Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J.--This Intra Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is directed against the order dated 08.03.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber whereby Writ Petition No. 13725/2019 filed by appellant was dismissed being not maintainable.
2. The appellant challenged the amendme nts in Sections 4, 5-A, 7, 11-A, 13(i), 26(c)(iii), 26(cc), 55(1a), ( lb), 55 (n) & 55 (v) "made in the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 promulgated through Amendment Act, 2018 with the prayer to declare the said amen dments as void, carried out with mala fide intention and ulterior motives through Writ Petition No. 13725/2019 which was dismissed in limine being not maintainable by the learned Single Judge in Chamber vide impugned order dated 08.03.2019.
3. We have heard the arguments of appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
4. Fortunately , we are blessed with a written constitution of Pakistan in which the domains of each organ of the state i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary has manifestly been defined. In the trichotomy of powers the prime function of the legislature is to make law, introduce amendments or rescind certain enactments as per social needs.
The second component or pillar is the executive/Government which executed such law and the third pillar of the state is the judiciary which has the power of judicial review . Although the Courts have jurisdiction under judicial review to strike down any legislative enactment on the litmus test of constitution, however , such power has, to be exercised sparingly with a great deal of care and caution. The constitutional court has sworn oath to uphold, preserve and protect the Constitution and also to enforce the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the country .
Precisely following are the rules which must be applied in discharging this duty to declare any law unconstitutional: i. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality and a law must not be declared unconstitutional unless the statute is placed next to the Constitution and no way can be found in reconciling the two; ii. Where more than one interpretation is possible, one of which would make the law valid and the other void, the Court must prefer the interpretation which favours validity; iii. A statute must never be declared unconstitutional unless its invalidity is beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the statute being valid; iv. If a case can be decided on other or narrower grounds, the Court will abstain from deciding the constitutional question; v. The Court will not decide a larger constitutional question than is necessary for the determination of the case; vi. The Court will not declare a statute unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the spirit of the Constitution unless it also violates the letter of the Constitution; vii. The Court is not concerned with the wisdom or prudence of the legislation but only with its constitutionality; viii. The Court will not strike down statutes on principles of republican or democratic government unless those principles are placed beyond legislative encroachment by the Constitution; ix. Mala fides will not be attributed to the Legislature.
5. The National Assembly of Pakistan made amendments in the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 through the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils (Amendment) Act, 2018 and a challenge has been made to said legislation merely on the basis of non-consultation with the Provincial Bar Association prior to such amendment which lower the dignity of Provincial Bar Associations and being a member of Bar valuable rights of the appellant has been infringed. This assertion of the appellant in itself is not fair ground for declaring the impugned amendments in the Act ibid against the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is settled law that where the statute is not ex facie repugna nt to fundamental rights but is capable of being so administered it cannot be struck down unless the party challenging it can prove that it has been actually so administered. Reliance in this regard is placed on cases cited as Messrs East and West Steamship Compa ny Vs. Pakistan [PLD 1958 Supreme Court (Pak.) 41], Federation of Pakistan and others Vs. Shaukat Ali Mian and others (PLD 1999 SC 1026 ), Lahore Development Authority through D.G. and' others Vs. Ms. Imrana Tiwana and others (2015 SCMR 1739 ), Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (2018 SCMR 802) and Mrs. Benazir Bhutto Vs. The Federation of Pakistan and others (1991 MLD 2622 ).
6. The learned Single Judge in Chambers, keeping in view the, aforesaid circumstances of the case, rightly dismissed the constitutional petition filed by the appellant which does not require any interference.
7. In view of above, we see no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with the High Court Bar Dispensary .