Judiciary plays a very important role in the interpretation of the statues and laws. The judiciary has an important role in the development of law. In Pakistan to the superior courts gave judgements which became precedents. There have been a lot of important and leading cases in the history of Pakistan. Maulvi tameez-ud-din vs federation is one pf important case of history of Pakistan.
Following are the important facts of the case of moulvi tameez-ud-din vs federation.
(I). DISSOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY.
The Governor General ghulam mohammad of Pakistan dissolved the constituent assembly in Oct, 24 1954. There were some clashes among the prime minister and governor general which were caused regarding the dissolution of the constituent assembly.
(II). GOVERNOR GENERAL ALSO DISSOLVED CABINET IN 1953.
Governor general dissolved cabinet in 1953 before the dissolution of the constituent assembly of maulvi tameez-ud-din, the governor general of Pakistan in 1953 also dismissed cabinet of nizam-ud-din.
(III). RECONSTITUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS.
After the dissolution of the constituent assembly, the council of ministers was reconstituted.
(IV). ACTION TAKEN BY THE MAULVI TAMEEZ-UD-DIN.
Maulvi tameez-ud-din who was the head of the constituent assembly filed a writ petition before the cheif court sind. This petition was against the federation.
(a). WRIT PETITION.
Maulvi tameez-ud-din filed the writ petition in the chief court sind under section 223.A of the government of india act 1935.
(b). NUMBERS OF WRITS FILED.
He filed two writ petitions in order to redress his grievance. They were as follow.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
A writ of mandamus was filed by the maulvi tameez-ud-din, in order to restrain the enforcement of the proclamation of the governor general. It was also prayed that the federation and the members of he reconstituted council of ministers should be prohibited from meddling into the functions of maulvi tameez-ud-din.
WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO.
A writ of quo warranto was also filed by the maulvi tameez-ud-din demanding that the ministers should be asked as under which authority they were holding the offices.
3. ARGUMENTS GIVEN BY THE STATE.
The federation and the council of ministers gave arguments in respect of writs filed by maulvi tameez-ud-din.
Following were the arguments given by the federation.
(I). DISSOLUTION OF CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY WAS RIGHT.
It was argued that the constituent assembly was dissolved in a right way.
(II). NO WRIT JURISDICTION OF THE CHIEF COURT.
It was further argued that the chief court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
(III). INVALIDITY OF SECTION 223-A.
It was further argued by the federation that the section 223-A which was put into the government of India act 1935, was invalid due to non-assent of the governor general which was very necessary for all laws.
4. DECISION OF THE CHIEF COURT.
The chief court of the sind declare null and void the step taken by the gulam muhammad governor general and assembly restored.
5. APPEAL OF FEDERATION BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURT.
The federation and council of ministers appealed before the federal court against the decision of cheif court sind.
6. DECISION BY THE FEDERAL COURT.
(I). GOVERNOR GENERAL ASSENT IS NECESSARY.
It was observed that the constituent assembly also performs its functions as the legislature and all laws past by it require the assent of governor general.
(II). SEC 223-A OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT WAS NOT LAW.
Section 223-A of government of India act 1935 was not law due to non-assent of governor general.
(III). NO JURISDICTION OF CHIEF COURT.
It was further observed that the section 223-A is not a law therefore the chief court did not have any jurisdiction to issue writs.
(IV). CONSTITUENT HAS NO SOVEREIGNTY.
According to the federal court constituent assembly is not sovereign but governor general is a sovereign authority.
7. EFFECT OF THE DECISION.
In the decision of federal court the decision of chief court of sind was suspended.
8. BENCH OF FEDERAL COURT.
- Chief justice. Mohammad Munir
- Justice. Mohammad Sharif
- Justice. S.A.Rehman
- Justice. S.M.Akram
- Justice. R.Cornelius
In the end we can say that the federal court decided the case in the favour of the federation and the council of ministers. The dissolution of constituent assembly was held right and it dismissed the writ petition.