Fundamental Rights

A civil servant cannot bypass the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal by adding a ground of violation of Fundamental Rights — Any case which is founded on terms and conditions of service of a civil servant even if it involves the question of violation of Fundamental Rights, the same is triable by Service Tribunal and not by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. AJ&K Council and 2 others v. Abdul Rashid Tahir and 255 other 2000 SCR 569 (C)
A threatened violation of a Fundamental Right also gives a right to avail constitutional jurisdiction of High Court — Held: Writ petition was rightly filed by the petitioner in the High Court and after its dismissal the appellants have rightly availed the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Muhammad Yousaf v. The State and 4 others 2001 SCR 380 (A)
Through the Ordinance only the entry of such persons in the legislative body has been made possible who are either matriculate or have equivalent qualification — Such restriction would not come within the mischief of Fundamental Right No.7. Muhammad Yousaf v. The State and 4 others 2001 SCR 380 (D)
To participate in election has been made available to the State Subjects by a statute and not under Fundamental Right — The Constitution has authorised the legislature to enact law relating to elections — The Ordinance promulgated by the President has the same force and effect as an Act of the Assembly — The president has competently promulgated the Ordinance. Muhammad Yousaf v. The State and 4 others 2001 SCR 380 (E)
The right to franchise is one of the fundamental rights and a person cannot be deprived of the right of franchise which includes the contesting of election unless the relevant law clearly holds him ineligible to contest the elections. Javaid Mehdi v. Chief Election Commissioner AJ&K & 3 others 2004 SCR 481 (E)
Exercise of powers in arbitrary manner is a discrimination and violation of fundamental rights. Azad Govt. & another v. Raja Muhammad Nasab Khan and 20 others 2011 SCR 257 (B)
Role of judiciary — its duties — The judiciary is the interpreter of Constitution and has been assigned delicate task of determining the extent of powers conferred upon the Govt. and the legislation by the Constitution — the Courts are under solemn duty to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed by Constitution zealously and vigilantly — the judicial review by the Courts is the basic feature of Constitution and power of judicial review be exercised while keeping in view the tracheotomy of powers — the Courts shall not encroach upon the domain of other Constitutional branches — Constitution confers powers in the Courts to determine the legality of executive actions and the Constitutionality of legislation is examined by the superior Courts in exercise of judicial review — legislative actions are subject to scrutiny by the superior Courts to determine their compatibility or otherwise with the terms of a written Constitution. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Naqvi & 9 others v. Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan & 4 others 2014 SCR 43 (G)
Any law whether it is made by the legislative bodies or is a Judge made law, if it abridges and takes away the fundamental rights or is made in contravention with the provisions of section 4 of the Constitution Act, is void having no effect. Bashir Ahmed Mughal v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2014 SCR 1258 (KK)
Right to life — institutions and systems set-up to secure — In every society, right of life is most prime fundamental right. All the institutions and systems are set-up only for the purpose of securing this very basic fundamental right of life. Ehsan Ullah v. Muhammad Farooq&another 2015 SCR 865 (C)
Exercise of powers in arbitrary manner is a discrimination and violation of the fundamental rights. Muhammad Sadiq v. AJ&K Govt.& others 2016 SCR 709 (D) 2011 SCR 257 rel.
Right No. 15 — consideration and application of — in the light of relevant facts and laws — right No. 15, has to be considered in the light of peculiar facts and subject to application of laws dealing with the specific proposition. AJ&K Govt. v. Syed Khalid H. Gillani 2016 SCR 228 (M)
Right No. 15 — applicability on chairman Service Tribunal — not uniformly applicable to every State Subject — rather based on reasonable/intelligible classification — pension and privileges on basis of reasonable classification — according to the celebrated principle of law, it is not uniformly applicable to every State Subject, rather its application is always subject to a reasonable classification based on intelligible distinguishable criteria. Therefore, the same has no nexus with the case in hand. While holding the office of Chairman neither the respondent nor anyone previously, has been treated discriminately in the matter of terms and conditions. However, so far as the question of retirement/pension is concerned it has always been dealt on the basis of reasonable classification. AJK Govt. v. Syed Khalid Hussain Gillani 2016 SCR 228 (N)
See. Azad Govt. & 5 others v. Inhabitant of village Baghar 2016 SCR 696 (A,B&C)
— Right No.5—liberty of a citizen is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution— Right No.5 gurantees the right to move freely throughout the AJ&K territory and liberty of citizen cannot be curtailed without due process of law. Mehnaz Kousar v. Mst. Munir Begum & others 2017 SCR 116 (A/1)
—right No.15—equality of State Subjects before law—Although , in our considered view, there is not specific provision of de-awarding and releasing the acquired land in such manner , however , the appellants approached the Court for enforcement of their fundamental right No. 15, i.e., equality of State Subjects before law, being state subjects. As the official respondents themselves released the unutilized acquired land in favour of other land owners of the same village which was subject of same award, therefore, discriminatory treatment by official respondents is not warranted under law. To this extent, the appellants’ writ petition merits acceptance and the matter of releasing and de-awarding the land they deserve equal treatment as the official respondents have done through notification dated 09.05.2003. Abdul Majeed &others v. AJ&K Govt. & others 2017 SCR 397 (B)
—Discrimination on basis of Sex—denial of promotion to female police personnel— by police department—against fundamental rights—writ dismissed in limine—Supreme Court admitted for regular hearing and remanded to the High Court—-The appellants have, in their writ petition raised question regarding discrimination in promotion on basis of sex. According to constitutional guaranteed fundamental rights there can be no discrimination in service matters on basis of sex. Dismissal of writ petition in limine amounts to miscarriage to justice. Nokhaiz Akhtar & 2 others v. Inspector General Police & 8 others 2017 SCR 249 (A)
—right to property—no one can be deprived of his property—except for payment of compensation as per value of the property—determination of value of the acquired land—it may be observed here that the right to property has been protected by the Constitution which is supreme law of the land and nobody can be deprived of his property except for payment of compensation as per value of the property. Shams Shahzad v. WAPDA & others 2017 SCR 893 (D)
–appointment of civil servant made against post not vacant at time of appointment—the Supreme Court declared it as against fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution—appointment of civil servant— Muhammad Sabir Khan vs Nazakat Ashraf & others 2018 SCR 1107 (A)
—of State Subjects—not to be discriminated—It is the fundamental right of the State Subjects that they may not be discriminated when they are similarly placed as compare to those who have benefited by the Government. Muhammad Sharif & another v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2019 SCR 971 (A)
—safeguard against discrimination—service— policy/Notification issued and acted upon—rights in favour of beneficiaries stood accrued—university authorities have no legal justification to extend the benefit of policy to some employees and deny the other employees standing on same footing—Held: such discrimination is prohibited under Constitution—appellants are entitled for the same treatment as met by the other— Tariq Rashid & others v. University of AJ&K & 7 others 2019 SCR 766 (C)
—Exercise of—mere relationship with an officer or official does not disqualify a State Subject from any of his right and all the subjects are entitled for equal treatment before law without any discrimination. Faisal Hussain & 4 others v. Competent Authority & 13 others 2020 SCR 437 (D)
See page Inspector General of Police & 2 others v. Syed Shehzad Ali Shah & others 2020 SCR 510 (C)
— The right to equal treatment of law and equality before law has been guaranteed by the Constitution—it is also golden principle of law that like persons are to be treated alike. Sardar Akhtar Ali Khan & 25 others Versus Azad Govt. & 3 others 2021 SCR 748 (B) 2016 SCR 672 ref.
—Right to property has been recognized by Constitution —no deviation can be made from it—no one can be deprived of his property without payment of compensation. Khadim Hussain v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 17 (B)
—Right to property—no one can be deprived of his right to property without properly compensating him. WAPDA through Director legal v. Kabir Hussain & others 2022 SCR 37 (C)
—Right No.19—right to fair trial. See Azad Govt. & others v. Kh. Muhammad Saleem Bismal & others 2022 SCR 430 (D)
–No one can be deprived of his fundamental/vested right as given by the Constitution. Zia-ud-Din Abdul Hameed v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 588 (B) 2003 SCR 456 & 2005 SCR 106 ref
—right to property—protection of property—right to property inclusive of all rights attached to it—exception to right to property: the Land Acquisition Act, 1894—three conditions required to be fulfilled to deprive citizen of his property: (i)deprivation must be under authority of law, (ii) deprivation must be for public purpose, and (iii) owner must be compensated—The right to own property being a fundamental right is inclusive of the right to possession, control and derive income form the property. The exception to this fundamental right is Land Acquisition Act which allows the State to acquire private property for a public purpose under the authority of law which provides compensation for the acquired property. It means that no person deserves to be deprived of his right to property provided by the Constitution but only under the authority of law and for a public purpose and that it should always be compensated. If a person’s property is acquired by the State for a public purpose under the authority of law, the person should always be given due regard in the form of compensation which is not a favour but his constitutional right. Sec. E&SE & 3 others vs Abdul Raheem Abbasi & 05 others 2024 SCR 401 (C)
—right to property—- Article No. 4(14), AJK Interim Constitution, 1974—no person shall be deprived of his property, except in accordance of law—acquisition of land—payment of compensation of acquired land to owner of property, spirit and dictate of Constitution— the right to property is a fundamental right protected by the constitution and it cannot be arbitrarily taken away by any authority. Article 4(14) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 outlines the protection of a citizen’s property rights emphasizing that no person shall be deprived of their property except in accordance with law. Article 14 asserts that property can only be compulsorily acquired or taken possession of, for a public purpose and it must be done by the authority of the law, providing for compensation. This compensation should either specify the amount or outline the principle and manner in which it is determined and given. Sec. E&SE & 3 others vs Abdul Raheem Abbasi & 05 others 2024 SCR 401 (A)