007 unarmed citizens wanted to go to the airport to receive the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Constitution guarantees the freedom of movement, however, citizens were prevented from going to the airport. Large shipping containers were placed across roads by the State at public expense. The citizens were not deterred and proceeded on foot when they were fired upon and by day’s end fifty-five lay dead and hundreds more were injured. Seven years later came the PTI-PAT dharna. The three-member Inquiry Commission, headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, unanimously concluded that the results of the general elections of 2013 reflected the mandate of the 38 General Elections 2013 Inquiry Commission, Final Report of the Genera Elections – 2013 Inquiry Commission 2015 (22nd July, 2015) page 236 [TOR 3a].
people. Then three years later the country was faced with the TLP dharna.
24. The leadership of TLP must have noted that
despite the daylight slaughter of innocents on the streets of
Instead PTI received a lot of free publicity. TLP had demanded that the words solemnly swear in the declaration of Muslim candidates be restored. The government conceded and the law was amended.
As per unanimous view of all the intelligence
agencies TLP wanted to maximize political mileage for itself39. The ambitious
leadership of a fledgling political party projected itself as the defender of
the Muslim faith. They provoked religious sentiment, stoked the flames of
hatred, abused, resorted to violence and destroyed property worth 163,952,000
rupees40. Nearly all economic activity in the country was brought to a virtual
standstill by TLP.
40 C. M. A. 1427/2018, page 31.
41 Gross Domestic Product of
calculated to be 88,786,180,821 rupees42. Intelligence agencies reported that politicians visited TLP’s leadership camped on the Faizabad Interchange43. TLP received prime-time free media coverage and publicity, transforming it overnight into a household name. Two of its candidates got elected as members of the Sindh Assembly and TLP got a sizeable number of votes in the 25th July general elections.
The Right to Protest
25. The Constitution does not specifically
stipulate a right to protest. However, democracy recognizes such a right, and
it was through democratic means that
43 C. M. A. No. 1229/2018.
44 The Preamble of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which is now, by virtue of Article 2A, a “substantive part of the Constitution”.
45 The Preamble of the Constitution of the
46 Article 16 of the Constitution of the
47 Article 17 (1) of the Constitution of the
member of a political party”48 and in the “in the right to freedom of speech and expression”49.
The Failure of the State
26. The TLP and its followers, from all accounts, were determined to disrupt civic life. But, to meet this challenge there was little preparation or preplanning by the government, the police and other law enforcement agencies. No plan was apparently prepared to attend to the different eventualities likely to emerge50.
The lack of preparedness to deal with similar
events is most likely the situation even today. It is also not clear whether there
was sufficient coordination between different authorities. A lack of vision,
clarity and indecisiveness seemed to prevail. The District Magistrate of the
49 Article 19 of the Constitution of the
50 In different reports and documents which have been submitted there is no plan attached nor is there any reference to one. Islamabad Senior Superintendent of Police’s letters No. 25321-40/SEC dated 16th November, 2017, No. 25391-420/SEC dated 17th November, 2017, No. 25421-70/SEC dated 17th November, 2017 and No. 25581-610/SEC dated 19th November, 2017 filed in C. M. A. 8578/2017 can not be categorized as plans.
51 Letter No. 10(3)-HC(G)/2017 dated 5th November, 2017, page 14 of C. M. A.
The State however let them down.
The Right to Assemble Peacefully
27. The “right to assemble peacefully and
without arms”52 is “subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by
law in the interest of public order”53. The right of assembly is recognized
as a right to preserve the democratic order, but it cannot be used to overthrow
a lawful government. Nor can the right of assembly be used to bring about a
revolution or insurrection. These principles were enunciated in the case of Islamic
It goes without saying that while the right of
Assembly is a very important right for the preservation of a democratic political
system yet it cannot be denied that no State can tolerate utterances or actions
which threaten to overthrow the Government established by law in that State by unlawful
or unconstitutional means. As observed by the American Supreme Court in the
case of American Communications v. Douds [(1951) 340
The maintenance of public order is the paramount duty of the State. If anyone propagates, “hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Federal or Provincial Government”55 they commit the offence of sedition for which the punishment is imprisonment for life. TLP sowed discord and dissension, it resorted to mob-rule, rioting and the destruction of property.
52 Article 16 of the Constitution of the
53 Article 16 of the Constitution of the
55 Section 124-A of the
28. The House of Lords of the
With regard to assembly on a public highway or a public place it observed that if these:
… are reasonable, do not involve the commission of a public or private nuisance, and do not amount to an obstruction of the highway unreasonably impeding the primary right of the general public to pass and repass, they should not constitute a trespass. Subject to these qualifications, therefore, there would be a public right of peaceful assembly on the public highway.57
29. The rights to free movement, peaceful
assembly and freedom of speech and expression (respectively Articles 15, 16 and
19 of the Constitution) are provided in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, but
Demonstrations whether political, religious or social or other demonstrations which create public disturbances or operate as nuisances, or create or manifestly threaten some tangible public or private mischief, are not covered by protection under Article 19(1). A demonstration might take the form of an assembly and even then the intention is to convey to the person or authority to whom the communication is intended the feelings of the group which assembles. From the very nature of things a demonstration may take various forms; ‘it may be noisy and disorderly’, for instance stone-throwing by a crowd may be cited as an example of a violent and disorderly demonstration and this would not obviously be within Article 19(1)(a) or (b)”.59
In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident case60 the Supreme Court of India observed:
56 Director of Pubic Prosecutions v Jones (Margaret) and another  2 AC 240, 263.
57 Director of Pubic Prosecutions v Jones (Margaret) and another  2 AC 240, 254 (Lord Irvine of Lairg, L.C).
58 Bimal Gurun v Union of
59 Bimal Gurun v Union of
60 In re Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012) 5 SCC 1.
To maintain and preserve public peace, and public order
is unequivocal duty of the State and its organs… There can be no social order or proper State governance without the State performing this function and duty in all its spheres.61
The right of assembly, the freedom of association and the freedom of speech cannot be exercised by infringing the fundamental rights of others. Without obtaining permission public meetings cannot be held on roads. Nor can a road be used as a camping ground or to assemble on it indefinitely. Roads are for vehicular use and pavements are for the use of pedestrians to enable the travelling public to move freely, which is their fundamental right62.
TLP and the Election Commission
30. “Every citizen not being in the service
62 Article 15 of the Constitution of the
63 Article 17 of the Constitution of the
64 Article 17 (2) of the Constitution of the
65 Article 17 (3) of the Constitution of the
66 Page 45 of C. M. A. 9273/2018 submitted by the Election Commission of Pakistan.
67 C. M. A. No. 9273/2018.
National Identity Card for Overseas
Pakistanis68 (“NICOP”), who was “entitled visa free entry to
(a) propagate any opinion, or act in a manner prejudicial to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution;
(b) undermine the sovereignty or integrity of
(c) promote sectarian, regional or provincial hatred or, animosity;
(d) bear a name as a militant group or section or assign appointment titles to its leaders or officebearers which connote leadership of armed groups;
(e) impart any military or para-military training to its members or other persons; or
(f) be formed, organized, set-up or convened as a foreign-aided political party.
The phrase “foreign-aided political party”, includes, receiving “any portion of its funds from foreign nationals”69.
31. If a political party “is a foreign
aided political party or has been formed or is operating in a manner
prejudicial to the sovereignty or integrity of
69 Explanation (c) of section 212 of the Elections Act, 2017.
70 In the official gazette as per section 212 of the Elections Act, 2017.
32. The Election Commission’s report73 states that TLP did not provide information about its funding despite repeatedly directing it to do so. Section 211 of the Elections Act, 2017 and rule 161 (2) of the Elections Rules, 2017, which were referred to by the Election Commission in its notices to TLP, require that political parties submit the following financial details:
Section 211 of the Elections Act, 2017
(1) A political party shall furnish to the Commission the list of contributors who have donated or contributed an amount equal to or more than one hundred thousand rupees to the political party for its election campaign expenses.
(2) A political party shall furnish to the Commission details of the election expenses incurred by it during a general election.
Rule 161 (2) of the Elections Rules, 2017
(2) The details of election expenses under this rule shall be submitted by the political party within sixty days of the publication of the names of returned candidates in the official gazette.
The Director General (Law) and the Secretary of the Election Commission confirmed that TLP did not provide the requisite financial information, however, stated that the law is (to use their words) cosmetic in nature74 therefore the Election Commission could not take action against TLP.
71 Section 212 (2) of the Elections Act, 2017.
72 Section 212 (3) of the Elections Act, 2017.
73 C. M. A. No. 9273/2018.
74 Order dated 16th November, 2017.
SMC. No. 7/2017 26
33. The Election Commission is a constitutional body75 and the Constitution stipulates that the Election Commission shall ensure that, “the election is conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law, and that corrupt practices are guarded against”76. The Election Commission is also required to undertake, “such other functions as may be specified by an Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)”77. Article 17 (3) of the Constitution requires political parties to account for the source of their funds and section 211 of the Elections Act, 2017 demands that details of election expenses be provided. The Election Commission confirmed that TLP did not account for its funds and election expenses, but, surprisingly, professes its helplessness because the law according to it is cosmetic in nature. The Election Commission should disabuse itself that constitutional and legal provisions are cosmetic. The responsibilities placed on the Election Commission by the Constitution and the law must be fulfilled, they are not optional. The Constitution also empowers the Election Commission to get requisite information from any executive authority - “All executive authorities in the Federation and in the Provinces to assist the Commissioner and the Election Commission in the discharge of his or their functions”78.
Freedom of Speech, Expression, Press and PEMRA
34. The freedom of speech and expression and of the press are fundamental rights79. However, these rights cannot be used to denigrate or undermine:
75 Article 218 of the Constitution of the
76 Articles 218 (3) of the Constitution of the
77 Article 219 (e) of the Constitution of the
78 Article 220 of the Constitution of the
79 Article 19 of the Constitution of the
… the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, or commission of or incitement to an offence.80
The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 (the “PEMRA Ordinance”) mirrors the aforesaid restrictions as set out in the aforequoted Article 19 of the Constitution and further prohibits broadcasts which are, “likely to create hatred among the people or is prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order or is likely to disturb public peace and tranquility”81. The licences which PEMRA issues further stipulate that broadcasts cannot be made which, “encourage violence, terrorism, racial, ethnic or religious discrimination, sectarianism, extremism, militancy, hatred”82.
35. TLP’s leadership created hatred amongst the people, they abused, threatened and advocated violence; and this was broadcasted by some private television channels. ISI’s report83 identified “Channel 92” as a television channel supporting TLP and stated that its owners had supplied food to the protestors occupying the Faizabad Interchange. PEMRA, however, did not take action under the PEMRA Ordinance against any of its licencees for violating the terms of their licences. PEMRA abdicated its statutory duty, a duty which it was legally obliged to fulfil.
36. PEMRA also failed to protect the legitimate rights of its licensed broadcasters. Broadcasts by “DAWN” and “Geo” television channels were stopped/interrupted; complaints stating this were 80 Article 19 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
81 Section 27 (a) of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002.
82 Section 20 (c) of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002.
83 C. M. A. No. 8712/2018.
acknowledged by PEMRA84. “DAWN” and “Geo” were particularly targeted in the cantonment and defence housing authority areas of the country, which too was confirmed by PEMRA. But, sadly, PEMRA looked the other way. It did nothing to protect the interests of its licencees nor took action against those cable operators who were responsible. On 19th March, 2018 and on 24th April, 2018, information was sought from PEMRA as to who was responsible, but PEMRA professed ignorance.
37. In compliance with our order85 the
Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through the Deputy Attorney General for
11. Hate speech
Whoever prepares or disseminates information, through any information system or device, that advances or is likely to advance interfaith, sectarian or racial hatred, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both.
12. Recruitment, funding and planning of terrorism
Whoever prepares or disseminates information, through any information system or device, that invites or motivates to fund, or recruit people for terrorism or plans for terrorism shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both.
The hate which was spread and the violence which was incited through electronic means appears not to have been investigated, let alone the violators prosecuted and punished. If serious violations of the law are ignored then the law loses respect and efficacy.
84 Order dated 25th April, 2018.
85 Order dated 3rd January, 2018.
86 C. M. A. No. 2379/2018.
87 The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act,
2016, The Gazette of
38. Television channels and newspapers had complained about interference in their broadcasts and the delivery of their publications. We, therefore, tried to determine whether there was substance in their complaints. The organisation of journalists88, editors89, broadcasters90 and newspapers91 complained that media is being suppressed and at times even silenced. The resolution92 of the Federal Executive Council of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (“PFUJ”) makes troubling allegations:
The Press Freedom in
The Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (“CPNE”) has alleged93 “media repression”, “that editors and journalists are forced to self-censor their work amid pressure from certain quarters” and it “appealed to all state and non-state actors to refrain from such unconstitutional practices”. It seems that “DAWN”, the oldest English language newspaper of the country, which was founded by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was targeted the most.
39. Overt and covert censorship is unconstitutional and illegal.
Nebulous tactics, such as issuing advice to self-censor, to suppress independent viewpoints, to project prescribed ones, to direct who 88 Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists.
89 Council of
92 Federal Executive Council of
93 ‘CPNE passes resolution against media
repression’ Pakistan Today (
media-oppression/> accessed 1st February, 2019.
should be hired or fired by media
organisations is also illegal. This Court has castigated those who had resorted
to such tactics in the past. It had directed that there should be “no
hindrance or obstruction”94 of television broadcasts and the Provincial
Police Officers were directed to take action against the perpetrators. No one,
including any government, department or intelligence agency can curtail the
fundamental right of freedom of speech, expression and press beyond the
parameters mentioned in Article 19 of the Constitution. Those who resort to
such tactics under the mistaken belief that they serve some higher goal delude
40. A half century ago Justice Brendeis96 of
the Supreme Court of the
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensible to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty;
and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lied in 94 Dr. Shahid Masood v Federation of Pakistan (2010 SCMR 1849 at pages 1860-1861).
95 Article 5 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, inserted by the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution by the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010.
96 Whitney v People of State of
the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones… Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears97.
41. Freedom of speech, expression and the press are guaranteed as fundamental rights in the Constitution. Therefore, the quintessential words of Justice Brendeis are equally applicable to the rights conferred by the Constitution upon the citizens of this great country. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted journalists to be responsible, independent and fearless and welcomed criticism. He said:
The power of the press is great, but you must remember that this power which you are wielding is a trust. Look upon it as a great trust, and remember that you are guiding honestly and sincerely the progress and welfare of your nation. At the same time, I expect you to be completely fearless… If I go wrong, or if the League goes wrong in any direction of its policy or programme, I want you to criticise it honestly.98
42. The report submitted by ISI did not
disclose the “source of livelihood, place of work, address, funding of their
organisations, et cetera”99 of the TLP leadership. Subsequently, we had
inquired whether they paid income tax or had bank accounts. ISI responded by
stating that it did not have the mandate to gather such information and
therefore was unable to provide answers to our queries100. The learned AGP was
thus asked101 to inform us about the law/rules/regulations governing ISI and
its mandate. The learned AGP tendered a document (in a sealed envelope) which spelled
out ISI’s mandate, but requested that the mandate of ISI should not be
disclosed. He did not give any reason for such 97 Whitney v People of State
98 Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Speeches, Statements, Writings, Letters, etc.), Muhammad Haneef Shahid (1st edn, Sang-e-Meel 1976) 51.
99 Order dated 23rd November, 2017.
100 C. M. A. No. 1229/2018 and 8712/2018.
101 As noted in our order dated 16th November, 2018.
secrecy except that this was also the practice in other countries but did not cite the example of a single one. We, therefore ascertained whether other countries maintained secrecy about the mandate of their intelligence agencies.
Country and their Intelligence
Laws Governing Intelligence
Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), Security Service (MI5) and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)
The Security Service Act, 1989, Intelligence Services Act, 1994, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000, Justice and Security Act, 2013 and The Investigatory Powers Act, 2016.
Central Intelligence Authority (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
The National Security Act of 1947, Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
Intelligence and Security Act, 2017.
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, 1979 and Intelligence Services Act, 2001.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, 1984.
Norwegian Intelligence Service (
The Oversight of Intelligence, Surveillance and Security Services Act of 1995.
We are disappointed in the manner in which the Government handled this aspect of the case; by ignoring an issue it does not go away. The perception that ISI may be involved in or interferes with matters with which an intelligence agency should not be concerned with, including politics, therefore was not put to rest.
44. The late Air Marshal Asghar Khan, the
youngest officer who headed
Involvement of the officers/members of secret
45. Pursuant to the judgment in Air Marshal Asghar Khan’s case the involvement of ISI and of the members of the Armed Forces in politics, media and other “unlawful activities” should have stopped.
Instead when TLP’s dharna participants received cash handouts from men in uniform106 the perception of their involvement gained traction. The Director General of the Inter-Services Public Relations (“ISPR”) has also taken to commenting on political matters: “history will prove the 2018 general elections were transparent”107. The Armed Forces, and all agencies manned by the 102 Air Marshal (Retd.) Muhammad Asghar Khan v General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig, Former Chief of Army Staff (PLD 2013 SC 1).
103 Article 244 of the Constitution of the
104 Oath of the ‘Members of the Armed Forces’,
Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Islamic
105 Air Marshal (Retd.) Muhammad Asghar Khan v General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig, Former Chief of Army Staff (PLD 2013 SC 1, 119) [102 (11)].
106 ‘Why was
29 November, 2017) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42149535 accessed 1st February, 2019.
107 ‘History will prove 2018 elections were
transparent: DG ISPR’ DAWN (
personnel of the Armed Forces, including ISI,
Military Intelligence (“MI”) and ISPR serve
46. ISI states that it cannot monitor the financials of those advocating violence and carrying out violent acts. However, in the context of terrorism, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 does envisage a role for “Intelligence Agencies, Armed Forces and Civil Armed Forces”109. Intelligence agencies should not ignore those who promote violence and hate. If the proponents of violent ideology and action are not monitored and checked they often mutate against the State and terrorize the people. Those who resort to abuse, hate and violence should never be pampered, instead they should fear the State, its police and intelligence agencies.
47. The Directorate of the Inter Service Intelligence was established during the Premiership of Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan. The Directorate’s first head, designated as the Director of Intelligence, 108 Article 245 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
109 Section 19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
was Brigadier S. Shahid Hamid110. With very
limited resources the Directorate had managed to fulfill its assigned
responsibilities and it did so professionally and by strictly adhering to its
prescribed mandate (as disclosed to us), which did not include either politics or
the media. The newly founded State of Pakistan, which included the then
Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah visualized
Freedom Movement and
111 The opening words of the Preamble to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
112 Air Marshal (Retd.) Muhammad Asghar Khan v General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig, Former Chief of Army Staff (PLD 2013 SC 1, 101) , quoting Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon
him), the founder of the great Islamic tradition of akhlaq (ethics and
morals) and aadab (decency and etiquette), who never uttered an abuse nor
a word which could be construed as abusive. Men and women of integrity,
sincerity and good manners achieved
49. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is designated as Rehmatul lil Aalameen (Mercy of the Worlds). Divine revelation states that his was a “great moral character”113 (khuluqin azimin). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “I am sent only to perfect the noble qualities of character”114; to bring about a moral-ethical transformation. He was the epitome of virtue, ethics, morality and self-abnegation. Threatening another, violating the law, occupying public roads, destroying property, injuring or causing death does not emulate the example of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), his akhlaq and aadab.
Those who employ such tactics cannot be the standard bearers of the Muslim faith. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) taught his followers to live in peace and taught them to greet by saying – “assalam-u-aleykum” (peace be upon you) and to respond to the greeting by saying - “walaykum assalam” (and upon you too) or with a still better response – “waleykum assalam wa rahmatullahe barakatuhu” (and upon you too and upon you be the Blessings and the Mercy of Allah). Muslims must remain vigilant against the self-righteous and arrogant. “The servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, ‘Peace’ ”. The Almighty 113 Al-Quran, Surah Al-Qalam (68) verse 4.
114 Reported in Tirmidhi.
dislikes pride and conceit – “Allah likes not the proud and boastful”.
Those hurling abuses want only need to study the Holy Quran which denigrates even the raising of one’s voice – “The harshest of sounds without doubt is the braying of the ass”115.
50. The first words inscribed in the Constitution are – “In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful”116. Its preamble then unequivocally affirms that sovereignty belongs to Allah Almighty alone and that the authority is to be exercised by the people “within the limits prescribed by Him”117. The Constitution does not permit “the glory of Islam”118 to be denigrated. When a mob abuses, threatens and resorts to violence ostensibly in the name of Islam it does exactly this. True believers abhor such conduct. Slowly, and over a period of time, the real face of Islam is being effaced and the voices of believers, who practice akhlaq and aadab, have been muffled. Ironically, the most offensive speech and violent behavior purports to represent Islam and Muslims; this is against Islam and the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The Constitution holds out the promise that Muslims will be enabled to live “in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam”119, and the State shall endeavour, “to promote unity and observance of the Islamic moral standard”120. Abuse, threats and violence are the antithesis of the Islamic moral standard.
115 Al Quran, Surah Luqman (31) verse 19.
116 The first line which precedes even the title, ‘The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’.
117 The opening words of the Preamble to the Constitution.
118 Article 19 of the Constitution of the
119 Article 31 (1) of the Constitution of the
120 Article 31 (1) of the Constitution of the
51. This case brought to the fore a number of important matters.
We examined the Constitution, determined what constitutes public importance, interpreted fundamental rights, considered the consequences of institutional overreach, the tactics used to achieve political agendas, how the State protects citizens and their fundamental rights, the security mechanisms in place, the mandate and role of the intelligence agencies, the independence and obligations of the media, the responsibilities of PEMRA, the role of the Election Commission and what Islam teaches.
52. We are aware that some of the matters considered by us are moral, political and religious. For instance, those in government on 12th May, 2007 (when unarmed citizens were massacred) or those who extended support to the Faizabad Interchange mob (who disrupted civic life and destroyed property) are today in coveted positions at the highest levels of government. While the general moral decline and the loss of political and religious values can only be commented upon we however have not lost sight of the parameters of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
53. For the reasons mentioned above this case is disposed of with the following declarations and directions:
(1) Subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law, citizens have the right to form and to be members of political parties.
(2) Every citizen and political party has the right to assemble and protest provided such assembly and protest is peaceful and complies with the law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. The right to assemble and protest is circumscribed only to the extent that it infringes on the fundamental rights of others, including their right to free movement and to hold and enjoy property.
(3) Protestors who obstruct people’s right to use roads and damage or destroy property must be proceeded against in accordance with the law and held accountable.
(4) The Constitution earmarks the responsibilities of the Election Commission which it must fulfill. If a political party does not comply with the law governing political parties then the Election Commission must proceed against it in accordance with the law. The law is most certainly not cosmetic as contended on behalf of the Election Commission.
(5) All political parties have to account for the source of their funds in accordance with the law.
(6) The State must always act impartially and fairly. The law is applicable to all, including those who are in government and institutions must act independently of those in government.
(7) When the State failed to prosecute those at the highest echelons of government who were responsible for the murder and attempted murder of peaceful citizens on the streets of Karachi on 12th May, 2007 it set a bad precedent and encouraged others to resort to violence to achieve their agendas.
(8) A person issuing an edict or fatwa, which harms another or puts another in harm’s way, must be criminally prosecuted under the Pakistan Penal Code, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and/or the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016.
(9) Broadcasters who broadcast messages advocating or inciting the commission of an offence violate the PEMRA Ordinance and the terms of their licences and must be proceeded against by PEMRA in accordance with the law.
(10) Cable operators who stopped or interrupted the broadcast of licenced broadcasters must be proceeded against by PEMRA in accordance with the PEMRA Ordinance, and if this was done on the behest of others then PEMRA should report those so directing the cable operators to the concerned authorities.
(11) Those spreading messages through electronic means which advocate or incite the commission of an offence are liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016.
(12) All intelligence agencies (including ISI, IB and MI) and the ISPR must not exceed their respective mandates. They cannot curtail the freedom of speech and expression and do not have the authority to interfere with broadcasts and publications, in the management of broadcasters/publishers and in the distribution of newspapers.
(13) Intelligence agencies should monitor activities of all those who threaten the territorial integrity of the country and all those who undermine the security of the people and the State by resorting to or inciting violence.
(14) To best ensure transparency and the rule of law it would be appropriate to enact laws which clearly stipulate the respective mandates of the intelligence agencies.
(15) The Constitution emphatically prohibits members of the Armed Forces from engaging in any kind of political activity, which includes supporting a political party, faction or individual. The Government of Pakistan through the Ministry of Defence and the respective Chiefs of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are directed to initiate action against the personnel under their command who are found to have violated their oath.
(16) The police and other law enforcement agencies are directed to develop standard plans and procedure with regard to how best to handle rallies, protests and dharnas, and ensure that such plans/procedures are flexible enough to attend to different situations. It is clarified that though the making of such plans/procedures is not within the jurisdiction of this Court however we expect that in the maintenance of law and order every effort will be taken to avoid causing injury and loss of life.
(17) We direct the Federal and provincial governments to monitor those advocating hate, extremism and terrorism and prosecute the perpetrators in accordance with the law.
54. It would be apt to conclude this judgment by quoting Quaide-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah:
I consider it my duty to call upon the Muslims to temper their resentment with reason and to beware of the dangers which may well overwhelm their own State. Should they allow their feelings of the moment to gain mastery over their actions.121
It is of utmost importance that
is bound to shake… its foundation and cause irreparable damage to its future.122
I pray to God that He who has bestowed on us
this great boon of a sovereign State, may now give our people courage to…
preserve intact the peace of
55. The office is directed to send copies of
this judgment for information and compliance to the Government of Pakistan, through
the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary Defence, Secretary Interior, Secretary Human
Rights, Secretary Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony, Secretary
Information, the Chief Secretaries of the provinces, the Election Commission of
Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, the
122 Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Speeches, Statements, Writings, Letters, etc.), Muhammad Haneef Shahid (1st edn, Sang-e-Meel 1976) 97.
123 Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Speeches, Statements, Writings, Letters, etc.), Muhammad Haneef Shahid (1st edn, Sang-e-Meel 1976) 98.
Inter Services Intelligence, the Director
General Inter Services Public Relations and the head of the Military
Intelligence. Secretary Interior is directed to forward the judgment to the
Director General Intelligence Bureau, Director General Federal Investigation
Agency, Inspector Generals of Police of the provinces and the
56. This case and all pending applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Rana Ali Wajahat Khan)
Announced in open Court at
Approved for Reporting