2nd issue is that “Whether it is lawful for parliament to enact legislation specifically

aimed at preventing protests based on anticipated political gatherings? Can

Supreme Court strike down peaceful assembly and public order 2024 on the basis
of Mala filed intentions of legislation?”

My first submission is that enactment of legislation of parliament specifically aimed at

preventing protests based on anticipated political gatherings is unlawful, as it is
against fundamental rights granted in articles 16 & 19 of constitution of Pakistan as
per article 8.
According to Article 8 constitution of Pakistan; Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of
fundamental rights to be void; (1) Any law, or any custom or usage having the force of law, in so
far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by this Chapter, shall, to the extent of such
inconsistency, be void. According to this article those laws which is against the fundamental
rights is null and void.
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights so conferred and
any law made in contravention of this clause-shall, to the extent of such contravention, be void.
According to this article the state shall not make any law which is against the fundamental
rights.In case 1957 PLD 9 JIBENDRA KISHORE ACHHARYYA CHOWDHURY AUD 58
OTHERS (APPELLANTS) VERSUS THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND
SECRETARY,FINANCE AND REVENUE (REVENUE) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF EAST
PAKISTAN (RESPONDENTS) it was held by HONORABLE SUPREME COURT that The very
conception of a fundamental right is that it being a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be
taken away by the law, and it is not only technically inartistic but a fraud on the citizens for the
makers of a Constitution to say that a right is fundamental but that it may be taken away by the law.

My 2nd submission is that Supreme has power to strike down any lawand declare it null and
void if it is ultra varies to the constitution or against the fundamental rights.
If any law which is made by the Parliament which is against the fundamental rights, then
supreme court have right to declare null and void. The law which is made by the parliament is
violating the fundamental right (right to assembly & right of freedom of expression), then
Supreme Court have right to strike down. However, in the case of Pakistan medical and dental
council vs Junaid Alam etc. “There is another aspect of the matter which is worth consideration
that under Article 8 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and law
inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights of the citizens of this country are
considered to be void. The superior Courts are saddled with unalienable obligation to protect,
preserve and safeguard such rights and any statutory provision or rule, regulations or
instructions, militating with the fundamental rights, such legislation or rule as the case may be
deserved to be struck down without any hesitation”1.

3rd issue is that whether a ban on the People’s Alliance

be constitutionally imposed based on the involvement
of its leaders in riots, or does this infringe upon their
political rights?
While addressing issue no 3, I have 2 major submissions.
My first submission is that ban on People’s Alliance is unconstitutional
It is respectfully submitted that the ban imposed on People’s Alliance party is unconstitutional
and it violates the political rights of the People’s Alliance party. Article 17(2) of the Constitution
of Pakistan guarantees every citizen the right to form or be a member of a political party,
provided that reasonable restrictions may be imposed by law in the interest of the sovereignty
or integrity of Pakistan. l2. The right given in Article 17(2) are of course not absolute but are
subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. In the case of Article 17 (2) reasonable
restrictions may be imposed in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan. In the case of
all Pakistan Muslim league vs federation of Pakistan, it was stated that if the State wishes to
deny citizens the enjoyment of the aforesaid fundamental rights, three things must be shown.
Firstly, it must be shown that the restriction in question has been imposed by law. Thus, it is
entirely irrelevant and insufficient for the executive to arrogate to, assume for itself a general
power in this regard simply for reasons (e.g.) of administrative expediency or convenience.
Something expressly stated in a statutory provision must be shown to exist. Secondly, the Court
must be satisfied that the restriction so imposed by law is reasonable and thirdly, the
restriction must be relatable to the matter specifically provided for in relation to the
fundamental right in question. Thus in the case of Article 17 (2) reasonable restrictions may be
imposed in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan 3. In the instant case, the People’s
Alliance did not undertake any action that directly endangered national integrity. Instead, it
sought to advocate for the rights of Zarkhon khuwa, a region feeling neglected in resource
distribution. The party planned a public assembly, a “jalsa,” to peacefully voice these
grievances. This assembly was planned to highlight social and economic discrimination rather
than to disrupt national security. Thus, the ban on the People’s Alliance lacks the necessary
justification outlined in Article 17(2). The party’s activities do not meet the threshold of being

1
ICA No.246925 of 2018.
2
Article 17 constitution of Pakistan
3
All Pakistan Muslim league through cheif organizer Sindh petitioner vs government of Sindh through home
secretary and 3 others (respondent) (2012 clc 714)
prejudicial to national integrity, and therefore, the imposition of ban on People’s Alliance party
is unconstitutional.
My 2nd submission is that the ban imposed on people’s alliance party is infringe upon their
political rights;
It is humbly submitted that the ban imposed by federal government on People’s alliance party
infringe upon their political rights specifically right to function and operate as political party.
Under article 17 (2) constitution of Pakistan, it is stated that Every citizen, not being in the
service of Pakistan, shall have the right to form or be a member of a political party, subject to
any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of
Pakistan4. The scope of article 17 (2) is not limited to “right to form or be a member of a
political party”. However it has extended scope. In the case of Nawaz Sharif vs. federation of
Pakistan, it was stated by Supreme Court that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution are not capable of precise or permanent definition delineating their meaning and
scope for all times to come. With the passage of time, changes occur in the political, social and
economic conditions of the society, which requires re-evaluation of their meaning and scope in
consonance with the changed conditions 5. In view of the above principles of interpreting
fundamental rights, this honorable Supreme Court has expounded in several cases the scope of
the “right to form or be a member of a political party” guaranteed by Article 17(2) and held that
it includes the right to function and operate as a political party 6. Without the right to its
functioning, the right to form a political party would be meaningless and of no avail. This
bouquet of political fundamental rights ensures a functional and a workable democracy and a
representative government7. In the instant case, the unconstitutional ban on the People's Aliens
Party restricts its right to function and operate as a political party. Hence ban infringes upon the
political rights guaranteed under Article 17(2) of the Constitution. ZARISTAN is democratic
country, which gives political rights and banning operating party which has formed government
in one province unconstitutional as infringe on public at large.

The word “Anticipation” as per Black’s law Dictionary

The act of doing or taking a thing before its proper time. In conveyancing, anticipation is
the act of assigning, charging, or otherwise dealing with income before it becomes due.
In case 2016 PLD 692 MIAN SAQIB NISAR, UMAR ATA BANDIAL, AND MAQBOOL BAQAR it is
held by SUPREME COURT in para no 18 that.

4
Article 17 constitution of Pakistan
5
Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473.
6
. Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416; Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1989
SC 66 and Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473
7
Sunni Ittehad Council and another. (In both cases) … Appellants Versus Election Commission of Pakistan and
others (Civil Appeal No. 333 of 2024 etc.)
It is indeed true that freedom of expression being a natural fundamental right cannot be
suppressed unless the same is being exploited and/or is causing danger to, or in it lies the
imminent potential of hurting public interest, or putting it at stake directly, and also that the
anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched. It should rather have
proximate and direct nexus with the expression

The word “Due” as per Black’s law Dictionary

1. Just; proper; regular; lawful; sufficient; as in the phrases “due care,” “due process of law,”
“due notice.”2. Owing; payable; justly owed. That which one contracts to pay or perform to
another; that which law or justice requires to be paid or done.
As that act is unlawful in nature and against the fundamental as doesn’t fall in reasonable
restriction but it fall in unreasonable restrictions. When unreasonable restriction is imposed on
fundamental right or imposed not as per law that is violation of that rights. Therefore that act has
violated fundamental rights 16 and 19 of citizens of Zarkhon Khuwa.
It obvious that the obove article are not absolute but subject to restrictions but that shall be
lawful. Therefore restriction imposed by that act on article 16 and 19 are unlawful which shows
clearly their violation. And as per article 8 of the constitution, any law inconsistent, or in
derogation of fundamental right to be void to extent of such inconsistency. This Act is made with
mala fide intention of government to dissent voice of people of Zarkhon Khuwa.
Word “Reasonable” as per Black’s Law Dictionary; Agreeable to reason; just; proper. Ordinary
or usual and Word ”Unreasonable” means unlawful that is conducted with no legal authority.
Article 16 can restricted under reasonable (a) in arms (b) Public Order.
Article 19 can be restricted;
(a) Glory of Islam
(b) Security or integrity
(c) Defense of Zaristan
(d) Relationships with foreign states
(e) Public order
(f) Decency or morality
(g) Contempt of court
(h) Commission or incitement of offence