Oath-Jurisdiction-Powers
Constitutional Oath, Judicial Jurisdiction and State Power in Pakistan
Introduction
Pakistan’s Constitution places every institution under the law. No government, political party, police force, elected official or court has unlimited authority.
The central principle is:
Power comes from the Constitution, and every office-holder may exercise only lawful authority.
The key question is:
What may an institution lawfully do, against whom, on what evidence and under which jurisdiction?
1. Constitutional limits on courts
Article 175(2) provides:
No court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law.
Political importance does not create jurisdiction. Article 199 gives High Courts extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, but courts must still consider jurisdiction, maintainability, alternative remedies and evidence.
2. Judicial oath and misconduct
Judges swear allegiance to Pakistan, the Constitution, the law and justice, and must decide without fear, favour, affection or ill-will.
A controversial judgment is not automatically misconduct. It should normally be challenged through appeal, review or other legal remedies. Genuine allegations of misconduct fall under Article 209 and the Supreme Judicial Council. Contempt under Article 204 is separate.
3. Future protests and preventive action
Courts may issue preventive directions where there is evidence of an imminent unlawful act, but prediction is not conviction and apprehension is not proof.
They should consider:
- planned conduct and applicable law;
- evidence of imminent illegality;
- affected rights;
- necessity and proportionality;
- alternative remedies.
4. Fundamental rights
Articles 15, 16 and 17 protect movement, peaceful assembly and political association, subject to lawful and reasonable restrictions.
The state may regulate routes, timing, traffic, security and public safety, but should not automatically prohibit peaceful political activity.
Regulate peaceful assembly; do not automatically prohibit it.
Restrictions require legal authority, a legitimate purpose, proportionality and procedural legality.
5. The September 27 PTI protest
The IHC’s consideration of the planned protest was not inherently unconstitutional, but jurisdiction and maintainability remained important. The KP Advocate General reportedly argued that an alternative administrative remedy existed.
As of September 10–11, the court had reportedly not banned the protest. Any restriction should rest on lawful jurisdiction, concrete evidence and protection of competing rights.
A balanced approach would provide agreed routes and timings, traffic diversions, emergency access, security arrangements, peaceful conduct, no arrests based solely on political affiliation, prosecution of genuine offences and judicial intervention only where legally justified.
6. Use of provincial machinery
A Chief Minister is both a political leader and head of government. Political participation is lawful, but public vehicles, funds, employees and police cannot be used for party activity without legal authority.
The key questions are whether government resources were used, who authorised them and whether public money was spent. Evidence is required, and the same rule must apply to all parties.
7. Roadblocks and Supreme Court orders
Roadblocks may be lawful if authorised by legislation and justified by public order. Indefinite or disproportionate obstruction may violate Articles 4, 15, 16 and 17.
The issue is:
What law authorises the restriction, for what purpose, for how long and with what justification?
Binding Supreme Court orders must be obeyed under Article 190, but the exact judgment, operative order, respondents and directions must first be examined.
8. Public resources and Maryam Nawaz’s London trip
The reported use of a government aircraft by Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz for a private London trip should be assessed through evidence.
The relevant questions are whether the use was authorised, who approved it, whether costs were reimbursed, whether government rules permit it, whether expenses were recorded and whether the matter was audited.
Reimbursing personal expenses does not necessarily establish that government property was lawfully used.
9. Equal enforcement
The Constitution must apply equally. Improper use of public machinery by a PTI government should be investigated, as should improper use of public resources or suppression of lawful protest by a PML-N government.
Political opposition is not criminality, and government authority is not automatically lawful.
10. A constitutional test
Every exercise of public power should answer five questions:
- What law authorises it?
- What evidence supports it?
- Does the institution have jurisdiction?
- Is it proportionate?
- Would the same rule apply to political opponents?
Conclusion
No person or institution is above the Constitution.
Future protests cannot automatically be treated as crimes, and political parties cannot unlawfully use public machinery. Courts may intervene preventively, but only within jurisdiction and on a sufficient legal and factual basis.
The same standards must apply to judges, governments, parties, police and citizens. Constitutional stability depends on equal accountability under law.
Comments
Post a Comment