Sitting Panel: Irshad Hasan Khan, C. J., Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Abdur Rehman Khan, Sh. Riaz Ahmed, Ch. Muhammad Arif, Munir A. Sheikh, Rashid Aziz Khan, Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Rana Bhagwandas, JJ

Summary:

This case represents a review petition filed by Wasim Sajjad and others challenging the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment dated May 12, 2000, which had validated the military takeover of October 12, 1999, the Proclamation of Emergency, the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) No. 1 of 1999, and the Oath of Office (Judges) Order No. 1 of 2000. The petitioners sought a review primarily on grounds that the doctrine of State necessity was wrongly applied, the power to amend the Constitution should not have been conferred on the Chief Executive, and the three-year timeframe for the return to constitutional rule was excessive. They argued that the circumstances of 1999 were not as dire as those in previous cases where the doctrine of necessity was invoked, and that all state institutions were functioning.

The Supreme Court, after extensive arguments from both sides, dismissed the review petitions, reaffirming its original judgment. The Court maintained that the situation on October 12, 1999, was an “extra-constitutional situation” for which the Constitution provided no solution, necessitating the military’s intervention to save the State from further chaos and for the welfare of the people. It reiterated that the validation was based on the doctrine of State necessity and the principle of “salus populi suprema lex” (the welfare of the people is the supreme law). The Court also firmly held that the power to amend the Constitution granted to the Chief Executive was strictly circumscribed and did not extend to altering the salient features of the Constitution (independence of judiciary, federalism, parliamentary form of government blended with Islamic provisions). It confirmed that the three-year period for restoring democratic institutions was a practical necessity due to the need for electoral reforms and accountability processes, which were already underway, as confirmed by the Attorney-General’s statement. The Court emphasized that its judgment aimed to ensure the restoration of true democracy while navigating an unprecedented crisis.

Download PDF