| Case ID |
178ed84f-7659-4043-87c1-8000fd8e27ba |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Special Reference No. 1 of 1957 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 05, 1957 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
Held that the Governor has no power to dissolve the Provincial Assembly functioning under Article 225. The court analyzed the constitutional provisions, including Articles 83 and 225, and concluded that the interim Provincial Assembly is not subject to dissolution by the Governor. It emphasized the duration provision in Article 225, which states that the interim Assembly must continue until a new Provincial Assembly is duly constituted under the Constitution, and that premature dissolution would be in contravention of the Article. The court rejected arguments suggesting that Article 83 applies to the interim Assemblies and clarified that Article 83 pertains to the permanent Provincial Assemblies as defined in Articles 77 and 78. The decision also addressed potential conflicts between general and specific provisions, affirming that special provisions prevail. The court concluded that the Governor lacks the authority to dissolve the interim Provincial Assembly under Article 225. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Special Reference No. 1 of 1957 (1957 SLD 5 = 1957 PLD 219), the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the constitutional authority of provincial governors to dissolve their respective Provincial Assemblies under Article 83 in the context of Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The case, presided over by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir along with Justices M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif, and Amiruddin Ahmad, was heard between July 15 and July 25, 1957, in Murree. Petitioners, including Faiyaz Ali, Attorney General for Pakistan, and senior advocates such as A. K. Brohi and Manzur Qadir, argued in favor of granting governors the power to dissolve the interim Provincial Assemblies. Conversely, respondents, represented by advocates like Abdur Rab Nishtar and Nazir Ahmad Khan, contended that Article 225 explicitly prevents such dissolution to ensure the continuity and stability of provincial governance during the transitional period of the Constitution's implementation.
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the interplay between Articles 83 and 225, emphasizing the latter's role as a duration provision that mandates the interim Provincial Assemblies to function until a new assembly is duly constituted under the Constitution. The Court referenced various legal precedents, including Sussex Peerage Claim (1844) and R. v. Banbury (1834), to underscore the principle that specific constitutional provisions typically take precedence over general ones. The judges determined that Article 225 does not implicitly grant dissolution powers to governors under Article 83, as the interim assemblies are uniquely defined and exempt from the general dissolution clause applicable to permanent assemblies.
Furthermore, the Court addressed and refuted arguments suggesting that the President could utilize Article 234 to reconstitute assemblies post-dissolution, highlighting the potential for constitutional chaos and the undermining of parliamentary democracy. The decision reinforced the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional mandates, ensuring that temporary legislative bodies remain stable and immune to executive overreach during critical periods of governmental transition.
This ruling has profound implications for the federal structure and the balance of power between provincial and federal authorities in Pakistan. By affirming that governors lack the authority to dissolve interim Provincial Assemblies, the Supreme Court safeguarded the constitutional process's integrity, preventing potential abuses of power and ensuring that legislative continuity is maintained until formal electoral mechanisms are in place. The judgment also clarified the judiciary's stance on constitutional interpretation, emphasizing the necessity of adhering strictly to the legal text and the framers' intent, thereby reinforcing the rule of law and the separation of powers within Pakistan's governance framework. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Election Commission of Pakistan,
Supreme Court of Pakistan,
President of Pakistan,
Election Commission,
Attorney General for Pakistan,
Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly,
Leader of the Opposition in the West Pakistan Legislative Assembly,
Advocate General of West Pakistan,
Advocate General of East Pakistan,
Delimitation Commission
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J.,
M. SHAHABUDDIN,
A. R. CORNELIUS,
MUHAMMAD SHARIF,
AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JJ
|
| Lawyers |
Faiyaz Ali,
A. K. Brohi,
Manzur Qadir,
M. Ismail Bhatti,
Khurshid Ahmad,
M. Siddiq,
Abdur Rab Nishtar,
Manzari Alam,
Khawaja Abdur Rahim,
Muhammad Akram,
Ahmad Saeed Kirmani,
Nazir Ahmad Khan,
Aftab Husain,
Faiz Muhammad,
M. B. Zaman,
Ijaz Ali,
B. A. Siddiki
|
| Petitioners |
Khurshid Ahmad,
Faiyaz Ali, Attorney General for Pakistan,
A. K. Brohi,
Manzur Qadir,
M. Ismail Bhatti
|
| Respondents |
Not available
|
| Citations |
1957 SLD 5 = 1957 PLD 219
|
| Other Citations |
Sussex Peerage Claim (1844) 11 Cl. and F 85, 143,
R. v. Banbury (1834) 1 A & E 136, 142,
Warburton v. Loveland (1831) 2 D & Cl. (H L) 48J, 489,
Cargo ex Argos (1872) L R 5 P C 134, 153,
Craies on Statute Law, 5th Ed., p. 65,
Odger's Construction of Deeds and Statutes, pp. 181, 184,
Leader v. Duffey (1888) 13 App. Cas. 294 at p. 301,
Canada Sugar Refining Co. v. R. (1898) A C 735 at p. 741,
R. v. Arnold (1864) 5 B & S 322,
Pretty v. Solly (1859) 26 Beav 606 at 610,
H. M. Co. v. Miller (92) Ohic St. 115,
11 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, Art. 55,
11 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, Art. 53,
Mass v. Elphick (1910) 1 K B 465, 467,
Churchil v. Crease (1828) 5 Being 180
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
|
| Sections |
83,
141,
222,
223,
230,
200.00
|