The case of Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1993 S.C. 473) is an important case in the judicial history of Pakistan. The main question in this case was whether the president had the power to dismiss the prime minister without any solid basis.
Basically in this case President Ghulam Ishaq Khan dismissed prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s government in 1993, and the supreme court decided whether the move was constitutional or not.
Key points;
Here’s a points table summarizing the case details for Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs. President of Pakistan:
| Point | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Reference | PLD 1993 SC 473 |
| Chief Judge | Naseem Hussain Shah |
| Bench of Judges | 11 |
| Dissenting Opinion | Justice Sajjad Ali Shah |
| President | Ghulam Ishaq Khan |
| Prime Minister | Muhammad Nawaz Sharif |
| President’s Power Used | Section 58(2)(B) of the Constitution of Pakistan |
| Type of Writ | Mandamus |
| Supreme Court Jurisdiction | Filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution on dissolution of the National Assembly |
| Decision in Favor of | Muhammad Nawaz Sharif |
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan Case Facts in Urdu:
اس کیس کی کچھ حقیقت اس طرح ہے کہ نواز شریف ملک کا وزیراعظم تھا اور غلام اسحاق خان پاکستان کا صدر تھا ۔
اس وقت صدر پاکستان کے پاس خصوصی آئینی اختیار سیکشن 58(2-بی )حاصل تھا
جس کے تحت وہ اسمبلیوں کو تحلیل کر سکتا اور
ساتھ ہی اس کے پاس یہ بھی اختیار بھی تھا کہ وہ چیف آف آرمی سٹاف کو بھی لگا اور ہٹا سکتا تھا ۔
اس وقت ہوا یوں کہ اس وقت کے چیف آف آرمی سٹاف جنرل آصف دورانِ سروس فوت ہو گیا ۔
اور صدر نے اپنے اختیار کو استعمال کرتے ہوئے نیا چیف آف آرمی سٹاف جنرل وحید کاکڑ کو لگا دیا
اس بات پر وزیراعظم غصہ کر گیا کہ میرے ساتھ مشورہ ہی نہیں (اے چنگی گل اے)
اس بات پر وزیراعظم نے صدر کے اختیارات کو کم کرنے کیلئے قانون ساز اسمبلی میں بل لے کر آگیا ۔
جب صدر کو اس بل کا معلوم ہوا تو اس نے اپنی پاور 58(2-بی) کو استعمال کرتے ہوئے قومی اسمبلیوں کو ہی تحلیل کر دیا ۔
Writ Petition in Supreme Court:
صدر کے اس فیصلہ کے خلاف نواز شریف نے سپریم کورٹ میں”رٹ” کر دی جس کا فیصلہ نواز شریف کا حق میں آیا کہا کہ صدر کے پاس کوئی ٹھوس جواز موجود نہیں۔ اور سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلہ سے اسمبلی دوبارہ بحال ہو گئ ۔
(جج صاحب آکھیا کہ صدر تے ہلیا ہوا اے تسی جاؤ تے وچ بہہ اپنی یکیاں پوریاں کرؤ ۔)
Effect;
سپریم کورٹ کے اس فیصلہ سے نواز شریف کی حکومت دوبارہ بحال ہو گئ اورصدرکی آمرانہ سوچ کو شکست ہوئی ۔
Test Your Knowledge by Mock Test
Nawaz Sharif Case Test
Complete Notes of Nawaz Sharif vs President of Pakistan Case
Background of the Case
The case of Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif versus the President of Pakistan is part of Pakistan’s lawless political history from the 1990s. By way of background, it is important to know that on 17th April 1993, the Prime Minister addressed the nation. He told them that there were certain elements, including the President, who were working against him and attempting to destabilize his government. However, he vowed that he would not resign.
Dissolution of the National Assembly
On 18th April 1993, the President passed an order where he used his powers under Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan. He dissolved the National Assembly, citing various reasons for this dissolution. These included allegations of corruption, maladministration, and mass resignations from the National Assembly. A caretaker government was immediately take an oath.
Legal Challenge by Nawaz Sharif
This dissolution was then challenged by Nawaz Sharif in the Supreme Court, where he brought a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan. Article 184 empowers the Supreme Court to pass an order on an issue concerning public importance in relation to one of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
There were two substantive issues before the Supreme Court.
- Maintainability of the Petition: The first issue was whether the petition under Article 184(3) was maintainable or not. The petition would only be maintainable if a fundamental right was engaged in the first place. The right allegedly violated in this case was the Article 17 right to form and be a member of a political party. The respondents, including the President, argued that Article 17 was not engaged in this case at all.
- Lawfulness of the President’s Actions: The second substantive issue was whether the President had exercised his powers under Article 58(2)(b) in a lawful manner.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
By a majority of 10:1, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the petitioner.
- On the first issue: The Court held that Article 184(3) did apply to this case. Article 17 allows a person to form and become a member of a political party. The whole purpose of this right is to allow one to contest in elections under the banner of the party and then form a government if the requisite majority is secured. This right would be meaningless if the elected government was not allowed to complete its tenure. Therefore, the right to remain in government fell within the ambit of Article 17, making the petition under Article 184(3) valid.
- On the second issue: The Supreme Court decided that the President had not exercised his powers under Article 58(2)(b) within the parameters of the Constitution. The only way the President could dissolve the National Assembly was if it had lost the confidence of the people and there was a complete breakdown in government. The only way to determine whether the Prime Minister no longer held public confidence was by conducting a vote of no confidence. Since no such vote was held, the President could not have dissolved the National Assembly. Mass resignations from the National Assembly were not considered a strong enough ground to justify dissolving the Parliament.
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Sajjad Ali Shah
In a lone dissenting note, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah disagreed with the majority’s reasoning on both issues.
- On the maintainability of the petition: He believed that Article 17 allowed a person to become part of a political party but did not guarantee the right to remain in government. He argued that the correct legal route for the petitioner would have been to file a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution before the High Court. Therefore, he considered the petition under Article 184(3) as being filed in the wrong forum.
- On the exercise of Article 58(2)(b): Justice Sajjad Ali Shah believed that the President had exercised his powers constitutionally. The mass resignations from the National Assembly and the Cabinet indicated that the government had lost public confidence. Additionally, the Prime Minister’s address on 17th April, in which he accused the President of working against him, demonstrated that the two key pillars of the government were no longer able to function together. He argued that if this situation was not enough to justify dissolving the National Assembly, then nothing else could satisfy Article 58(2)(b).
Significance of the Case
This case falls within the category where the dissolution of the National Assembly was declared illegal. It also highlights that the Supreme Court interpreted Articles 17 and 184(3) in a broad manner to bring the case within their scope. This decision demonstrated the Court’s willingness to uphold democratic governance where possible.
Read Also: All LAW GAT Case Laws