Article 2-A

8/2/2019 Article 2-A

1/20

ARTICLE 2-A

(OBJECTIVES RESOLUTION)

By

Saqib Jawad


2/20

IntroductionResolution sets out aims & objectives ofthe Constitution.

Objectives Resolution lays emphasis onthe principles of democracy, freedom,equality, tolerance, and social justice, andfurther defines them by saying that these

principles should be observed in theconstitution as they have been enunciatedby Islam.

Liaqat Ali Khan, March, 7, 1949.


3/20

Background & HistoryPut up in 12, March 1949.

Initially opposed by:-

1. Prem Hari Barma2. Sris Chandra, Chattopadhyaya and some

others.

Amendments proposed, 17, points

Other members supported ObjectivesResolution.

Amendments rejected by 10 against 21 votes.

Main resolution adopted.


4/20

Aims & ObjectivesThe Objectives Resolution, entitled, Aims and

Objectives of the constitution, passed in March1949, affirmed that the sovereignty over the entire

universe belonged to Almighty Allah alone, anddeclared that the Islam will be the foundation ofthe new State. It envisaged that the power of thenew state would be exercised through the chosen

representatives of the people. It also talks of thepeoples resolve to frame a constitution for thesovereign, independent state of Pakistan.Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, The Myth of Constitutionalism in

Pakistan.


5/20

Law before Art. 2-AObjectives Resolution as Preamble.

(1956, 1962, 1973 interim constitutions)

Objectives Resolution is not a supraconstitutional normHussain Naqi vs District magistrate Lahore, (PLD

1972, Lah. 164)

State Vs Zia-ur-Rehman, (pld 1973, sc, 49)


6/20

Cont. . .The constitution of Pakistan has given Islamic

character to the constitution by fully securingthe independence of judiciary and byproviding that all existing laws should bebrought in conformity with the injunctions ofIslam as laid down in the Holy Quran andSunnah.

(PLD 1998 sc 388) Muhtarma Benazir Bhuttoand another Vs President of Pakistan


7/20

The 8th

AmendmentIn Feb. 1985 General Elections were held.

2, March, 1985, Revival of the Constitution of

1973, Order 1985.Article 2-A, was added wide Presidential

Order No. 14, of 1985, making the ObjectivesResolution substantive & Effective part of the

Constitution.65, Articles amended.

Objectives Resolution reproduced as annex,with a significant change Word Freely was

ommiited in annex.


8/20

Operative Part of the

ConstitutionOperative part of the Constitution.

Article 2-A, is internal part and the grund

norm of the constitution and any provisioncan be struck down on the touch stone ofArticle 2-A.

Allah Banda Vs Khurshid Bibi, 1990, CLC, 1983.


9/20

Effect of Article 2-ASupremacy of the Holy Quran and Sunnah

over the law of the land, Justice Tanzil-ur-Rehman:

Habib Bank Limited Vs Muhammad Hussain,(PLD 1997, Kar. 692)

High Court has authority to declare any

provision against the Holy Quran and Sunnah.Muhammad Sarwar Vs State PLD 1988, FSC, 41.

It is necessary to use Objectives Resolution inthe context of Islamization.

Sardar Ali Vs Muhammad Ali, PLD 1988, SC,


10/20

Cont. . .Objectives Resolution is very important and is

the sheet anchor of the constitution, for itreflects aspirations of the people of Pakistanas to what they want and how they want to begoverned.(PLD 1997, SC 426), Mahmood khan Achakzai and others

Vs Federation of Pakistan.


11/20

Article 2-A, legal EffectArticle 2-A is not a supra Constitutional

provision.

Hakim Ali Khan and Two Others Vs Govt. ofPakistan, PLD 1992, SC, 595.

Courts cannot declare any provision viod onthe touchstone of Article 2-A.

Kaneez Fatima Vs Wali Muhammad, PLD 1993,SC 901.

Principle of harmonious interpretation will beapplied.

Sharaf Faridi Vs Federation of Islamic Republic of


12/20

Cont. . .Question as to the basic structure of the

constitution of Pakistan is question of academicnature which cannot be answered authoritatively

with a touch of finality. Basic structure as such isnot specifically mentioned in the constitution, butObjectives Resolution when read with otherprovisions of the constitution reflects salient

features of the constitution highlighting federalismand parliamentary form of government blendedwith Islamic provisions.

(PLD 1997, SC 426), Mahmood khan Achakzai

and others Vs Federation of Pakistan


13/20

Nature of Article 2-AThe vaguely worded Objectives Resolutions is

contradictory in itself and at variance with moderndemocratic norms and mores. It was primarily

adopted to appease the agitating theologians, farfrom serving any national purpose. The resolutiongenerated many fundamental queries such as howthe injunctions ofShariah should be incorporated in

the countrys political framework. The Ulamaspronouncement of sovereignty belonging to Allahin the context of ambiguous and impreciseresolution had ridiculed the word sovereign itself.Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, The Myth of Constitutionalism in

Pakistan.


14/20

Cont. . .Theory of the basic structure of the constitution

having completely been rejected by theconstitution of Pakistan Constitutional provision

cannot be struck down on the ground of beingviolative of any prominent feature, characteristic orstructure of the constitution. Objectives Resolutionis not the basic structure of the constitution of

Pakistan Article 2-A was added to theconstitution of Pakistan 1973, which has made theobjectives resolution substantive part of theconstitution, but to say that it is the basic structuredoes not hold force. (PLD 1997, SC 426), Mahmood khan Achakzai and others


15/20

Present Status of Article

2-AArticle 2-A has no higher status than the rest of

the constitution.Ghulam Mustafa Khar Vs Pakistan, PLD, 1988, Lah. 49.

Hakim Khan Vs Govt. of Pakistan, PLD 1992, SC 595.

Article 2-A is not a supra constitutional provisioninasmuch as it has become an essential andintegral part of the constitution professing the

same weight and status as the other Articles of theconstitution which are already substantive partthereof (Hakim Khan Vs Governement of Pakistan PLD1992 SC 595, Al Jihad Trust Vs Federation of Pakistan PLD1996 SC 324)


16/20

Cont. . . In Asma Jilanis case, PLD 1972 SC 139, it has not been laid

down that objectives resolution is the grund norm ofPakistan but that the grund norm is the doctrine of the legalsovereignty accepted by the people of Pakistan and theconsequences that flow from it. It does not describe theobjectives resolution as the cornerstone of the Pakistanslegal edifice but has merely pointed out that one of thecounsel appearing in the case has described it as such. It isnot correct therefore to say that the objectives resolution

has been declared to be transcendental part of theconstitution, or to be transcendental part of the constitution,or to be supra constitutional instrument which is unalterableand immutable. (PLD 1997, SC 426), Mahmood khan Achakzai and others Vs

Federation of Pakistan.


17/20

Cont. . .It is not open to the court to hold that any

provision of the constitution can be struckdown on the ground of its being violative ofthe objectives resolution or the nationalaspirations or the higher ethical notions of thephilosophical concepts of law or of basicstructure

(PLD 1997, SC 426), Mahmood khan Achakzaiand others Vs Federation of Pakistan.


18/20

Cont. . .It is said in Hakim Khans case that every

provision of the constitution has to be givenits meaning and effect. No substantialconstitutional provision can be givensuperiority over the other provisions. Theyhave to be read along with other provisions asan integral part of the constitution, which is

an organic document having come to stayonce for all unless it is amended inaccordance with Article 239 of theconstitution.

(Hakim Khan Vs Government of Pakistan PLD


19/20

Cont. . .The grund norm referred to by the Supreme Court

was something even above the objectivesresolution, which embodies the spirit and the

fundamental norms of the constitutional conceptof Pakistan. It was expected by the objectivesresolution itself to be translated into theconstitution. even those that adopted the

objectives resolution did not envisage that it wouldbe a document above the constitution, it isincorrect , therefore; to say that it was held by thesupreme court that the objectives resolution of the7th march, 1949,stands on a higher pedestal than

the constitution itself.


20/20

Thank You

Article 2-A

Documents

Transcript of Article 2-A