Advocate General for Sindh calls for scrapping of Objectives Resolution

Sindh AG calls for scrapping of Objectives Resolution

“I would request the apex court to be very cautious for the sake of the future generation while deciding these petitions,” said Sindh’s Advocate General Yousuf Leghari to the Supreme Court.

ISLAMABAD: Sindh’s Advocate General Yousuf Leghari surprised the Supreme Court bench hearing challenges to the 18th Amendment in the Constitution on Monday when he said he was against the inclusion of the Objectives Resolution in the 1973 Constitution because it had been made the preamble to the constitution by rightists during the period of a military dictator.

The Objectives Resolution (OR) was passed by the First Constituent Assembly in March 12, 1949, after it was proposed by then prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan.

It envisages that the constitution of Pakistan will be democratic and based on the fundamental laws of Islam.

The resolution was inserted as the substantive part of the constitution through the Eighth Amendment when Gen Ziaul Haq was in power.

In a brief but bold stance taken before the court, the AG Sindh called for deleting the Objectives Resolutions from the constitution, saying it had been included in the constitution in a dubious manner because it was very difficult to maintain the alleged hegemony of a particular province, especially in the presence of the then East Pakistan which was in majority at that time.

He severely criticised the basic structure theory and said that the petitioners who had challenged the 18th Amendment and relied on the theory were trying for the revival of the law of necessity under which the Supreme Court had always validated unconstitutional steps taken by military dictators. “Federalism is the only basic structure of the constitution,” he emphasised. He alleged that the Supreme Court had constituted the 17-judge bench only to hand down a law which would be very difficult to be overruled in future.

“Therefore I would request the apex court to be very cautious for the sake of the future generation while deciding these petitions,” Mr Leghari said.

He was of the view that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain these challenges under its jurisdiction on the enforcement of the fundamental rights because not a mala fide act by the parliament to amend the Constitution and adopt the 18th Amendment.

Read more >> DAWN

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although IAOJ does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s