Share this on:
 E-mail
4
VIEWS
0
COMMENTS
 
SHARES
About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view AyubBukhari's profile
    Posted March 11, 2014 by
    AyubBukhari
    Location
    Attock Cantt

    More from AyubBukhari

    Give your story a titleIn Continuation of debate, about Shariah and the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

     
    The Supreme Court has held in quite a few cases -Kaneez Farima’s being the most conspicuous one – that article 2A alone is not as effective as to bar any legislative or executive action being contrary to its mandate. The principal of policy which are otherwise very eloquent for essentiality of recognizing injunctions of Islam a Supreme command yet these principals are not justifiable and one cannot go to court to seek a writ of mandamus for commanding the state organs to act according to the principals of policy.
    Recently a case is pending in the Supreme Court where in worker party of Pakistan has prayed that the decision of Supreme Court Appellate Shariat Bench decision in Qazalbash trust case be reviewed as it is contrary to article 253 of the constitution; since the decision debars the state from taking away anybody’s property on plea of reforms. Article 253 is produced here under.

    “253. Maximum limits as to property, etc.,-(1) 1[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] may by law,-
    (a) Prescribe the maximum limits as to property or any class thereof which may be owned, held, possessed or controlled by any person and
    (b) Declare that any trade, business, industry or service specified in such law shall be carried on or owned, to the exclusion complete or partial, of other persons, by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, or by a corporation controlled by any such Government.
    (2) Any law which permits a person to own beneficially or possess beneficially an area of land greater than that which, immediately before the commencing day, he could have lawfully owned beneficially or possessed beneficially shall be invalid.”
    The underlined clause of the article is obviously irreconcilable with the provisions of the Holy Quran and Sunnah and or thus repugnant to the injunctions of Islam but the same cannot be challenged on this plea.

    To be continued…
    • TAGS:

    What do you think of this story?

    Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
    Be and editor! Choose an option below:
      Awesome! Put this on TV! Almost! Needs work. This submission violates iReport's community guidelines.

    Comments

    Log in to comment

    iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

    Add your Story Add your Story