Interpretation of Statute

  1. Statute — void — As a whole or partly — Depends on the intention of Legislature. Azad Govt. v. Kashmir Tobacco Industry Ltd 1992 SCR 20 (A)
  2. Repeal — Permanent statute repealed by temporary statute — Shall stand revived after the repeal of temporary or if the same lapses by afflux of time. Azad Govt.  v. Kashmir Tobacco Industry Ltd 1992 SCR 20 (B)
  3. Procedural law — Principle of — It is settled principle of law that procedural law always operates retrospectively unless a contrary intention is expressed. Abrar Hussain Shah  v. The State 1992 SCR 294 (A)
  4. Jurisdiction- Where the jurisdiction of an authority is under challenge – it is not necessary for a party to go in appeal before the same authority- Writ competent. Ch. Muhammad v. Dy. Collector Excise 1992 SCR 110 (A)
  5. Validation of acts which are mala fide, coram non-judice-not validated if not found to be without jurisdiction – in light of the validation clause. Ch. M. v. Dy. Collector Excise 1992 SCR 110 (C)
  6. Legislature competent to validate the acts by subsequent legislation- Functions performed by Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council functionaries could be validated by Section 3 of Excises and Salt Act. Ch. Muhammad v. Dy. Collector Excise 1992 SCR 110 (D)
  7. Permanent legislation repealed by temporary legislation- It revives when temporary legislation expires or is repealed. Ch. Muhammad v. Dy. Collector Excise 1992 SCR 110 (E)
  8. Statutory provisions- Unhappily worded for want of skill of drafting- it would not go to the root of the matter and should not affect the correct interpretation. Ch. Muhammad v. Dy. Collector Excise 1992 SCR 110 (F)
  9.  “Accelerated promotion” means speedy or out of turn- promotion. Khizar Mahmood Qureshi  v. Azad J & K Govt. and others 1992 SCR 223 (C)
  10. Application against Municipal Committee disposed of as Miscellaneous application and procedure prescribed in the High Court Rules relating to writ petitions not followed. Held: The order without jurisdiction. Municipal Committee  v. M. Abdul Rahman 1992 SCR 136
  11. Scope and connotation of a power of attorney are to be understood in view of the contents of the same in each particular case. Bashir Ahmad  v. M. Qasim 1992 SCR 165 (A)
  12. Appeal preferred on the basis of Wakalat Nama executed by the attorney-competent. Bashir Ahmad  v. M. Qasim 1992 SCR 165 (B)
  13. Lapse or repeal of an Ordinance — effect of — If an Ordinance expires, transaction past and closed under the same remains operative and does not cease to exist. Mir Haider Shah  v. Azad Government 1992 SCR 320 (A)
  14. Right of vote is granted by the act — it cannot be taken away by Rules. Ghulam Rasool v. Muhammad Siddique 1993 SCR 5 (D)
  15. Every part of a provision of law has to be given effect to — Ghulam Rasool v. Muhammad Siddique 1993 SCR 5 (E)
  16. If a provision is repeated it makes no difference its interpretation. Ghulam Mustafa Moughal  v. AJK Government 1993 SCR 131 (D)
  17. If an act is required to be performed according to the prescribed manner by law or rule it should be performed according to the prescribed manner alone or not at all. Aziz-ur-Rehman  v.  Presiding Officer Local Council Election and others 1993 SCR 177 (B)
  18. Procedural provision  — Taxing Statute — It does not imply that the mandatory provision can be overlooked even if such provisions would adversely affect the interest of an assessee or would render the provisions as redundant — violation of statutory notices held to be fatal to the proceedings. Rasab & Brothers  v. Deputy Collector Excise and Taxation 1993 SCR 346 (A)
  19. Particular provision is a mandatory or directory depends upon the objects which the provisions intend to achieve-subject matter of statute. Rasab & Brothers  v. Deputy Collector Excise and Taxation 1993 SCR 346 (B)
  20. If temporary legislation repeals a permanent legislation the permanent legislation would revive when the life of temporary legislation comes to an end or is repealed. M/s. Qureshi Vegetable Ghee Mills v. Dy. Collector Excise and Taxation Mirpur & others 1994 SCR 123 (G)
  21. If a permanent legislation is repealed by a temporary legislation that revives when the ordinance expires or is repealed. M/s. Qureshi Vegetable Ghee Mills v. Dy. Collector Excise and Taxation Mirpur & others 1994 SCR 123 (F)
  22. If a statutory provision is unhappily worded for want of skill in drafting it should not affect the correct interpretation of the statute. M/s. Qureshi Vegetable Ghee Mills v. Dy. Collector Excise and TaxationMirpur & others 1994 SCR 123 (H)
  23. The actions which are mala fide, coram non judice or without jurisdiction, cannot be validated if the same are found to be without jurisdiction even after passing the validating legislation which operated retrospectively. M/s. Qureshi Vegetable Ghee Mills v. Dy. Collector Excise and Taxation Mirpur & others 1994 SCR 123 (C)
  24. Whether certain proceeding or act is coram non judice or not is to be seen in view of the relevant statute and attending circumstances of each case. M/s. Qureshi Vegetable Ghee Mills  v.  Dy. Collector Excise and Taxation Mirpur & others 1994 SCR 123 (D)
  25. It is not for the Court to find out the wisdom behind a particular enactment or to adjudicate upon its reasonableness. The Courts cannot through logical deduction draw conclusions which do not flow from the letter of the law. Gul Sher Khan v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 1994 SCR 281 (B)
  26. This is an established rule that in case of apparent inconsistency between two provisions of law, attempt should be made to harmonise them as there is presumption against inconsistency. — In fact there is no inconsistency between the two fundamental right No.15 and 17. Azad Government  v. Muhammad Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (F)
  27. It is well settled principle of law of interpretation that in case of conflicting provisions of two statutes, a harmonious construction is to be placed upon the provision of such statutes so that conflict between the same is avoided as for as possible, the provisions of different statutes should be interpreted to reconcile them as for as possible — If despite efforts, such provisions cannot be reconciled, the latter law would prevail and conflicting provisions incorporated in the former statute would be deemed replaced by implication. Azad Government v. Muhammad Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (TT)
  28. The provisions contained in the different statutes in pari materia would be read in aid of each other and would supplement each other, later statute would not render the provisions contained in the former statute nugatory. Azad Government v. M. Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (UU)
  29. There is no legal justification for the view that law made under section 48 of the Interim Constitution Act would have any ascendancy over the law framed under section 49 of the Constitution Act, i.e. Civil Servant Act and rules framed thereunder — The provisions of Civil Servants Act and the Public Service Commission Act enjoy equal status and provisions contained in one enactment will not override the provisions contained in another enactment, except that if the reconciliation between the two inconsistent provisions contained in the former Act would be deemed to have been repealed impliedly. Azad Govt. v. M. Youns Tahir  1994 SCR 341 (VV)
  30. Both the laws converting the same subject, i.e., appointments of the civil servants by recruitment etc. are statutes in pari materia and one is not on better pedestal than the other. — Acts in pari materia are to be read as one law, efforts should be made for harmonious construction of such statutes and there would be presumption against the repeal by implication; an inference that a particular provision of an earlier statute has been repealed by implication would be an exception and not a rule of law. Azad Government  v. M. Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (WW)
  31. It is well settled law that while interpreting the words and phrases employed in a statutory provision they should be given their natural meanings, nothing should be added or substracted from a provision: and a law should be interpreted as it is and not as it should be. Fedration of Pakistan v.  Malik Muhammad Miskeen & others 1995 SCR 43 (J)
  32. A proviso by its very nature has overriding effect if its contents are inconsistent with the main proviso to which a proviso is attached — Legislature does not employ words like “notwithstanding contained to the contrary” to demonstrate its overriding nature unless it is designed to override its provisions which do not immediately precede a provision and are contained elsewhere. Ashraf & Akbar & others  v. Kh. Abdul Khaliq & others 1995 SCR 196 (A)
  33. If two interpretations are possible Courts do not accept a construction which renders a legislation futile. In the case in hand two interpretations are possible and we adopt the interpretation which does not render the law under consideration nugatory — Therefore, the words “purpose of deciding any appeal” have to be liberally construed so that the power continues till the order passed by the Service Tribunal has been implemented. Ch. Sadiq Ali v. The Chief Secetary A.J.K Government 1995 SCR 325 (D)
  34. Whether a provision of law is directory or mandatory? — Consequence of non-compliance  — When a statute requires something shall be done, or done in a particular manner, without expressly declaring what shall be the consequence of non-compliance, the question falls for determination of the Courts as to whether such a provision is mandatory, which is also called imperative or directory. There seems to be consensus on the rule that it is impossible to lay down any general rule for determining whether a provision is directory or mandatory. Andleeb Sabir Butt  v. Family Judge Bagh and another 1996 SCR 281 (C)
  35. Directory or mandatory provision — The question whether a provision of law is mandatory or directory also has another aspect. Even if it be assumed that the provision for making an attempt for reconciliation at the pre-trial stage is directory and not mandatory it does not follow that its violation may always be condoned. The principle of law is that a mandatory provision must be obeyed strictly which a directory provision may not be obeyed strictly but it may be substantially complied with. Andleeb Sabir Butt  v. Family Judge Bagh and another 1996 SCR 281 (G)
  36. By promulgation of a law is meant its publication and making it known to the public at large. Muhammad Tariq Khan v. The State and another 1997 SCR 318 (G)
  37. Cr.P.C. Amendment — The law holding the field at the time of commission of offence will be applicable. Habib-ur-Rehman & 9 others  v. Muhammad Aziz and 2 others 1997 SCR 253 (B)
  38. Laws are made and rules are framed for being implemented and not being violated. Abdul Hamid v. Azad Govt. and 2 others 1997 SCR 96 (E)
  39. Non-obstante clause — To interpret provisions which follow the clause two things are elementary — Firstly such provisions must be construed strictly — Secondly, overriding power will be available only to the extent of inconsistency with the other rules and not beyond it. Abdul Hamid v. Azad Govt. and 2 others 1997 SCR 96 (G)
  40. The provisions barring a remedy against an order should not be read in a statute by implication. Sanaullah Raja v. Muhammad Shafi and 2 others 1997 SCR 149 (G)
  41. Whatever is prohibited to be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. Mahmood-ur-Rehman v. Atta Ullah Atta and 3 others 1997 SCR 330 (F)
  42. Word ‘promulgate’ has not been defined in any Constitution — To ascertain its meaning the ordinary meanings have to be seen. M. Tariq Khan v. The State and another 1997 SCR 318 (E)
  43. ‘Interpretation of Statute’ by Maxwell, 7th ‘Edition, wherein it has been observed as under: –“If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous no more is necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense, the words themselves in such case best declaring the intention of the Legislature”. Again relying on R.V. City of London Court and Mersy Docks and Harbour Board v. Turner, Maxwell says at page 4:–“The rule of construction is to intend the Legislature to have meant what they have actually expressed—‘it matters not, in such a case, what the consequences many be — Where, by the use clear and unequivocal language capable of only one meaning, anything is enacted by the Legislature, it must be enforced, even though it be absurd or mischievous — The underlying principle is that the meaning and intention of a stature must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather than from any notions which may be entertained by the Courts as to what is just or expedient”. Elaborating the point at page 5 it is stated again that:- “However unjust, arbitrary or inconvenient the meaning conveyed may be it must receive its full effect — When once the meaning is plain, it is not the province of a Court to scan its wisdom or its policy”. Caries on Statute Law Seventh Edition Chapter 5th at page 65 says:–“Where the language of an Act is clear and explicit, we must give effect to it,   whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the Legislature”. It is further stated at page 66:-“Some fifty years before in Salomon v. A Salomon & Co. Ltd. Lord Waston had said: ‘Intention of the Legislature, is a common but very slippery phrase, which popularly understood, may signify anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the Legislature probably would have meant, although there has been an omission to enact it—In a Court of law or equity what the Legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be ascertained from what it has chosen to enact, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication’—After expounding the enactment it only remains to enforce it, notwithstanding that it may be very generally received opinion that it ‘does not produce the effect which the legislature intended’,or ‘might with advantage be modified’ ” Azad Govt. and 3 others v. Genuine Rights Commission AJK and 7 others 1999 SCR 1 (E)
  44. It is a settled principle of law that in order to interpret the provisions of a statute or rules, the Courts are not supposed to add or subtract anything in the relevant provisions. Muhammad Sohrab v. AJ&K Govt. and 6 others 2001 SCR 481 (A)
  45. Courts have to interpret the law and rules as they are and not as they should be — A statute must be read as a whole and one provision contained therein cannot be interpreted in isolation of the other. Muhammad Sohrab v. AJ&K Govt. and 6 others 2001 SCR 481 (B)
  46. When there are more than one statutes dealing with the same subject matter the provision of special statute would prevail against provision of general statute. Administrator Municipal Committee and others v. Mumtaz Ali and others 2001 SCR 263 (B)
  47. Where a statutory provision is unhappily worded for want of skill in drafting, it would not go to the root of the matter and would not affect the correct interpretation of the statute. Novelty Enterprises Ltd. v. Deputy Collector & 5 others 2001 SCR 191 (F) Abdul Jamil v. Registrar of Trade Unions, West Pakistan Lahore PLD 1971 Lah .220 and Zaibtun Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Central Board of Revenue .PLD 1971 Kar.333 ref.
  48. Where temporary legislation repeals a permanent legislation the permanent legislation would revive when the life of temporary legislation i.e. an Ordinance, comes to an end or it is otherwise repealed. Novelty Enterprises Ltd.  v. Deputy Collector & 5 others 2001 SCR 191 (D)
  49. It is a cardinal canon of interpretation that when the meanings of a word or term used in a statute are clear and unambiguous the Court cannot go beyond them and has to take them in their ordinary meanings — Without amending the Constitution no ‘‘qualification’’ can be added in section 24(1) of the Constitution Act. Muhammad Yousaf  v. The State and 4 others 2001 SCR 380 (B)
  50. Courts have to enforce law as it is — Courts cannot add or subtract any thing from the relevant law —There is no statute under which the Selection Committee was required to grant additional marks being good player of Football, Hockey, Badminton, Table Tennis and Cricket. Javed Hussain Shah v. Azad Govt. and 3 others 2001 SCR 567 (E)
  51. While interpreting a statutory provision, the intention of the Legislature is to be ascertained in view of the phraseology used therein — If intention of Legislature is conveyed clearly by plain words, the same should not be by passed by twisting the law in derogation to the well settled principle of interpretation — It hardly needs any authority that a Court can neither add nor subtract from statutory provision while interpreting it. The State & another v. Javed Iqbal 2001 SCR 1 (A)
  52. While interpreting a statute it should be read as a whole and no part or word of it should be omitted from consideration — The intention behind the statute/rules must be taken into consideration which can be gathered from looking into the statute/rules as a whole — Attempts should be made to reconcile various provisions of statute for rational meaning avoiding redundancy. Khalid Mehmood Butt & another  v. Managing Director, AKLASC & 4 others 2002 SCR 158 (A)
  53. If there are apparently two conflicting provisions in the same enactment the one which appears at the later stage would override the former one. Khalid Mehmood Butt & another v. Managing Director, AKLASC & 4 others 2002 SCR 158 (B)
  54. Technicalities should not be extended to defeat the purpose of law and justice but which are fundamental and basic cannot be by-passed. Ghulam Qadir & another  v. The Custodian Evacuee Property and 13 others 2002 SCR 183 (B)
  55. It is a celebrated principle that law helps those who are vigilant and careful enough to look after their interests and does not help those who sleep over their rights and are indolent to seek the redressal of their grievances. AJ&K University v. Mir Alam and 43 others 2002 SCR 292 (C)
  56. It is a celebrated principle of law that any change in the statute, if it deals with procedure, could be construed retrospectively, otherwise the change cannot be allowed to destroy the accrued right. — Ghulam Murtaza v. Rahifa Begum  2003 SCR 17 (B) 2002 SCR 334 rel.
  57. No rule can be framed or read against the spirit of parent statute. Abdul Shakoor v.  Mrs. Shamim Khalid and 5 others 2003 SCR 351 (C)
  58. Objection that, High Court had no jurisdictional competence to hear appeal against judgment of Judge Family Court, is not of any substance for the reason that vide Ordinance No. XLIII of 2001 dated 12.7.2001 an amendment was effected in S.14 of Family Courts, Act — Appeal was filed in the High Court on 19.9.2001 — Right of appeal had accrued on the date of institution of appeal — If law was subsequently repealed, it would make no difference. Ghulam Murtaza v. Rahifa Begum 2003 SCR 17 (A)
  59. The Courts of law have to interpret the law as it is and not as it should be. Tariq Aziz  v. Azad Govt. & 3others 2003 SCR 158 (D)
  60. The law has to take its course as it exists in the statute book and it has to be interpreted as it is. Azad Government v. Muhammad Suleman and 6 others 2003 SCR 423 (B)
  61. If two views are possible from reading a provision of law, then the view which favours the citizens may be given preference over the second view. Amin Spinning Mills v. Deputy Collector Central Excise & others 2004 SCR 223 (B)
  62. O.X R. 2 & O.XLVI R.1 of the Supreme Court Rules — Provision of rules have to be interpreted in a way so as to reconcile the same with the other provision. Ghazi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mills Ltd. Mangla Mirpur v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & 3 others 2004 SCR 158 (B)
  63. Right to contest election is a fundamental right enshrined by the Constitution and if the question of interpretation of provision of any election statute is involved, then a very clear and unambiguous interpretation should be adhered to — There are no two views that to deprive a person from taking part in elections tantamounts to depriving him and his voters from the right of franchise and it falls within the purview of fundamental rights. — If two views are possible from reading a provision of law, then the view which favours the citizen may be given preference over the second view — If two views of a provision of a penal statute are possible, one which favours an accused person be preferred over the other. Javaid Mehdi v. Chief Election Commissioner AJ&K & 3 others 2004 SCR 481 (H)
  64. When two separate provisions of law have been made in the rules, the same have to be interpreted in a way so as to cover two separate situations. Ghazi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mills Limited Mangla Mirpur  v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & 3 others 2004 SCR 158 (C)
  65. In case of inconsistency and conflict between the two, the later which directly relates to the matter, overrides the earlier — This is a settled principle of jurisprudence which is accepted in the civilized world of jurisprudence. State through Advocate General v. Hakam Deen & 15 others 2005 SCR 374 (I)
  66. Courts have to harmonize the provisions of law in case any repugnancy or inconsistency is found in different provisions of law and it shall adopt such view, which is in consonance with the spirit of law and purpose for which it is enacted — The Courts are obliged to apply and interpret the law in a manner that it advances the cause of justice at the least inconvenience and expenses of the parties or State. State through Advocate General  v. Hakam Deen & others 2005 SCR 374 (J)
  67. The provisions of law are not to be applied in isolation of each other,  but simultaneously in juxtaposition to each other — When there are two conflicting and inconsistent provisions, one which advances the cause of justice and of the law, that has to be preferred over the other — When there are different provisions susceptible to different meanings, these shall be so comprehended and applied, that purpose of law is carried into effect with least or minimum inconvenience and expense to the parties. State through Adv. General  v. Hakam Deen 2005 SCR 374 (R)
  68. While construing a statute, it has to be read as a whole and every notification issued under the statute shall be read within the meaning and spirit of law which authorises issuing such notification. Muhammad Sharif Chattar v. Commissioner Rehabilitation & 6 others 2005 SCR 69 (A)
  69. Ss. 10 & 11 of Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 — The allegation against appellant culminated in the year 1998 — Objection that appellant cannot be charged for offences under clauses (F) to (H) of section 10 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act as it expressly runs contrary to Fundamental Right No. 4(4)of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — The law came into force in 2001 and it was on ex post facto law — Held: The law was amended from time to time — Ultimately repealed by the Ehtesab Bureau Act, the law in force — S. 44 of the Act gives protection to the proceedings pending and investigation or inquiry initiated under Ehteshab Act — A juxtaposition reading of both the laws reveals that provisions of Ehtesab Act were brief and self contained — What the provisions of Ehtesab Act meant besides their meanings relatable to section 161 of the Penal Code “causing loss to public exchequer and damaging public property by misuse of power/office for favouritism, nepotism etc”. M. Munir Awan & 3 others v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (D)
  70. S. 3(1)(A) Ehtesab Bureau Act consists of two parts — Both are disjunctive of each other — First part begins with words “if he accepts” and ends with words “Act XLV of 1860”, second part begins with the words “or for doing” and ends with the words “public exchequer” — When these words are compared with section 10(1)(A) of Ehtesab Bureau Act — The word “or” is significantly absent in it and the word “for” vividly connects subsequent phraseology with section 161 of Penal Code, while the word “or” in the Ehtesab Act severs first part from the subsequent — It was the first law of its nature which was subsequently improved, modified, amended and re-enacted but purpose remained the same — While construing the provision of law the scheme of law has to be seen as a whole — Every provision of law has to be read for carrying into effect the purpose, aim and object of law — It will be a mockery of law and public ethics to assume or accept that misuse of authority was not an offence in 1997 or that it was allowed. Muhammad Munir Awan & 3 others  v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (E)
  71. The words “misuse of power and office” relate to loss to exchequer and are synonymous to words misuse of authority under clause(F) of section 10(1) of the Ehtesab Bureau Act — “Power” or “office” can be misused only when as person is in “authority” or “office” not otherwise — The words “authority” and “power” have the similar meanings wherever used — Where an authority or power is improperly used or where it is abused or not used, when it should have been, it is misuse of authority or power. M. Munir Awan & others  v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (F)
  72. All proceedings of inquiry and investigation commenced after the enforcement of law are protected by repealing laws — Investigation and enquiry is a procedural law, it hardly affects the substantial rights. Muhammad Munir Awan & 3 others  v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (G)
  73. Under section 56(C) of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act and section 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act where a law is repealed  it shall not affect unless otherwise provided any previous operation of law, investigation, penalty or right privilege or liability etc. Muhammad Munir Awan & 3 others  v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (H)
  74. If two possible and reasonable constructions are possible, the Court must lean towards that one which favours the accused rather than one prejudicial to his interest — Where section admits of only one reasonable meaning the Court is not authorised to give it any other meaning except that which flows from the section — In criminal trials the duty of the Court is more onerous than in civil cases — In the later class of cases, the Court will decide on the evidence that the parties choose to procedure, while in criminal cases as is clear from sub-section (2) of section 265-F Cr. P.C, it is duty of the Court to see that all relevant evidence is bought before it. Hakam Deen v. State & 16 others 2005 SCR 314 (K)
  75. The responsibility of the Court in criminal cases is to ensure that all proper all and necessary steps are taken to arrive at the truth, irrespective of the fact whether the Advocates of the parties have argued a particular matter or not. Hakam Deen v. State 2005 SCR 314 (L)AIR 1937 Bombay 28 rel.
  76. The Courts are not to begin with the intention to convict the accused — The Courts are to find out as to who is the real accused — If he is before the Court, then to satisfy as to whether there are reasonable grounds for his trial and then to satisfy as to whether he is proved guilty of the offence for which he is charged and if so, proved in accordance with fair trial visualized by the procedure, the maximum sentence prescribed by law must be awarded — Even a minimum doubt is founded, he has to be discharged or acquitted, as the case may be, irrespective of the fact however, heinous is the offence of which he is accused. Hakam Deen v. State & 16 others 2005 SCR 314 (M)
  77. The argument that as all the procedures are meant to advance the cause of justice and non-observance of any provision does not vitiate the trial is not untrue in totality but there is difference between the inadvertent failure to follow a procedure and deliberate non-observance of the provisions — If the practice as adopted by the trial Court is allowed on the pretext that the trial is completed by the Court without any prejudice to accused, though not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Code, it will create a tendency of fleeing from law and then to a state of lawlessness and ultimately a day may come when an adventurist may stand up and flay an accused alive on mere allegation. Hakam Deen v. State & 16 others 2005 SCR 314 (N)
  78. The law has to be observed as it is, not as it should be or in a manner not authorized by law. Hakam Deen v. State & 16 others 2005 SCR 314 (O)
  79. While interpreting the statute the Court has to consider that what was the intention of the Legislature and what was the object of enactment — Intention is the essence of a statute — The intention of Legislature as embodied in the statute constitutes law. Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Said Husssain Khan 2006 SCR 247 (D)
  80. Where any provision is open to two reasonable possible interpretations, the one favouring the tax payer should be adopted. Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Said Husssain Khan 2006 SCR 247 (F)
  81. Statute amendment of — Interpretation — While interpreting a statute the Court should ensure that it should be interpreted in such a manner that it a should be harmonious with other provisions of the Act, in which the amendment is introduced — The Court is duty bound to interpret the provision in such like manner that it should remain consistent with law sought to be interpreted. Nanni Sultana v. Tanveer Ahmad & another 2007 SCR 317 (A)
  82. The interpretation of statutes remained a subject of debate among the Lawyers, Jurists and Judges down the ages — The mode or method of interpretation of statutes has not been regulated by Assembly or law-makers —- The jurists have termed such modes or methods as “rules of statutory interpretation” — The rules are as under i)    The Literal Rules,     ii)    The Mischief Rules, iii)    The Golden Rule,     iv)    The United Contextual Approach. Tahir Mahmood & 3 others v. Khalid Sharif & 9 others  2007 SCR 281 (B)
  83. Under Literal Rules the statute is to be read literally by giving the words used ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning — If such a reading leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible of another meaning Court may adopt the same — Under Literal Rule the words of a statute are sufficient to determine every question that arises under it, no matter how absurd and unjust are the consequences. Tahir Mahmood & 3 others v. Khalid Sharif & 9 others 2007 SCR 281 (C)
  84. The Mischief Rule is a rule to guide the Judges when they find difficulty in Literal Interpretation — Under this rule the Judge is allowed to consider the historical background of the statute — This rule allows to look into the common law and the mischief in the common law — Where the statute is for the remedy the same is to be construed in such a manner to suppress the mischief and provide the remedy  — The mischief rule is designed to let the Court to consider whey the Act was passed and then to apply that knowledge giving the words under consideration — The rule intends that the Court must advance legislative object and suppress the mischief sought to be cured. Tahir Mahmood & 3 others v. Khalid Sharif & 9 others 2007 SCR 281 (D)
  85. Golden Rule — The rule that a statute may be interpreted without following the literal interpretation so as to avoid absurdity is called Golden Rule — The literal legacy is conclusive evidence of intention of legislature that can be gathered from the words used in the statute — The Court is supposed to follow the literal approach unless it produces absurdity. Tahir Mahmood & 3 others v. Khalid Sharif & 9 others 2007 SCR 281 (E)
  86. Rule of United Contextual Approach — The Court has the right to examine every word of the statute in its context, its preamble and the other statute in pari materia and the mischief — All the statutes and enactments are to be given such interpretation as to make them operative and not to bypass them on mere technical objects. Tahir Mahmood & 3 others v. Khalid Sharif & 9 others 2007 SCR 281 (F)
  87. Harmonious Interpretation — The interpretation of law should be harmonious and it should not lead to contradictory or ridiculous consequences — Various provisions of the Act are to be read together and not in isolation thereof. Tahir Mahmood & 3 others v. Khalid Sharif & 9 others 2007 SCR 281 (G)
  88. Purpose of enactment cannot be bypassed, floated or otherwise defeated by resorting to technicalities and to hold that the purpose/intent must be the prime consideration — The basic and fundamental rule of interpretation is that the Courts should ascertain the intention and the purpose of Legislature because it is the essence of the statute — The legislative purpose is the reason why a particular enactment was passed by the Legislature. Syed Shujahat Hussain Kazmi v. Mst. Nazish kazmi 2007 SCR 438 (J)
  89. Where plain language has been used and it is found to be certain and free from ambiguity bare reading of same is sufficient and no interpretation in detail is necessary. Badar Shehzad & another v. The State & another 2007 SCR 218 (H)
  90. Interpretation of an amended provision of a statute — While interpreting a particular provision of a statute the Court should ensure that it should be interpreted in such a manner that it should be harmonious with other provisions of the statute in which an amendment is introduced — It should be interpreted in such like manner that it remains consistent with other provisions of law having relevance and nexus with law sought to be interpreted. Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat & another 2007 SCR 1 (M) PLD 1971 S.C.87 Relied.
  91. The rule of construction of a beneficial statute and principles to be adopted are that while construing a beneficial enactment the Court can take into consideration the object for which it is enacted and the mischief intended to suppress — In case to constructions of a provision of such statute are possible the one which favours a class of persons for whose benefit statute has been enacted, is to be preferred. Abdul Rasheed and 85 others v. Board of Trustees and others 2008 SCR 417 (M)
  92. S. 6 of Act 1975 and Rules 10 and 11 of Rules, 1976 — No particular mode or method of interpretation of statute has been provided or regulated by the Assembly or law makers — It has to be evolved by the Judges and it varied from time to time — Jurists have termed such modes or methods as rule of statutory interpretation — The rules are: (I) Literal rule; (ii) Mischief rule; (iii) Golden rule; and (iv) United Contextual Approach. Abdul Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. and others 2009 SCR 400 (F)
  93. S. 42(13)(C) — First proviso — The words “other Judge” — Contain that if there is no such majority as required under clause (B) — The case shall be placed for hearing and disposal before “another Judge” —Words ‘‘another Judge’’ have been used — In first proviso too words ‘‘other Judge’’ have been used in same context — If no ‘‘other Judge’’ is able to hear the case, the judgment, decree or order or sentence appealed from shall be deemed to be the judgment, decree, order or sentence, of the Supreme Court. Azad Government & 3 others v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & another 2009 SCR 447 (F)
  94. S. 42(13)(C) — If the law-makers would have some other intention then they would have not provided that judgment appealed from shall be deemed to be the judgment of Supreme Court — But they would have provided that a new Judge shall be appointed for hearing the case — Whose opinion would be final. Azad Govt.  v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & another 2009 SCR 447 (D)
  95. S. 42 (13)(C) of the Interim Constitution Act — The intention of Legislature can be gathered from the words used in the legislation — Words used in first proviso of S.42(13)(C) convey the intention of Legislature if plain meanings are given to them — In clause (C) it is stated that if there is no majority opinion — then the petition or appeal, shall be placed for hearing and disposal before another Judge to be nominated by the Chief Justice. Azad Government & 3 others v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & another 2009 SCR 447 (B)
  96. S. 42 (13)(C) — Words “another Judge” — Mean the other Judge of the Court available for hearing the case — The words do not convey that new Judge should be appointed — It means that a Judge who is already working in the Court is to be nominated by the Chief Justice — Proviso suggests that if there is no other Judge or the other Judge is unable to hear the case, the judgment, decree or order or sentence appealed from shall be deemed to be the judgment, decree or sentence of the Supreme Court. Azad Govt. &  others v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & another 2009 SCR 447 (C)
  97. It is well settled principle for interpretation of constitutional instrument that it may be construed in such a manner that it should harmonize various provisions of the constitutional instrument — and may not cause any conflict or may not render any other provision inoperative or redundant. Azad Government & 3 others v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & another 2009 SCR 447 (E)
  98. Golden rule — According to it a statute may be interpreted without following the literal interpretation so as to avoid absurdity. Abdul Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt.  2009 SCR 400 (H)
  99. The basic and fundamental rule of interpretation of statutes is that the Court should ascertain the intention and purpose of legislation because it is the essence of statute — The Legislative purpose is basic reason that why a particular enactment was enacted by the Legislature. Abdul Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. and others 2009 SCR 400 (J)
  100. The Court should give simple meaning to the words used in the legislation — The Court can gather the intention of Legislature from the simple meaning of the words used in legislation. Abdul Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. and others 2009 SCR 400 (K)
  101. The procedural law always operates retrospectively unless contrary intention is expressed. Mst. Hameeda Begum and another v. Mazhar Hussain and 40 others 2009 SCR 27 (B)
  102. While adapting Literal rule the statute has to be read and looked into literally and simple grammatical meanings are to be given to the words used in the statute — If the Court finds difficulty in literal interpretation — Then while applying the Mischief rule the Court has to consider the historical background of the statute. Abdul Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt.  2009 SCR 400 (G)
  103. While adapting the Rule of United Contextual Approach — The Court will examine every word of a statute in its context — And use the same in widest sense by not only including other enacting provisions of same statute — But its preamble, existing state of law, other statutes in pari materia and mischief — The Court can by legitimate means, discern the statute intended to remedy. Abdul Hameed Khan v. Azad Govt. and others 2009 SCR 400 (I)
  104. While interpreting the proviso and clause (C) of S.42(13)(C), the Court has to keep in mind that there should be harmony between two provisions of law — While applying this principle it can be said that if on account of difference of opinion the petition or appeal is placed before another Judge and such Judge is not available or able to hear the case, then the judgment, decree, order or sentence appealed from shall be deemed to be the judgment, decree, order or sentence of the Supreme Court. Azad Government & 3 others v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & another 2009 SCR 447 (G)   
  105. It is celebrated principle of interpretation of statutes that the provisions of procedural law are always retrospective and apply to the pending cases if the enactment does not alter the rights of the parties.  Muhammad Bashir Khan v. Muhammad Sharif & 8 others 2011 SCR 214 (B)
  106. The simple principle of interpretation of statutes is that if the provisions of an Act are applied at once, they should take effect from the date the Act was promulgated. Muhammad Bashir Khan v. Muhammad Sharif & 8 others 2011 SCR 214 (A)
  107. Where a particular situation is covered by a special enactment; the provisions contained in general statute stand ousted — In a particular situation where a provision has been enacted to cover that situation, general provision, although giving some impression of jurisdictional province cannot brought to allot a meaning that despite special provision or part of a statute the Court should adhere to the general provisions, which do not clearly cover the situation. Munawar Hussain v. The University of AJK & others 2011 SCR 27 (C) 1999 SCR 1, NLR 1997 SCJ 223, 2001 SCR 263, “understanding statutes” by S. M. Zafar (Edition, 2008) Page 138 and “the interpretation of statutes” by M.Farani(Edition 1974) page 211 rel.
  108. Where an Act or Statute, rule or Regulation provides for doing an act in a particular way, it must be done in that way or not at all. Munawar H. v. The University of AJK  2011 SCR 27 (D)
  109. The golden principle of interpretation of statutes is that no statutes is to be construed to have retrospective effect unless its language so necessitates or unless it is expressly so provided. Held: Where a matter stands decided and the decision attains finality as a transaction past and closed, the subsequent amendment in the law will not effect the decision in absence of express intention of law if it touches a right or existence of a right at that time unless expressly provided, it will not operate retrospectively. Nizam Din & another v.    Custodian & 15 others 2011 SCR 390 (C) 2006 SCR 396, 1993 P.Cr.LJ, 781 & PLD 1969 SC 187 rel.
  110. It is celebrated proposition of interpretation of Statute that the punctuation in the statute has to be allotted clear meanings and cannot be left unnoticed, the word ‘and’ has to be read in cumulative sense — One of the rules of construction and interpretation of statutes is that where the legislature intends two sub-clauses to have conjunctive effect, the word ‘and’ would find place at the end of sub-clause (I). Chief Administrator Auqaf v. Sain Ghulam Ahmed Nisar & 38 others 2011 SCR 471 (I)
  111. As a matter of ordinary construction, where several words are followed by a general expression, which is much applicable to the first and other words to the last, that expression is not limited to last but applies to all. Chief Administrator Auqaf v. Sain Ghulam Ahmed Nisar & 38 others 2011 SCR 471 (J) Understanding  Statutes/Cannons of Constructions by S.M. Zafar rel.
  112. If an Act touches the rights of a person, it cannot be retrospective rather its operation will be prospective, unless otherwise provided. Ejaz Ahmed Mir v. Collector land Acquisition & 3 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 603 (A)
  113. When two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the subject has to be adopted. Imran Ali Versus Public Service Commission, Azad Jammu and Kashmir through its Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Chatter, Muzaffarabad and 4 others 2013 SCR 795 (D)
  114. If an Act touches the rights of a person, it cannot be retrospective rather its operation will be prospective, unless otherwise provided. Ejaz Ahmed Mir v. Collector land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, Circle Mirpur/Islamgarh, Mirpur and 3 others  2013 SCR  962 (A)
  115. No doubt interpretation of a statute or its provisions is the basic duty of the Court but the interpretation always have to be made subject to celebrated laid down principles — The Courts are always conscious while interpretating any statutory provision to give such meanings which do not render ineffective any word or portion of any statute but to advance the interpretation which harmonizes among different parts and provisions of the statute. [Mirza Abdul Aziz Versus Muhammad Ayub and 2 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 827 (E)
  116. No provision of statute can be interpreted in isolation — For interpretation of a statutory provision, the statute as one organ has to be considered while keeping in mind, the whole scheme and wisdom of legislation — Principle. Syed Subtain H. Kazmi, Tehsildar presently posted at Bagh Development Authority and 2 others V. Syed Mumtaz H. Kazmi, Naib Tehsildar presently posted at office of Deputy Commissioner, Bagh, Haveli and 5 others  2013 SCR  889 (A)
  117. The Courts have to interpret the provision of statute in such a manner which harmonizes all the provisions of the statute — The statutory provision which occurs later in order will be given preference — Principle. Mirza Abdul Aziz v. M. Ayub 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 827 (B)
  118. The Court should advance interpretation to harmonize different parts and provisions of the statute and the interpretation which manifest the intention of the legislature, be most in accord with convenience, reason and legal principle. Mirza Abdul Aziz Versus Muhammad Ayub and 2 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 827 (D)
  119. The provision of statute should not be read in isolation so as to give such meanings which make the other provisions meaningless and redundant. Syed Subtain Hussain Kazmi, Tehsildar presently posted at Bagh Development Authority and 2 others V. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Kazmi, Naib Tehsildar presently posted at office of Deputy Commissioner, Bagh, Haveli and 5 others  2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 889 (B)
  120. The rules are made to regulate the procedure and implement the provisions of the Act — Any provision of rules repugnant or inconsistent to the Act shall have no force of law — In case of a conflict between the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the provisions of the Act shall prevail. [Ejaz Ahmed Mir Versus Collector Land Acquisition & 3 others Ejaz Ahmed Mir v. Collector land Acquisition & 3 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 603 (C)
  121. When two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the subject has to be adopted — Principle. Imran Ali Versus Public Service Commission, Azad Jammu and Kashmir through its Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Chatter, Muzaffarabad and 4 others 2013 SCR 795 (E)
  122. It is celebrated principle of law of interpretation of statutes that the plain dictionary meaning always assigned to the words incorporated in a provision — the Courts are bound to assign the ordinary and plain meaning to a word used in a Statute. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Naqvi & 9 others v. Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan & 4 others 2014 SCR 43 (S)
  123. No clause or part of the Constitution can be interpreted in isolation having disregard of the other relevant provisions or part of the Constitution.  Haider Ali & another v. Qurat-ul-Ain Latif & 9 others 2014 SCR 196 (A) 
  124. Sections 3 and 4 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — Fundamental Right No.15 — Notification No.I-L/84 dated 27th April, 1927 — classes of State Subjects — contention that the classes of State Subjects provided in the Notification are directly in conflict with sections 3 and 4 of the Constitution — Held: According to scheme and spirit of the Statute, the term ‘State Subject’ wherever is used in Act, 1974, including section 4 of the Act, 1974, it is used in the meanings, sense and scope assigned to it in the interpretation clause which provides classes of State Subjects.  Thus, equality of the State Subjects under the provision of Right No.15 will be considered in the light of the definition assigned to it by the Act, 1974 — if the term State Subject without the meaning assigned to it is taken irrespective of classes, its logical conclusion will be destruction of the definition clause, whereas, if this term is taken into consideration in the light of its definition which includes classes of State Subjects, then the Constitutional provisions i.e. interpretation clause, section 4 and Right No.15 can coexist or can be saved.  Held:  according to principle of harmonized interpretation the term ‘State Subject’ used in section 4, Right No.15 of Act, 1974 has the same meanings as assigned to it in the definition provided in the interpretation clause of Act, 1974 which admits the classes of the State Subjects. Haider Ali & another v. Qurat-ul-Ain Latif & 9 others 2014 SCR 196 (E & G) 1990 MLD 1293  ref. 
  125. The operation of rules is not retrospective, it is prospective — it is settled law that rules of procedure operate retrospectively but if the rules create or take away some vested rights, then the operation of rules is prospective and not retrospective.  Muhammad Yaqoob Awan  v. Secretary Electricity Dept. & 3 others 2014 SCR 1 (C) 2002 SCR 344  ref.
  126. The golden principles of interpretation of Statute are that the Courts have to interpret the Statute to save it by harmonizing its provisions and avoid destruction of any word or clause as far as possible.  Haider Ali & another v. Qurat-ul-Ain Latif & 9 others 2014 SCR 196 (F)
  127. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of Statutes that if a jurisdiction is not vested in an authority under a law, it cannot be extended by analogy and such person cannot be included in such definition and jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the authority. Muhammad Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & 4 others 2014 SCR 1180 (F) PLD 1965 (W.P) Karachi 90  ref.
  128. The ordinary dictionary meanings should have been assigned while interpreting the provisions of the Act but for gathering the intention of the Legislature, the history and background of an Act is to be kept in mind. M. Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & 4 others 2014 SCR 1180 (H)
  129. AJ&K Civil Servants Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 — AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976 — comparison — Held: Act,2001 as compared to Act, 1976 is special law on the subject and also later in order of legislation having overriding effect, whereas Act, 1976 is general law and former in order of legislation. M. Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority 2014 SCR 1180 (L)
  130. When there are two laws applicable to the subject, one is general and the other is special, the special law will have to prevail. Muhammad Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & 4 others 2014 SCR 1180 (P)
  131. If there are two laws applicable to the same subject, the law which has been promulgated later in order will be applicable. Muhammad Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & 4 others 2014 SCR 1180 (Q) Malick Hussain Shah vs. Superintendent of Police Rangers (Civil appeal No. 90/2007 decided on 7.4.2014), rel.
  132. According to the celebrated principle of law, a statute may be interpreted with reference to the other statutes if same is pari materia. Muhammad Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & 4 others 2014 SCR 1180 (V) PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 74, rel.
  133. According to the celebrated principle of law, a provision of statute has to be interpreted in a manner which may effectively carry out the purpose of the statute and also ensures the proper and smooth functioning. M. Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & others 2014 SCR 1180 (AA) 1994 SCMR 2255, rel.
  134. It is a golden principle of interpretation of statute that for saving the statute, broad and liberal interpretation is permissible. Muhammad Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & 4 others  2014 SCR 1180 (JJ) 1990 MLD 1293, rel.
  135. Act, 2001 is made by the Assembly whereas E&D Rules are made by the Government which is a subordinate legislation — According to the celebrated principle of law, the provisions of subordinate legislation have to yield and to be deemed superseded by the provisions of the superior law, i.e Act, 2001. M. Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & 4 others 2014 SCR 1180 (NN)
  136. Harmonious interpretation — according to the golden celebrated principles of interpretation of statutes, the Courts have to make harmonious interpretation to reconcile all the provisions according to the spirit and scheme of law considering the statute as one organ, so as to save the legislation to avoid redundancy of any provision of law and destruction of statute. Muhammad Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & 4 others 2014 SCR 1180 (OO)
  137. For determining whether a law is general or special, the substance and practical operation of the Act, other than the title, have to be looked into. Malick Hussain Shah v. Superintendent of Police Rangers 2014 SCR 1120 (L)
  138. General or special law — determination of — for determining whether an Act is a general or special law, regard must be had to its applicability whether it is applicable throughout the state, is presumed to cover general case and not particular ones, which are otherwise provided in the special Act.  Malick Hussain Shah v. Superintendent of Police Rangers 2014 SCR 1120 (C) Statutory construction by Crawford page 103 Edn. 1940 understanding the statutes( canon of construction) by S.M. Zafar, Page 134, Edn.2008 and interpretation of statutes by N.S.Bindra, 1oth Edn. ref.
  139. General and special law — definition of — Malick Hussain Shah v. Superintendent of Police Rangers 2014 SCR 1120 (D)  The interpretation of statutes by M. Farani, page 210, Edn.1974  rel. 
  140. Harmonious interpretation — two statutes on the same subject — Held: if there are two statutes on the subject in general terms and only a part of the same subject matter in a statute is in minute manner, then two Acts have to be read together and harmonized—there is a general Act in existence and legislature afterwards makes a special law, the provisions of which are in conflict, it shall be presumed that legislature has in its mind the general Act and if any remedy is provided in the special Act, then remedy in general law is excluded. Malick Hussain Shah v.  Superintendent of Police Rangers 2014 SCR 1120 (E)
  141. Non-obstante Clause — object of — a clause beginning with ‘notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in some particular provision in the Act or in some particular Act or in law for the time being in force’, is sometime appended to a section in the beginning of a statute with a view to give enacting part of the section or the whole statute in case of conflict the overriding effect over the provision or Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause — It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provision or the Act mentioned in non-obstante clause, the enactment following it will have its full operation or a provision embraced in the non-obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation in the enactment — a non-obstante clause may be used as a legislative device to modify the ambit of the provision or law mentioned in the non-obstante clause or to override it in specified circumstances — the wide amplitude of a non-obstante clause must be kept confined to the legislative policy and it can be given effect to, to the extent of parliament intended and not beyond the same —. while interpreting a non-obstante clause, the Court is required to find out the extent to which the legislature intended to give it overriding effect. Malick Hussain Shah v.  Superintendent of Police Rangers 2014 SCR 1120 (F) AIR 1992SC 81 & 2005 SCR 374, rel.
  142. It is celebrated principle of interpretation of statutes that provisions of the procedural law are always retrospective but the provisions of an Act which deals with the rights are always prospective and not retrospective unless provided otherwise.  Malick Hussain Shah v.  Superintendent of Police Rangers 2014 SCR 1120 (N)
  143. Held: Act, 2001 is later law and it is settled principle of interpretation of statutes that when there are two laws applicable in a matter, the later in time is to be applied if there is conflict in the provisions of earlier general law and the later law which is specific on the subject — Act 2002,being later law, it is applicable in the cases of Civil Servants governed under the Civil Servants Act and the members of corporation service governed by corporation laws, subject to the others provisions. Malick H. Shah v. Superintendent of Police Rangers 2014 SCR 1120 (H) 1992 MLD 383 ref.
  144. Constitutional provision — according to celebrated golden principles of law, liberal interpretation in favour of safeguarding the fundamental rights is always preferred. Bashir Ahmed Mughal v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2014 SCR 1258 (Y) PLD 1992 Lah.462 rel.
  145. The Courts have to interpret law as it exists on the statute book and it has to be interpreted as it is and not ought to be. Miss Maryam v. Mst. Rasheeda Sultana & others 2015 SCR 568 (L)
  146. It is celebrated principle of interpretation of statutes that plain meanings have to be assigned to a statutory provision — If the language is plain and there is no ambiguity then the ordinary dictionary meanings have to be assigned to it. Azad Govt. &2 others v. Shahjahan Kiani & 2 others 2015 SCR 690 (A) 2001 SCR 380 & 2014 SCR 43 ref.
  147. It is celebrated principle of interpretation of statutes that ordinary dictionary meaning has to be assigned while interpreting a statutory provision. Abid Akram Danish Zaib & 5 others 2015 SCR732 (B)
  148. The law has to be applied as it is and not ought to be. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744  (G) 2001 SCR 481 & 2013 SCR 134 ref.
  149. Judicial remedy — not subservient to — departmental remedy — in my considered opinion, in view of the hereinabove stated legislative history and judicial pronouncements in this regard, the provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Appeal) Rules 1991 and Section 21 of Act, 1976 cannot be interpreted or enforced in such a manner to make the judicial remedy subservient to the departmental remedy. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJK 2015 SCR 744 (N)
  150. Section 4 — AJ&K Service Tribunal Act, 1975 — jurisprudential and legislative developments —interpretation to be followed — according to full court judgment — there is a full Court judgment on this specific proposition in Shabbir Ahmed’s case, [1996 SCR 382], which has also been relied upon by the High Court in Kh. Abdul Qayyum’s case supra. The subsequent legislative developments in fact have taken place to implement these judgments. Thus, the deletion of proviso (A) has further strengthened the spirit of the judgment passed in Shabbir Ahmed’s case supra, hence, the amendment through which proviso (A) has been deleted has to be interpreted according to the spirit and subject to the wisdom expressed in the supra case. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (O) 1996  SCR 382 rel.
  151. Section 4 of Act 1975 — interpretation — manner of — not in violation of full court judgment — The interpretation of section 4 of Act, 1975 in such a manner to provide the departmental authority with unguided powers for an indefinite period to decide the departmental remedy surely will result into arbitrariness coupled with violation of the spirit of the decision of this Court. Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under AJ&K 2015 SCR 744 (U) 1996 SCR 382 rel.
  152. It is a celebrated principal of interpretation of Statutes that if a thing is provided to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in same manner or not at all. Sardar Muhammad Razzaq v. Chairman Ehtesab Bureau   & others 2015 SCR 1156 (G)2012 SCR 213 & 2004 SCR 378 ref.
  153. It is celebrated principal of law that when a temporary statute repeals the permanent statute or its any provision, such deletion shall remain in force or operative till the existence of temporary statute — On expiry of the life of the temporary statute, the permanent statute or its provision shall stand automatically revived. Sardar Muhammad Razzaq v. Chairman Ehtesab Bureau & others 2015 SCR 1156 (K) 1994 SCR 124 ref.
  154. The legislature has power to apply an Act with retrospective effect and retrospective effect shall not affect any right accrued to a party. Sardar Muhammad Razzaq v. Chairman Ehtesab Bureau & others 2015 SCR 1156 (O)
  155. The proviso has overriding effect on the main provision. Presidential reference v. —– 2015 SCR 1249 (U) 1995 SCR 196 ref.
  156. The celebrated principle of interpretation of statutes, which equally implies while interpreting the Constitution is that ordinary plain meanings have to be applied to the words used in the Constitution. The plain meaning has to be assigned to the words used in it. Raja Ikhlaq Hussain Kiani & 2 others v. Chief Election Commissioner & 53 others 2016 SCR 611 (D)
  157. It is settled law that if two laws are applicable on the same subject, the law which has been promulgated later in order will be applicable. Muhammad Arshad & another v. The State & another 2016 SCR 1029 (E) 2014 SCR 1180 rel.
  158. The effect of proviso is that it carves out a special situation from the main provision. Saleem Akbar Kayani versus Dr. Rehana Mansha Kayani & 4 others 2016 SCR 1 (A/1)
  159. It is celebrated principle of interpretation of Statutes that if an act is not specifically prohibited in the statutes there is no bar for doing such act. Miss Fatiha Shehzadi v. Vice Chancellor AJ&K University & 3 others 2016 SCR 134 (B)1997 SCR 149 rel.
  160. Law is settled that where same words and phrases are used in more than one provisions in relation to some subject matter and, if in one provision meaning is clear and in other provisions, it has some ambiguity then the same meaning shall be given to the later provisions as are given in former provision. AJ&K Council v. AJ&K  Govt. & 8 others 2016 SCR 145 (J/II)Understanding Statutes by S.M. Zafar Edn. 2008, Page 635 and Maxwell’s Interpretation of   Statutes  10th  Edn.  Page  522  rel.
  161. According to the celebrated principle of law the Courts have to interpret the enforced laws and not legislate. No word can be omitted or added in the Statute by the Courts rather the Courts are duty bound to interpret the law as it is and not as it should be. AJ&K Council v. AJ&K  Govt. & 8 others 2016 SCR 145 (Z)
  162. Special laws — interpretation of — due regard — the statutory provision of special laws have always been given due regard. Azad Govt.  v. Sr. M. Mukhtar Khan 2016 SCR 206 (O)
  163. For interpretation of provisions of a statute, the intention of the legislature, the Scheme and spirit of law has to be taken into consideration as a whole. Muhammad Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (J)
  164.  —retrospective effect of law—by consent of parties—cannot be given to—held: retrospective effect of law cannot be given mere by the consent of the parties Arshad Mehmood v. M.D.A & others 2017 SCR 992 (C)
  165. — the Courts have to go by law and where the plain reading of the statute is found unambiguous the same is to be adopted in its true sense without importing any extraneous consideration or interpretation. Zaib-un-Nisa v. Mehbood Hussain Shah 2017 SCR 1644 (B)
  166.  — law should be interpreted as it exists on the statute book and not as it ought to be. Zaib-un-Nisa v. Mehbood Hussain Shah 2017 SCR 1644 (C)
  167. —General law and special law—where two enactments on identical point/subject are holding the field then the court will try to harmonize the both but if the same cannot be done then the Act which is earlier in time would be deemed to have been repealed by later on the doctrine of ‘implied repeal’— However, there is an exception to this rule i.e. where a general statute provides a different procedure for doing a thing then procedure provided by the special law has to prevail. Muhammad Ajmal Qureshi vs Nazia Bibi & others 2018 SCR 1179 (E) 1996 SCMR 826, PLD 2003 SC 824 ref
  168. —Policy notification conferring 5 marks to Gold Medalist–issued subsequent to selection process—meanwhile right accrued to respondent, who attained top merit position—validity of giving retrospective effect—held: retrospective effect could not be given to the subsequent notification. When the subsequent notification was issued, a right had already been accrued to the respondent and in such state of affairs in view of settled principle of law, retrospective effect could not be given to the subsequent notification. Qurat-ul-Ain v.Qazi Zain-ul-Abdeen 2019 SCR 80 (A) 2014 SCR 1 rel
  169. — sections 5 & 6 of A J & K Anti-Terrorism Act, 2014–sections 147,148, 149 and 302, APC—application of  section 6 of ATA, 2014— section 6 cannot be read in isolation—rather required to be read with section 5 of the ATA, 2014, which define the acts of terrorism—application for transfer of case to the District Criminal Court dismissed by the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court–Writ also faced same fate—  the Supreme Court examined the applicability  of section 6 on the case whether the offences fall  within the ambit of act of terrorism or not—Held: The bare reading of provisions postulates that these are attracted on the acts of terrorism defined under section 5 of ATA, meaning, thereby, that section 6 of ATA cannot be read in isolation rather the same shall be read together with section 5 of Act. If section 6 of ATA is read in isolation then every case of murder, grievous injury, grievous damage to private property and the act which is likely to cause death etc. would constitute the offence of terrorism which is against the scheme of this special law. Umar Arif & 6 others v. Sessions Judge  Muzaffarabad & 5 others 2020 SCR 222 (A)
  170.  —- The Constitution or any other statute has to be read as a whole.  M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi v. Raja Waseem Younis & 6 others 2020 SCR 1 (T)
  171. — if there is any contradiction between the Codified law and the Sharia law then the Sharia law shall prevail. Abdul Rehman & 5  others V. Nazim & 14 others 2020 SCR 498 (B) PLD 2013 Peshawar 38 rel
  172. —principles of interpretation of statute, regulation or rule–Court has to look into provisions as a whole—Court while interpreting cannot assume the role of legislature or nullify other provision—the Court has to dig out the true intention of the legislature while Interpreting a statute, regulation or rule and for that purpose, the Court has to look into the provisions of a statute as a whole. No such interpretation can be made through which the Court may assume the role of legislature or which nullifies another provision of the statute or a regulation or rule. Riaz Ahmed & 75 others v. Accountant General & 2 others 2020 SCR 737 (G) PLD 1985 SC (AJK) 74 & 2002 SCR 158 rel
  173.  —two provisions of same statute dealing same subject—if there exist any doubt between two—the later provision directly relates will prevail—if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that there is doubt regarding the application of both the provisions, even then law is well-settled and has rightly been argued by Mr. Abdul Rasheed Abbasi, advocate that in case of conflict between two provisions dealing with the same subject, the later provision, which directly relates to the matter, overrides the earlier. Riaz Ahmed & 75 others v. Accountant General & 2 others 2020 SCR 737 (I) 2005 SCR 374 rel
  174.  —interpretation of statute—admissibility of risk allowance to police personal—if two possible interpretations possible—then the one favouring/beneficial to the State Subject is to be adopted— if two possible interpretations are available, then one favouring the state-subjects is to be adopted. In the present case, as the Risk Allowance is to be paid to the police personnel, which has erroneously been curtailed by the Accountant-General’s office, without any lawful authority, therefore, interpretation, which favours the police employees is liable to be adopted, as the same is beneficial to the citizens/employees as a class.  Riaz Ahmed & 75 others v. Accountant General & 2 others 2020 SCR 737 (J) PLJ 2014 SC AJK 163 rel
  175. —Golden principle of interpretation—-if conflict pointed out between general provision and special provision—the special provision shall be resorted to—-para 6(i) and (ii) generally deal with the reduction in allowances, which are equal to 100% of basic pay in BPS-2008 and BPS-2011, whereas para 9 specifically deals with the special pay and allowances, i.e. the Risk Allowance, Prison Allowance, Health Allowance, Judicial Allowance etc. and there is nothing regarding the reduction of these allowances. The special provision has overriding effect on the general provision. It is golden principle of interpretation that when there is any conflict with regard to the operation of the general provision and the specific provision, then nothing will construe that general provision may interfere or obstruct the operation of specific provision. Riaz Ahmed & 75 others v. Accountant General & 2 others 2020 SCR 737 (K) PLD 1997 SC 324 rel
  176. —Office Memorandum of Finance Department, dated 27.07.2017—Anomaly Committee, no role in interpretation of statutory instrument—Interpretation is sole prerogative of Court–The question involved in the case was only with regard to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the impugned Office Memorandum, which is the sole prerogative of the Courts. We are of the considered view that the Accountant General’s, office has stopped the payment and started deduction of the Risk Allowance in violation of the provision of para 9 of the Office Memorandum dated 20.7.2017, therefore, the action of the Accountant General is declared without lawful authority. Riaz Ahmed & 75 others v. Accountant General & 2 others 2020 SCR 737 (M)
  177. — if there is any contradiction between the Codified law and the Sharia law then the Sharia law shall prevail. Abdul Rehman & 5  others V. Nazim & 14 others 2020 SCR 498 (B) PLD 2013 Pesh.38 rel
  178. —A Court of law has to observe the law as it is and not as it should be. AJ&K Government & 3 others Versus Muhammad Ishaq & 19 others 2021 SCR 23 (C)
  179. —It is settled principle of law that the Courts while interpreting the provisions of the constitution/statute can neither add nor subtract anything from any provision. AJ&K Government & 3 others Versus Muhammad Ishaq & 19 others 2021 SCR 23 (F) 2013 SCR 134 ref.
  180. —No statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears clearly in the terms of the legislation. Ashfaq Ahmed & another Versus Finance Department & 7 others 2021 SCR 248 (D/1) 2011 390 rel.
  181. — in absence of express enactment or necessary intendment a statute cannot be applied retrospectively. Ashfaq Ahmed & another Versus Finance Department & 7 others 2021 SCR 248 E/1
  182. —The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudd) Act, 1985, is a general law and the CNSA, 1997 is a special law which has preference over the general law— if two laws are applicable on the same subject, the law promulgated later in time will be applicable. Khursheed Hussain Shah v. State & another 2022 SCR 334 (I) 2014 SCR 1120 & 1180 rel
  183. —It is enjoined the Courts to save the law rather than destroying it—Court must lean in favour of upholding the constitutionality of a legislation unless it is found violative of constitutional provisions. Azad Govt. & others  v. Kh. Muhammad Saleem Bismal & others 2022 SCR 430 (A) PLD 1997 582 ref
  184. —The Courts are not supposed to add or subtract anything from the legislation. Mudassar Hussain Shakir v. M. Basharat & another  2022 SCR 973 (F)
  185. —Order VI, rule 14 & 15, CPC—provisions mandatory or directory—if the provision is directory, its disobedience does not entail any invalidity, if the provision is mandatory, disobedience entails serious legal consequences amounting to the invalidity of the act done in disobedience to the provision. Muhammad Hafeez & others v. Govt. of AJ&K & others  2022 SCR 1054 (C) PLD 1974 SC 134 rel.
  186. — it is settled principle of law that when two interpretations are possible, the one which is beneficial to the citizens has to be adopted. Gul Pathan v. Election Commission & others 2023 SCR 1 (I)
  187. — It is settled principle of law, that nothing is to be added to or taken from a statute unless adequate ground exist to justify the intent of legislature — Court can interpret the provisions of law but cannot change or substitute such provision and also cannot go beyond the wisdom of law. Home Department & 05 others versus Aqib Farooq & 22 others 2023 SCR 1200 (D) 2002 SCR 476 ref.
  188. — the provisions of a law should be read as it exist on statute book and the Court cannot add or subtract anything from it, held: when a period of 365 days is specifically provided in the policy carrying status of law, the Courts are not supposed to extend or reduces such period —  Azad Govt. & others versus Fiaz Ahmed & others 2023 SCR 796 (I & J) 2001 SCR 567, 2003 SCR 158 & 2005 SCR 314 ref.
  189.  — General law and special law—where two enactments on identical point/subject are holding the field, then provisions of special law shall prevail—If a particular scenario is not addressed by the special law, then provisions of general law shall applicable if not contravene provisions of special law— A well-established legal principle asserts that when multiple statutes address the same subject matter, the specific provisions within a specialized statute take precedence over those in a general statute covering the same subject. Consequently, in evaluating the powers vested in the MC concerning the area allocated to it following the 1984 amendment and the 1985 notification, one must consider the provisions outlined in the amended Ordinance of 1974 rather than the general provisions found in the Local Government Act, 1990. Binyamin vs Parveen Akhtar & 17 others 2024 SCR 368 (D)
  190. —general law and special law—if special law is silent, then general law will prevail, provided not contravene provisions of special law—Held: if a particular scenario is not addressed by the amended Ordinance of 1974, the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1990, become applicable to that situation, provided they do not contravene the provisions of the Ordinance of 1974. Binyamin vs Parveen Akhtar & 17 others 2024 SCR 368 (E&F)
  191. —plain and simple meaning of provision of law, do not necessitate presumption or inference from external source—Held: In the light of the well-established principle of statutory interpretation that where the plain and simple meaning of a provision of law is clear and unambiguous, nothing should be presumed or inferred from external sources. The State vs Khalid Hussain Rathore & 10 others 2024 SCR 313 (I)
  192. —provisions of Cr.PC, 1898 and the Limitation Act, 1908– -nature of of—it has been eloquently enunciated by the Courts that Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 is a general law and provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable in the proceedings regulated in Cr.PC. Subsequently, it has been a consistent view of the superior Court that the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable in the proceedings regulated in Cr.PC. In the present case, the appeal against acquittal on behalf of the State was filed within six-months period from the date of the acquittal order rendered by the trial Court, thus it was filed within time. The State vs Khalid Hussain Rathore & 10 others 2024 SCR 313 (M) The State vs. Syed Ali Baqar Naqvi and others 2014 SCMR 671
error: Content is protected !!