Achi news desk-
The “Resolution of Objectives” states that the sovereignty of Pakistan belongs to Allah Almighty, the right of government belongs to the elected representatives of the people, and the parliament and the government are bound by the Qur’an and Sunnah. The Objectives Resolution was included in the constitution but as its preamble. The late General Zia-ul-Haq used his powers and one of the two or four good things he did was to remove it from the preamble and add it to the original constitution and it became mandatory to implement it.
After that, many laws were challenged in the courts that it is written in the constitution that the Qur’an and Sunnah are supreme and such and such a law conflicts with the Qur’an and Sunnah, so the court should remove it. There are dozens of cases on this, for example, I will quote one, if the murderer is sentenced to Qisas, only the heirs of the deceased have the authority to forgive him, if they do not forgive, then to forgive to someone else not legally. While in our country, the President has the authority to cancel any punishment of anyone, so when the appeal for mercy goes to the President, it is the will of the President to accept it or not. This authority of the President conflicts with Shariat to the extent of retaliation.
This was challenged in the Lahore High Court, there was a case, in which the murderer was sentenced to death. He filed an appeal to the President for a pardon, but the other side stood in his case that the President does not have the power to pardon the punishment because it is written in the constitution that no order can be given against the Quran and Sunnah. This is known as the “Hakim Ali Case”. Therefore, the Lahore High Court ruled that the Qur’an and the Sunnah have prevailed in the Objectives Decision, therefore, any provision in the law or constitution that contradicts the Qur’an and the Sunnah will be void. power, and this the authority of the President, since the Qur’an and the Sunnah It contradicts the Sunnah, so it is over.
The President’s authority was terminated by the Lahore High Court, then an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against this decision and a full bench headed by the late Chief Justice Naseem Hassan Shah sat. Cases are not discussed in the Supreme Court, points are discussed. The point was discussed there that it is true that the Objectives Decision is part of the Constitution and that its implementation is also necessary, but if any other provision in the Constitution conflicts with the Objectives Decision, will the Objectives Decision prevail nor the rest of the provisions of the Constitution. the Constitution? If the objectives of the decision do not override the rest of the provisions of the Constitution, then there is a conflict. Now who will decide whether to follow him or not? The Full Bench of the Supreme Court argued that if the Objectives Decision prevails over the rest of the provisions of the Constitution, the decision of the High Court is valid, and if it is not, then the President’s authority is valid. The full bench of the Supreme Court gave the decision, which is still part of the law, that the Objectives Decision is part of the Constitution, but it does not have supremacy over the rest of the provisions of the Constitution. If there is any conflict between the objectives decision and the rest of the provisions of the constitution, the objectives decision will not be a decision or an order, the decision will be made by parliament. By saying this, the Supreme Court canceled the decision of the High Court.
At one point we also discussed the point in the Supreme Court that Chakwal had a case of robbery and murder, where the court had ordered that the criminal be hanged in public. The international framework of human rights requires that no one be hanged in the open because it is against self-respect and therefore against human rights. The case was presented in the Supreme Court and the point discussed was, if there is any order from the Holy Quran that conflicts with today’s human rights charter, which one will we follow? Will he follow him or follow him? Because the Constitution of Pakistan has also guaranteed that there will be no law against Quran and Sunnah, and the Constitution of Pakistan has also guaranteed that there will be no law against human rights. Both of these guarantees exist at the same time. Human rights refer to the concept of the present world.
The late General Zia-ul-Haq also did one thing that he created a new court “Federal Shariah Court” which still exists. A federal Shariah court was established jointly consisting of scholars and judges ie ancient law experts and modern law experts Refer to If the Federal Shariah Court is satisfied with the application that it is indeed contrary to the Qur’an and Sunnah , has the power to order the government to repeal the law and to introduce a substitute law within such a long time If the government does not repeal it within such a period, then the law will expire in automatic. And in the alternative, the Federal Shariah Court will rule that it should be changed. That is, it is an authority and opinion, not a recommendation.
Let me give you an example. During the time of the British, insulting the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and other Prophets (PBUH) was a crime punishable by three years imprisonment. Later, when this matter was discussed in the Parliament of Pakistan, they increased the sentence and fixed the sentence for ten years. This decision was challenged by the Senate in the Federal Shariah Court that the punishment for blasphemy in the Shariah is not imprisonment but murder and death. Ismail Qureshi is our lawyer, he challenged it, so the Federal Shariah Court, recognizing this, ordered the Senate to change it according to the Shariah, and the Senate had to reconsider and change this decision.
I have mentioned this to explain the purpose and scope of the Federal Sharia Court. The Federal Shariah Court has made major decisions, but some of its decisions have also been attributed to the specific techniques of our organization and are lying in the “freezer” of the Supreme Court. One of them is the issue of usury laws. Usury laws were challenged in the Federal Sharia Court that such and such a law in the economic laws of the country are usurious and contradict the Sharia, they should be abolished. The Federal Sharia Court ruled and ordered the government to change these laws, the debate is still ongoing.
