Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (56)

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal

System

Dr. Aman Ullah

Samee Uzair

Although application of Islamic law was part of the British legal system,
however, it was confined to personal laws of the Muslims. After
Independence, there was a surge in the demand to Islamize the laws in
accordance with Islamic injunctions, to enable the Muslims to fashion
their lives in an environment of Islamic culture. Responding to the political
will of the Muslims that its future constitution would base on the
principles of Islam, the Objectives Resolution was passed by the
Constituent Assembly, to insure its Islamic structure. It became preamble
of all future constitution of Pakistan, whether presidential or
parliamentary, permanent or interim, abrogated or suspended. As a
preamble it has been recognized as grund norm, spirit of the constitution
or blue print of the State of Pakistan. Then it was incorporated as a
substantive part of the Constitution. Change of its legal status triggered
controversy, uncertainty and confusion. Finally, its paramount position,
over the Constitution and law was compromised; however, it has been
recognized as a part of basic structure of the Constitution. Devoid of its
overriding effect, its principles have been widely applied; interpreting
human rights, rule of law and independence of judiciary.
Key words: Objectives Resolution, Islam, basic structure, judicial
interpretation, constitutional rights.

1. Introduction
At the outset, the article introduces historical background of the
Objectives Resolution. The way it was framed and how it was
recognized as a preamble of all the Constitutions of Pakistan from
1956 to 1973, the last one. Then it explains, in the light of case
law, the impact of the Federal Shariat Court to Islamize the laws. It
deeply digs out the changes brought under Article 2-A in 1985,
incorporating it as an operative part of the Constitution. Then, in
detail, its impact on the Constitution and law is analyzed. The
substantive part of the research also focuses on recognition of the
Objectives Resolution as an integral part of the basic structure of
the Constitutional doctrine. Finally, the work concentrates on its
role in the expansion of various laws, creation of legal theories and
extension of rights, concluding that, as a grund norm and as an
operative part of the Constitution, how it has been welcomed as a
spirit of the Constitution and blue print of the State of Pakistan.

Assistant Professor, Punjab University Law College, Punjab University, Lahore.

Assistant Professor, Punjab University Law College, Punjab University, Lahore.

Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (57)

2. Historical Developments
Islamic personal law touched the soil of India long before the
military arrival of Islam. First time in its history, the Sultanate of
Delhi enforced Islamic law. Mughals also continued with the
established system. Although they introduced Islamic public law,
but there were many exceptions and exemptions for the local
population, with different religions and castes. When the East India
Company was gradually authorised to govern local masses, it also
went on with more systematic religious freedoms, relating to
marriage, divorce, inheritance and other personal issues.
Regulations of 1780, unequivocally, guaranteed that, in suits
regarding inheritance, marriage, caste and other religious usages
and institutions, the laws of the Koran with respect to the
Mohammedans and those of the Shaster with regard to the Gentoos
will be invariably adhered to; and on all such occasions, Maulvis
or Brahmins shall respectively attend the Courts or expound the
law and they shall sign the report and assist in passing the decree.1
Initially, the Companys Courts were established and obliged to
apply Shariah, even in the sphere of public law. With the passage
of time, the Company replaced Islamic public law with its own
judicial system; however, in the realm of private law, the Courts
were ordained to apply Muhamedan law with respect to
Mohammedans and Hindu law with regard to Hindus. However,
the general principles of the English concept of justice, equity,
fairness, reasonableness and good conscience were substituted with
traditional ones.
Later on, the English law was applied to British citizens and
local laws to the local people. However, in a case of conflict, the
English legal system was preferred2. Finally, when the Raj
consolidated its power grip over all Indian sub-continents, then it
overhauled the entire legal system. Law started to be codified in
form of Acts and Bills. Worthy to note is that almost all
enactments of that era were made over and above Shariah and
customary law, ignoring personal beliefs, faith and religion3.
To transform the society palatable to the colonial rule, the
British, who were compelled to maintain harmony in various parts
of India, interestingly, did not extend the application of the new
statutes to the whole colony. Instead, they, responding to
administrative expediency, exempted many parts of India from

Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (58)

their application; Punjab was one of the beneficiaries, which was

the stronghold of customs4.
Probably, it was mistakenly presumed by the British that it
applied to the Muslims as well. Even the customary law dominated
the religious laws. Religious laws used to be applied only in the
case of absence of established customs.
Prior to the partition of India, a number of laws were
enacted regarding marriage and divorce of Muslims. The Child
Marriage Restraint Act 1929 was enacted wherein it was laid down
that no child below the age of 14 would be given in marriage. A
great hue and cry was raised by the Muslims. Learning lessons
from the history and realizing the risk to their personal law,
regarding the preference of customary law over Shariah, they
persuaded the British Government to reverse the priority. Their
voice was well received by the colonial masters, who were in dire
need of maintenance of social harmony. The struggle to reform the
law culminated in form of the Shariat Application Act 1937, which
provided that Islamic laws would override the customary law.
However, creating an exception, it was optional for the Muslims,
in a number of their personal law issues, whether to be treated in
accordance with Islamic law or customary law. Notably, it was
applicable to the whole of colonial India5. It is worthy to note that
the statement of objects and reasons issued with the Bill explained
that, apart from the demand of Ulamma, press and activist
Muslims women organizations, The Jami'at alUlama Hind, the
greatest Muslim religious body, has supported the demand and
invited the attention of all concerned to the urgent necessity of
introducing a measure to this effect6. No doubt, it was evident that
the demand was unanimous from all corners of the Muslim
community.
Another significant legislation was the Muslim Married
Women's Dissolution of Marriages Act 1939 whereby a Muslim
married woman was given the right of seeking dissolution of
marriage through the Court of Law on various grounds, such as
cruelty, husband's whereabouts not known for four years, husband
having been sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, husband's
neglect to maintain his wife for two years or abstaining from
performing marital obligations for three years or for any other
cause recognized by Shar'iah.The Independence Act1947 obliged
both India and Pakistan to continue in force all the laws, along

Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (59)

with the British judicial system, until the respective Constituent

Assemblies amended or repealed them. At the time of
Independence, the public law was English and private law was
Islamic for the Muslims, with an option in few matters that they
could opt for customary law7.

3. Impact on Constitution and Law

Since the framing of a new constitution suffered setbacks due
to the early constitutional problems, like the form of federation,
representative ratio in parliament, question of Islamic provisions,
and number of national or official languages. It took nine years to
frame the constitution. However, in 1949, the Objectives
Resolution was passed, which outlined the principles of the future
constitution8.It became Preamble of the coming constitutions from
1956 to 1973. In Asma Jilani9case, the Supreme Court put the
Objectives Resolution on a higher pedestal, leading to a perception
that it was a supra-constitutional provision, recognizing it as
grund norm. However, when the question of its higher status was
raised in the case of State v. Zia-ur-Rehman10, the Court clarified
that grund norm was not supra-constitutional as it was not a
substantive part of the Constitution. Again, it led to an
understanding that it would be overriding if it would have been an
operative part of the Constitution. To give it a superior position,
Article 2-A was first introduced by the Presidential Order No. 14
and then it was indemnified by Eighth Amendment in 1985. After
getting protection as a substantive part, the higher Courts were
stormed with petitions to declare a number of laws un-Islamic as
they were repugnant to the Islamic law11.
Although Islamization process to test the laws on the
touchstone of Islamic injunctions was already operative in the
form of Federal Shariat Court established in 1980, first as a
Shariat Bench in all High Courts and then as an independent
and separate judicial organ. However, its jurisdiction was
limited and four areas of laws were kept out of its ambit. It
could not analyze the provisions of the Constitution,
procedural laws, family laws and fiscal laws till 1990, on the
yardstick of injunctions of Islam. However, it ceased a number
of laws on the ground of their conflict with Islamic laws.
The Federal Shariat Court trespassed its proscribed area to
Islamize the laws, two times. First in the case of Farishta v

Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (60)

Federation of Pakistan 12, decided by the Shariat Bench of

Peshawar High Court, where the provisions of the Muslims
Family Laws Ordinance were declared repugnant to Islam, hence,
invalid. However, in Federation of Pakistan v Farishta13the
Supreme Appellate Bench, overturned the judgment and held
that the Ordinance was falling within the scope of Muslim
Personal Law and was applicable to Muslims alone, therefore, its
scrutiny was outside the jurisdiction of Shari'at Courts. Second in
the case of Allah Rakha v Federation of Pakistan14, the Federal
Sahriat Court, once again, crossing the limits of its jurisdiction,
declared some provisions of the MFLO to cease after a particular
date, compelling the Government to replace it with Islamic law.
Here too, in the Hafiz Abdul Waheed v Asma Jehangir15, the
Supreme Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court, deciding on
technical grounds of jurisdiction, overturned the excess of
constitutional jurisdiction, under Article 203-B(C ).
Although the process of Islamization of laws was fully
operative, under Article 203 of the Constitution, but insertion of
Article 2-A synergized it. When the MFLO was challenged in the
Sind High Court, on the ground, that it was inconsistent with
Article 2-A, the Federal Shariat Court, taking cognizance of its
potential conflict, held in Qamar Raza v Tahira Begum16 (1988)
that the constitutional protection to the MFLO was over and it
was open to be challenged on the ground of the Objectives
Resolution and Article 227. The Court further observed that now
it was an appropriate time for a High Court to ignore its
protection under Article 268 of the Constitution as well. The
approach resulted in cessation of a number of provisions of the
MFLO. Following Qamar Raza17case, Justice Tanzil also held in
the case of Shaukat Hussain v. Robina18 that In the face of Article
2-A, subsequently added, it would not, perhaps, be possible to
extend recognition to the said protection in so far it derogates or
comes into conflict with the principles and provisions underlying
the Objectives Resolution
From 1985 to 1992, nearly, 32 cases were filed to challenge
various laws on the ground of their repugnance with Islamic law.
Not only the Federal Shariat Court, but the four High Courts also
faced a dilemma to assess the supra-constitutional status or
overriding effect of the Resolution on the Constitution and other

Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (61)

laws. Even in one High Court, Judges came up with conflicting

observations and relief19.
The first case of impact of the Objectives Resolution was
Bank of Oman v East Trading Company 20 wherein the provision
of a law was challenged on the ground of repugnancy with Islam.
The Court held that Article 2-A provided jurisdiction of review to
all higher Court, including the Federal Shariat Court, to assess the
validity of a law, along with the Constitution, on the touchstone
of Islamic law. The ratio was followed in Irshad H. Khan v
Pervez Ajaz21 that it was paramount and supra-constitutional.
Therefore, all provisions of the Constitution were reviewable on
the test of Islam, except the Resolution itself.
One of an earlier challenges was the case of Qaiser Ali v
Karachi Road Transport Corporation22 wherein the Sind High
Court observed that after the incorporation of Article 2-A English
Common Law was to be replaced with Islamic Common Law and
its principles, extending the impact not only to the Constitution
and law but also to the discretionary executive powers. In Ajaz
Haroon v Inman Durrani23 and Tyeb v Alpha Insurance
Company24, Justice Wajihuddin recognized the paramount impact
of Article 2-A on all laws, including the Constitution. Similarly,
In Faisal v Sectary25, the Federal Shariat Court held that Article
2-A had overriding effect on all laws. While the Lahore high
Court followed the same path and held, in Allah Banda v
Khurshid Bibi26, that Section 7 of the MFLO was invalid on the
test of Article 2-A.
On the other hand, the Sind High Court was moving to
different direction with another extreme view of Article 2-A. like,
in the case of Mohammad Bachal Memon v Government of
Sindh27, the full Bench of the Sind High Court held, assessing the
impact of Article 2-A, that all the constitutional provisions had
equal force of law and one provision did not override the other
one. Similarly, in Sharaf Afridi v Federation of Islamic Republic
of Pakistan28 also held that it was not open to the Court to
adjudge any provision of the Constitution invalid on the ground
of its repugnancy with Article 2-A. and in the case of Habib Bank
v Wahid Textile Mills29, it was held that it was not a self-executory,
supra-constitutional or an overriding provision.
In the same line of approach, the Lahore High Court in
Mustafa Khar v Pakistan 30 held that no constitutional provision

Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (62)

could be defeated or struck down on the ground of the Objective

Resolution, as it did not enjoy any higher place. In Kaniz Fatima
v. Wali Muhammad31, Justice Allah Nawaz held that no Court
could exercise any jurisdiction if already a Court had been
provided an exclusive jurisdiction. In another case he opined that
although the Objectives Resolution was a blue print of the State of
Pakistan, however, it did not change its character and effect32.
The controversy of overriding effect or supra-constitutional
character of the Objectives Resolution, started by an Order passed
by the Martial Law Authority, which was later indemnified by the
Parliament, was laid to rest forever in the case of Hakim Khan v
Government of Pakistan33, where in the impact of Article 2-A on
Article 45 of the Constitution was raised before the Court. It was
held in the instant case that as the Objectives Resolution was,
although it was a substantive of the Constitution, not selfexecutory, therefore, it was void of impact of supremacy; no
provision of the Constitution could be declared to cease its effect
on the ground that it was inconsistent with Article 2-A.
Unequivocally, its impact was that it was a non-operative part of
the Constitution. Justice Shafi-u-Rehman went further to assess
its status saying that even an ordinary law, apart from the
Constitution, could not be tested on its touchstone, whether it
collided with Shariah or not34.
The case of Hakim Khan 35 determined that Article 45 could
not be declared invalid on the ground of Article 2-A. Whether a
statute could be challenged on that very ground came in question
in the case of Kaneez Fatima v Wali Mohammad 36, where it was
held that even an ordinary law could not be declared invalid on
the ground of Islam. However, as an exception, the Supreme
Court held in Zaheerudin v State37 that right to religion, a
fundamental right, which was a constitutional provision, was
subject to Islamic law.
However, after Zaheerudin, the Courts reverted to the ruling
of Hakim Khan case38.

4. Part of Basic Structure of Constitution

Insertion of Article 2-A raised a huge controversy, in our legal
and constitutional environment, from 1985 and was finally settled
down in the case of Hakim Khan case39 holding that all the
constitutional provisions were equal; no Court had jurisdiction to

Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (63)

review any law on the test of Islam, which was an exclusive

jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court. Moreover, it was also laid
that, even as an operative part of the Constitution; it did not change
the basic character of the Objectives Resolution.
Before and after incorporation of the Objectives Resolution as a
substantive part, particularly after the persuasive precedent of
Kesavananda Bharati case40, it has been contended as a part of
basic structure of the Constitution, whenever a constitutional
amendment was challenged.
From Zia-ul-Rehman v State41 to Khawaja Muhammad
Sharif v Federation of Pakistan42, the constitutional Courts
sustainably opined that the Courts were creature of the
Constitution and it did not empower them with the jurisdiction to
review a constitutional amendment on any ground. However, they
were just allowed to review an ordinary law, not the constitution;
therefore, the political question needed to be reviewed by an
appropriate forum: parliament.
The Supreme Court turned its trajectory in the case of
Mehmood Khan Achukzai43, when the constitutionality of Eighth
Amendment was challenged on the ground of basic structure of the
Constitution, inter alia, including the Objectives Resolution. Chief
justice of the Supreme Court observed that the Objectives
Resolution reflected the salient features of the Constitution and
was enough to provide a basic structure. Although the provisions
of impugned 8th Constitutional Amendment were not declared as
inconsistent with salient features of the Constitution, but doctrine
of the basic structure of the Constitution was recognized and the
jurisdiction to review a constitutional amendment on the yardstick
of the Objectives Resolution was assumed.
Similarly, Fourteenth Amendment was also challenged on
the ground of basic structure of the Constitution, in the case of
Wukala Mahaz Barai Tahaffuz Dastoor v. Federation of
Pakistan44. However, the Supreme Court went one step back and
refused to excise its jurisdiction to review a constitutional
amendment, returning to Zia-u-Rehman45.
In October 1999, the Constitution was suspended by
Military. The legitimacy of the Military regime was challenged
in the Zafar Ali Shah v Chief Executive46. The Supreme Court
validated the extra-constitutional act and authorized the
regime to amend the Constitution, with a condition that the

Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (64)

authority would not amend any provision of the Constitution

which would be in conflict with the basic structure of the
Constitution, namely, federal form of government,
parliamentary democracy, independence of Judiciary,
fundamental rights and its Islamic provisions, including Article
2-A. Ironically, the Military regime never bothered about the
limitations and changed its whole complexion47. Although
excess of the Supreme Courts mandate was challenged, but a
complaint judiciary could not bridle the powerful regime. Later
on, all the military acts or Orders were indemnified by the
Parliament under Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment48.
Like others, it was also challenged on the ground of its conflict
with basic structure of the Constitution, defined and elaborated
in Mahmood Khan Achakzai v Federation of Pakistan49, and
Zafar Ali Shah50. Once again, the Supreme Court stuck to the
rule of Zia-u-Rehman, in the case of Pakistan Lawyers Forum v
Federation of Pakistan51, recognizing that although there was a
basic structure or salient features of the Constitution, and the
Achakzais Court had rightly underscored, but it did not mean
that the Court had jurisdiction to review constitutional
amendments on its touchstone.
The Eighteenth Amendment, passed unanimously by
parliament, drastically altered, inter alia, the procedure of
appointment of Judges in the higher Courts, inserting Article
175A, which ostensibly affected the independence of Judiciary.
A lot of petitioners rushed to the Supreme Court in Public
Interest Litigation under Article 184(3). The Court issued a
short Order, recognizing that there was a basic structure of the
Constitution, established in the cases of Achakzai and Zafar Ali
Shah, including the Objectives Resolution as a substantive part
of the Constitution under Article 2-A. Instead of declaring the
Amendment void as inconsistent with the basic structure of the
Constitution, the Court, following Hakim Khan52, asked the
parliament to reconsider it in the light of basic structure of the
Constitution. Following the instructions of the Court, the
parliament passed 19th Amendment to give effect to the Courts
Order. Now, it has also been challenged on the ground that it
again collides with basic structure and does not comply the
Courts Order.

Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (65)

5. Utility in Interpretation
All along, as a preamble of the Constitution, the Objectives
Resolution has been a beacon of light for the Courts to interpret the
Constitution and law. However, the twist came when Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court, Hamood-u-Rehman, held in Asma Jilani
v Government of the Punjab53 case that the Objectives Resolution
was a grund norm of the Constitution. Therefore, in Zia-uRehman54case, the constitutional amendments were challenged on
the ground that it was a supra-constitutional provision. The Court
explained that it never meant that the Resolution had any
overriding effect on other provisions of the Constitution.
Introduction of the Shariat Benches and then the Federal Shariat
Court empowered the Judiciary to Islamize the laws. However, its
jurisdiction was limited to review, inter alia, the Constitution. In
pursuance of the understanding emerged in State v Zia-urRehman55, the Objectives Resolution was incorporated as a
substantive part of the Constitution under Article 2-A by Eighth
Amendment 1985. When its overriding effect was raised, the
Judiciary was deeply divided, having various approaches. Few
judges, on the ground of Article 2-A, declared the constitutional
provisions void as repugnant to Islam, others observed a number of
statutory laws against the injunctions of Islam.
However, there has been a consensus that Article 2-A was a
treasure trove to interpret the Constitution and law. In Hakim
Khan, the question of its paramount impact was finally settled
down that all provisions of the Constitution were equal and the
Judiciary was not empowered to review them. On the other hand,
in case of Zaheerudin v State56, the Supreme Court held that the
constitutional provisions, at least fundamental right to religion,
were subject to Islamic law. Except this maverick case, Hakim
Khan57 Case has been followed as a binding precedent. Before and
after incorporation of the Objectives Resolution as a substantive
part of the Constitution, it has been recognized as a valuable source
to indigenize the law in its light. Its first entry as a guideline to
interpret an ambiguous provision was the definition and scope of
the words justice, equity and good conscience, used in various
statutes and judgments58. Islamic law filled a lacuna or gap where a
statute law was silent59. In the case of State Bank of India v
Custodian of Evacuee Property60, the Court depended on the

Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (66)

Islamic law to remove an ambiguity of the Statute. In Nizam Khan

v Additional Sessions Judge61, the Court expressly held that
Islamic law was to be applied where a statute or judgment would
be ambiguous; all such vacuum must be filled with Islamic
philosophy and jurisprudence. The Court also emphasized that, in a
case of confusing concepts, the Courts were free to apply Muslim
Common Law. The Supreme Court, in the case of A.M. Qureshi v
USSR62, also recognized to apply Islamic law in the interpretation
of customary international law and statutory law of Pakistan.
However, occasionally, the Courts refused to borrow Islamic law63.
The real change in jurisprudence occurred when the Shariat
Benches in all High Courts were incorporated in the
Constitution, with an exclusive jurisdiction to review the laws
on the test of Islam and cease them, after an enough time
granted to the parliament for its replacement with Islamic law.
Although the Benches were devoid of a jurisdiction to review,
inter alia, the Muslim family laws, but the Shariat Bench of the
Peshawer High Court, removing the barrier of jurisdictional
limits, declared the MFLO un-Islamic. The landscape was
substantially transformed when the Objectives Resolution was
embodied in the Constitution as an operative part under
Article 2-A, by a constitutional amendment in 1985. It brought
up a revolutionary change in judicial approach to interpret the
Constitution and law. Even those Judges who refused to test
the Constitution and law on the yardstick of Article 2-A
generously welcomed its role in their interpretation. Justice
Saleem Ahtar, while refusing to recognize Article 2-A as a
paramount provision, emphasized that Article 2-A could be
used to interpret a law, not to abolish the law itself64.
Similarly, Justice Khalil-u-Rehman held that the effect of
Article 2-A was that it must be applied to interpret Islamic law,
therefore, he explained public interest in the light of Islamic
law, on the ground of Article 2-A. He also suggested that due
process of law, an American doctrine, was not more than
fundamental rights, principles of policy and the Objectives
Resolution, guaranteed in the Constitution, in meaning and
impost65.
In the case of Massu v United Bank Limited66, Justice Allah
Nawaz, while speaking on behalf of the Lahore High Court,

Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (67)

observed that it was the spirit of the Constitution and a propelling

force in the creation of the country. He further stressed that the
State functionaries including judiciary are under a statutory duty to
follow the common law of Islam in the fields where there is no
statutory dispensation and in fields where the State functionaries
had to pass orders in exercise of their discretionary authority.
The constitutional Courts enhanced the ambit of
fundamental rights, interpreting them in the light of Article 2A67. In a number of cases, social and economic justice
enshrined in the Objectives Resolution as a substantive part of
the Constitution has also been vigorously protected68. The
interpretative value of the Objectives resolution also helped
promote rule of law. The higher Courts borrowed its golden
principles to interpret explain the issues of any ground, no
inherent power for the public functionaries, and registration
of a vote at two places.

6. Conclusion
Although application of Islamic law has not been a new
phenomenon in the legal system of Pakistan as it started with the
Shariat Application Act 1937, however, it was highly limited to
Muslims personal law. After Independence, the Courts embraced
its application except where there was no statute or a precedent.
Judicial role to review the law on the yardstick of Islam emerged,
with the creation of Federal Shariat Court, with a limited
jurisdiction. It was synergized when the Objectives Resolution
turned as a substantive part of the Constitution. Its dominant
position triggered a wave of litigation, which was finally settled as
Article 2-A did not make any difference. However, it can
authoritatively concluded that it brought a revolutionary change in
the jurisprudence of the legal system of Pakistan, promoting,
fundamental rights, principles of policy, womens and children
rights, rule of law, principles of equality; social, economic and
political justice, and Independence of Judiciary.

Notes & Reference

1

Cassandra Balchin, A Handbook on Family Law in Pakistan

(Shirkat Gah: 1994) 11
2
See Pearl, David and Werner Menski, Muslim Family Law
(Sweet & Maxwell: 1998) 241

Al-Qalam June 2011

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (68)

Dr Tahir Mahmood, Muslim Personal Law: Role of State in the

Indian Sub-Continent (2d ed. All India Reporter Ltd: 1983)
4
Tipu Salman Makhdoom, Law in Transformation: Talaq----a case
study PLD 1998 J 1
5
Mahmood
6
Mahmood; Balchin,
7
Shariat Act, 1937
8
The Idea of Pakistan, Stephen P. Cohen, (Washington: The
Brookings Institution: 2004) 57
9
Asma Jillani v Government of Punjab PLD 1972 LAH 139
10
State v Zia Ur Rehman (1973: SC 49)
11
Martin Lau, The role of Islam in the legal system of Pakistan,
(Martinus Nijhoff: 2006) 47
12
Farishta V Federation of Pakistan PLD 1980 Presh. 47
13
Federation of Pakistan v Farishta PLD 1981 SC 120
14
Allah Rakha v Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2000 FSC 1
15
Hafiz Abdul Waheed v Asma Jehangir PLD 1989 SC 219
16
Qamar Raza v Tahira Begum PLD1988 Kar 169
17
Qamar Raza (1988: 169)
18
Shaukat Hussain v Robina PLD 1989 Karachi 513
19
Lau, 48
20
Bank of Oman v East Trading Company PLD 1987 Kar 404
21
Irshad H. Khan v Pervez Ajaz PLD 1987 Kar 466
22
Qaiser Ali v Karachi Road Transport Corporation PLD 1986 Kar
489
23
Ajaz Haroon v Anman Durrani PLD 1989 Kar 304
24
Tyeb v Alpha Insurance Company 1990 CLC 488
25
Faisal v Sectary PLD 1992 FSC 195
26
Allah Banda v Khurshid Bibi 1990 CLC 1683
27
Mohammad Bachal Memon v Government of Sindh PLD 1987
Kar 296
28
Sharaf Afridi v Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD
1989 Kar 404
29
Habib Bank v Wahid Textile Mills PLD 1989 Kar 371
30
Mustafa Khar v Pakistan PLD 1988 Lah 49
31
Kaniz Fatima v Wali Muhammad PLD 1989 Lah 490
32
Massu v United Bank 1990 MLD 2304
33
Hakim Khan v Government of Pakistan PLD 1992 SC 585

Al-Qalam June 2011

34

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (69)

Edit by Javaid Rehman and Suzan C. Breau, Religion, human

rights and international law: a critical examination of Islamic
State Practices (Martinus Nijhoff: 2007)
35
Hakim Khan (1992)
36
Kaniz Fatima v Wali Mohammad PLD 1993 SC 901
37
Zaheer Ud Din v State 1993 SCMR 1718
38
Shafi Mohammadi v Islamic Republic of Pkaistan PLD 2003
Kar 1, Malik Asghar v Punjab PLD 2003 Lah 73; Mehram Ali
v Federation Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1445
39
Hakim Khan (1992)
40
Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala and Others (AIR
1973 SC 1461)
41
State v Zia-u Rehman PLD 1973 SC 49
42
Khawaja Muhammad Sharif v Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988
Lah 725
43
Mahmood Khan Achakzai v Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1997
SC 426
44
Wukala Mahaaz Barai Tahaffuz Dastoor v. Federation of
Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1263
45
Zia-ur-Rehman (1973)
46
Zafar Ali Shah v Chief Executive PLD 2004 SC 869
47
Craig Baxter, Pakistan on the brink: politics, economics, and
society: 69
48
Constitutional Amendment (2004)
49
Mahmood Khan Achakzai v Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1997
SC 426
50
Zafar Ali Shah (2000)
51
Pakistan Lawyers Forum v Federation of Pakistan PLD 2005 SC
719
52
Hakim Khan (1992)
53
Asma Jilani v Government of the Punjab PLD 1972 SC 139
54
Zia-Ur-Rehman (1993)
55
Zia-ur-Rehman (1973)
56
Zaheerudin v State 1993 SCMR 1718
57
Hakim Khan v Government of Pakistan PLD 1992 SC 593
58
Martin Lau, The role of Islam in the legal system of Pakistan,
(Martinus Nijhoff :2006) 47
59
Abdul Ghani v Taleh Bibi PLD 1962 Lah 531; Allah Bux v Jano
PLD 1962 Kar 317

Al-Qalam June 2011

60

Impact of the Objectives Resolution on Legal System (70)

State Bank of India v Custodian of Evacuee Property PLD 1969

Lah 1050
61
Nizam Khan v Additional Session Judge PLD 1976 Lah 930
62
A.M.Qureshi v USSR PLD 1981 SC 377
63
Niaz Ahmed v Province of Sindh PLD 1977 Kar 3040
64
Mahmood Khan Achakzai v Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1997
SC 426
65
Ittefaq Foundry v Federation of Pakistan PLD 1990 Lah 121
66
Massu v United Bank Limited 1990 MLD 2304
67
Philips Electrical Industry v Pakistan 2000 YLR 2724; Ahmad
Nawaz v ,State PLD 1998 Kar 180; Gulzaran v Amir
Bakhsh1997 PLD 309; Khawaja Muhammad Sharif v
Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1988 Lahore 725 ; Human
Rights Case 1993 SCMR 2001; Zaheer v Province of Punjab
1997 PSC 43; Tyeb v Alpha Insurance Company 1990 CLC
428
68
Al-Karam v Federation of Pakistan 2011PTD 1; Javed Hussain v
Finance Department 2004 PSC 586; Income Tax Appelleta
Tribunal Pakistan 2010 PTD 768; Sheikh Tariq v Accountant
General, Punjab 2002 PSC 363; Additional Accountant
General v A.G. Zuberi 2011 PLC 580; Naubahar Ali v Vice
Chancellor 2010 PLC 783