Interpretation of law

No change has been made in law which could affect the substantive rights of the parties — Only a new forum has been created by insertion of S.2-A — After the insertion of S.2-A the jurisdiction of all other forums including the High Court stood closed — The Federal Service Tribunal was given exclusive jurisdiction in this regard. MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS. SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT and 4 others 2002 SCR 371 (D)
S. 2-A is a procedural provision which had changed the forum for remedy — It had not taken away any vested right of the parties — Held: That if the matter is merely of procedural nature it will operate retrospectively — However, if the amendment is of such a nature that it also affects the existing rights of substantive nature which would cause inconvenience and injustice then the Court would not give retrospective effect to such procedural amendment. MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS. SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT and 4 others 2002 SCR 371 (C)
S. 8-A was introduced in the AJK Civil Servants Act in 1989 — It remained on the statute till 20. 2. 1993 — The case of the appellant was recommended for out of turn promotion by the Inspector General of Police on 26.3.1990 — Recommendations were approved by the Prime Minister on 16.5.1991— On both these dates section 8-A was a part of Act 1976 — On account of these reasons a right had accrued to the appellant which could be enforced through a constitutional petition. Raja SHOUKAT MEHMOOD VS. AJ&K GOVT. and another 2002 SCR 334 (A)
Even otherwise case for out of turn promotion should have been looked into and processed by keeping in view the provisions contained in section 6 of the General Clause Act read with section 56-C of the Interim Constitution Act. Raja SHOUKAT MEHMOOD V. AJ&K GOVT. and another 2002 SCR 334 (B)
AJK Judicial Service Rules, 1984 — Upper age limit was fixed as 35 years — Rules were repealed in 1993 and AJK Judicial Service Rules, 1993 were enacted — These rules were repealed by rules of 1999 — Under these rules no age limit as been provided — Courts are meant to interpret the law — They are not supposed to add or subtract anything in the relevant provision of law.M. RESHAM KHAN v. AJ& K GOVT. & 6 others 2002 SCR 527 (A)
It is a cardinal principal of law that the law is to be taken into consideration as a whole. MUHAMMAD ASLAM V. SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT and 4 others 2002 SCR 371 (B)
If law would have been changed after the initiation of a case for out of turn promotion even then the matter should have been processed in the light of the law which was applicable at the relevant time — 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 — The certificate of commendation issued by Commandant Police Training College Sehala in favour of appellant and in furtherance to it the recommendations by Inspector General of Police and the order giving approval to the said recommendations by the Prime Minister are the steps in a series of proceedings meant for out of turn promotion to the appellant which are inter connected by an intrinsic unity and are legal proceedings. Raja SHOUKAT MEHMOOD V. AJ&K GOVT. and another 2002 SCR 334 (C)
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)
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)
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.
The High Court as well as the Chief Election Commissioner should have followed the law whether it is technical or otherwise — No provision of law is redundant unless a bar to this effect has been provided in the said statute itself — Held: The appellant was illegally deprived of to contest the election as the writ filed by him was for the enforcement of his fundamental right. Javaid Mehdi v. Chief Election Commissioner AJ&K & 3 others 2004 SCR 481 (B)
There seems to be a gross misreading on the part of High Court as well as on the part of Chief Election Commissioner by not discussing the words ‘defaulter’ and ‘wilful defaulter’ — Even the word ‘defaulter’ has not been understood in the manner as it as been taken by Chief Election Commissioner and the High Court — Word ‘default’ would denote something more than mere non-payment of rent — Default in payment of rent to justify ejectment. Javaid Mehdi v. Chief Election Commissioner AJ&K & 3 others 2004 SCR 481 (C)
All the provisions of Act or Rules should be taken into consideration in order to avoid any conflict in the interpretation of its provisions because the provisions of law as a whole are to be applied in a harmonious manner. AJK Govt. & others v. Ch. Khadim Hussain Ex. SDO 2005 SCR 211 (B)
The Courts can change earlier interpretation or view in view of changed circumstances, but not the law. Hakam Deen v. State & 16 others 2005 SCR 314 (R)
The law of limitation is a procedural law — If any procedural law retrospectively takes away, destroys or nullifies the vested right of a litigant, the old law would govern the matter and the new law would not affect the vested right of a litigant. Jahandad Khan & others v. Gohar Rehman 2006 SCR 63 (A)
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 evidence that parties chose to produce while in criminal cases it is duty of the Court to see that all relevant evidence is brought before it. Hakam Deen v. State and 15 others 2006 SCR 120 (K)
The law has to be observed as it is, not as it should be or in a manner not authorised by law — Procedural irregularities in civil matters are different than that in criminal matters — In civil matters if substantial justice is done, procedure may yield to justice, but in criminal cases the substantial justice cannot be said to have been done if due process of law is not observed. Hakam Deen v. State and 15 others 2006 SCR 120 (O)
Any amendment made in existing law would be prospective unless the same is given retrospective effect by the law itself. Azad Govt. & 4 others v. Shezad Naseem Abbasi 2006 SCR 396 (C)
Where two orders are applicable the one less stringent should be applied — A penal provision should be construed strictly and stringent provision of rule should not be applied unless the case does not admit of any other provision of C.P.C. Barkat Ali v. Sub-Inspector FIA 2006 SCR 280 (A)
Where two provisions of C.P.C. can be applied then the less stringent should be applied — The High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution as well as for non-compliance of the order of the Court — Two rules of C.P.C. were applicable — In such like eventuality High Court was to apply the less stringent rule, which was dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution. Barkat Ali v. Sub-Inspector FIA & 4 others 2006 SCR 280 (B)
Under the Islamic Law the Supreme Court is a Court of appeal and revision in cases of criminal nature — Even if otherwise provided by the Criminal Procedure Code Supreme Court is vested with all powers which any other Court including the High Court had before the enforcement of Islamic Penal Laws Act, 1974 —- In case of any provision of general law, rule or regulation is found in conflict with the provisions of Islamic Penal Laws, the provisions of special laws shall be followed and the provisions of general law have to be ignored. Abdul Guftar & another v. The State another 2007 SCR 524 (A)
Rules are always subordinate to the Act, and cannot override the laws made by the Legislature — The rules are the executive legislation, while the Act is the Parliamentary legislation which has priority over the rules. Muhammad Alam & another v. The State 2009 SCR 458 (F)
The law has to be interpreted as it is and not as it ought to be. Dr. Sadiq Hussain v. AJ&K Government and 6 others 2009 SCR 345 (B)
The procedural law should be interpreted in such a manner that it should not obstruct the cause of justice and the Court should avoid from such interpretation — The case should be decided on merits. Mst. Hameeda Begum and another v. Mazhar Hussain and 40 others 2009 SCR 27 (E)
The Courts have to interpret the law as it is and not as it should be — The Courts cannot add or subtract anything in the law. [If a person participates in proceedings and failed to achieve desired results, thereafter he could turn round and challenge the process]. Tabassum Arif V. Azad Govt. and others Tabassum Arif v. Azad Govt. and others. 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 134 (B)
The Courts have to interpret the law as it exists on the statute book — Nothing can be added, subtracted or even substituted — Principle. Adnan Ghulam Rasool V. Nosheen Qureshi and 6 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 761 (B)
If two provisions are applicable in a matter — There is no cavil with the proposition that in a matter if two provisions are applicable then less stringent provision should be applied. Mir Muhammad Fareed v. Rukhsana Bibi & 2 others 2014 SCR 1646 (D) 2004 SCR 223 & 2006 SCR 280 rel.
AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — Sections 3 & 4 — interpretation of — the Courts while interpreting the law do not legislate or create any new law or amend the existing law — the Courts only declare true meanings of law which are already existing — such interpretation of law will be applicable from the date of enactment of the interpreted law — thus, held: the interpretation of sections 3 & 4 of constitution Act has to be deemed applicable from the date of enforcement of the Constitution Act. Bashir Ahmed Mughal v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2014 SCR 1258 (MM) PLD 1998 SC 161 rel.
Where two orders possible to be passed, the one less stringent should be passed — It is celebrated principle of law that if there are two orders possible to be passed, then while exercising jurisdiction a civil Court has to pass a less stringent order. In this state of affairs, it appears that the trial Court as well as High Court failed to examine the record from this angle, therefore, in our opinion, the proceedings conducted by the trial Court do not appear to be consistent with the statutory provisions of law on the subject. Azad Govt. & 5 others v. Shabbir Hussain & 6 others 2016 SCR 278 (B)
Where two provisions of CPC applicable, the one less stringent provision has to be applied — the defendant-appellants failed to appear in the Court — Held: the Court should have pass ex-parte order being less stringent instead of closing their defense to file amended written statement. Azad Govt. & 5 others v. Shabbir H. others 2016 SCR 278 (C) 2006 SCR 280 & 2014 SCR 1646 rel.
two methods or provisions — which one to apply — the one, which favours the citizens — it is now almost settled principle of law that when there are two methods or provisions, the method or provision which favours the citizens has to be adopted. Mst. Nafeesa Manzoor v. AJ&K University & 7 others 2016 SCR 304 (C) 2014 PLC (C.S.) 534, PLJ 2004 SC (AJ&K) 245, 2004 PTD 2479 & 2013 SCR 795 rel.
Two formulas — to apply, one which favours both contestants — the formula according to which the overall percentage of both the contestants is equal and favours them, has to be adopted according to the celebrated principle of administration of justice. Mst. Nafeesa Manzoor v. AJ&K University & 7 others 2016 SCR 304 (D)
—effect of policy—policy or circular— yield to the respective Act and the rules made thereunder— admittedly, the authority has framed rules under the provision of the Civil Servants Act, 1976, which are holding the field. According to these rules the post of Naib Qasid of the Education Department has to be filled in 100% by initial recruitment. There is no mode of filling in the same by transfer or promotion, thus, in presence of the statutory rules the referred circular has no legal status. Only the policies consistent with the provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1976, or rules made thereunder can be given effect and if there is inconsistency then according to the celebrated principle of law, the provision of the Civil Servants act the rules made thereunder shall prevail and such policy or circular will have to yield. Muhammad Matloob v.Iftikhar Ahmed & others 2017 SCR 282 (A)
—According to the scheme of the Constitution interpretation of law is the exclusive domain of the judiciary and no one else has got any jurisdiction or authority in this regard. Chairman AJK Council v. Muhammad Munir Raja & others 2017 SCR 1168 (H) PLD 2012 SC 553 ref.
-clarification by department/authority itself which issued the original notification—Court not to give any other interpretation in presence of clarification given by concerned authority/department—It may be observed here that when the department/authority which issued the notification dated 12.07.2016, on which the appellants are heavily relying, has given the clarification in the above terms then any other interpretation of the same is not possible. Muhammad Rizwan-ullah Khan & others vs Azad Government & others 2018 SCR 1161 (B)
—interpretation and application of judgment of the Supreme Court— Muhammad Azeem Dutt & others V. Raja Khadim Hussain & others, (2017 SCR 577] —argument: referred judgement only confines to Master plan—Held: Rather [judgment] covers the public places and State land. Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed 2019 SCR 816 (F)
—the duty of the Courts is to interpret law and the enactment of law is the job of the legislature and the Court cannot substitute its wisdom to that of the legislature. Irfan Saleem & another v. Mir M. Abid & 12 others 2020 SCR 845 (A)
— instructions, validity of — instructions must value as of rules — By now it is settled rule of law that any instructions have been issued by the same authority which is vested with the power to make rules, then the instructions must carry the weight of rules and shall have equal binding force as that of the Rules. Any policy decision or instruction contrary to Rules cannot be construed as a valid Rules. Sabeel Ahmed Chohan v. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan & others 2023 SCR 303 (DD)