RESEARCH OF SOCIAL SCIENCES (SMC-PRIVATE) LIMITED(ROSS) & PAKISTAN SOCIAL SCIENCES REVIEW (PSSR) adheres to Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License. The authors submitting and publishing in PSSR agree to the copyright policy under creative common license 4.0 (Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International license). Under this license, the authors published in PSSR retain the copyright including publishing rights of their scholarly work and agree to let others remix, tweak, and build upon their work non-commercially. All other authors using the content of PSSR are required to cite author(s) and publisher in their work. Therefore, RESEARCH OF SOCIAL SCIENCES (SMC-PRIVATE) LIMITED(ROSS) & PAKISTAN SOCIAL SCIENCES REVIEW (PSSR) follow an Open Access Policy for copyright and licensing.
How to Cite
Judicious Interpretative Paradigm for Exercising PIL Jurisdiction: A Critical Appraisal of Jurists Foundation Case 2020
Abstract
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is judicial review based constitutional adjudication for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Of course such jurisdiction is not expressly provided in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution, 1973). It is rather implicit and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution, 1973 (Article 184 (3)). However, such jurisdiction is required to be exercised within the constitutional parameters and judicial jurisprudence as developed in Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan ( Benazir Bhutto, 1988).The decision in this case proved to be the first leading PIL judgement in judicial history of Pakistan. Subsequent to Benazir Bhutto (1988), Supreme Court of Pakistan (Supreme Court) has exercised PIL jurisdiction in a number of cases. Yet, exercising of PIL is alleged for certain problems which are because of judicial overreach and self-restraint. Of course, in some cases Supreme Court exercised the judicious interpretative approach while exercising PIL jurisdiction. Among others, the judgement in Jurists Foundation v. Federal Government (Jurists Foundation, 2020) has emerged as a classical paradigm of such approach. The judicial review power as exercised by the Supreme Court was neither suffering overreach nor passivism. Rather it was a balanced interpretative approach of judicious nature avoiding the problems usually arising from exercising of PIL jurisdiction.
Authors
Dr. Barkat Ali
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan
Keywords
Judicial Activism, Judicial Restraint, Judicious Interpretation, Pakistan, Public Interest Litigation
