JUSTICE AFrAB HUSSAIN, CHAIRMAN.-Article 203-B of the Constitution defines law in its sub-article
(c) to the following effect :
(c) "law" includes any custom or usage having the force of law but does not include the Constitution, Muslim Personal Law, any law relating to the Procedure of any Court or Tribunal or, until the expiration of three years from the commencement of this Chapter, any fiscal law or any law relating to the levy and collection of taxes and fees or banking or insurance practice and procedure;".
' Section 203-D provides that the Court may, on the petition of a citizen of Pakistan on the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, examine and decide the question whether or not any law or provision of law is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah and if the Court decides that any such law or provision of law is repugnant to the Injunctions it shall after giving reasons direct the President to amend it in the lights of the observations and decision of the Court.
2, If the definition of law in Article 203-B is taken as a key to interpretation of that word as used in Article 203-D, it would amount to this that this Court has no jurisdiction to make any declaration in regard to the Constitution, the Muslim Personal Law, any Procedural Lnw, and before the expiration of three years from the commencement of this Chapter, any fiscal law or any law relating to the levy and collection of taxes and fees or banking or insurance practice and procedure.
3. The petitioner has virtually challenged these provisions by these two petitions i,e,, Nos. S. P. No, 14/1 of 1981 and S. P. No, 15/1 of 1981 which we propose to decide by this order, on the ground that this Court is under a statutory obligation to strike off even a provision of Constitution or for the matter of that of any fiscal law if it is once held to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. In the Second Shariat Petition, the petitioner in addition has challenged the vires of Wealth Tax Act which undoubtedly is a fiscal law though he conceded in para. 4 of the Petition that the definition negates the jurisdiction of this Court as regards decision on of vires Fiscal and Tax Laws.
4. We have heard the petitioner at length but we are unable to agree with him, in view of the fact, that the language of Article 203-D when interpreted in the light of the definition of Law in Article 203-B is unambiguous, and or jurisdiction does not extend to the laws which have been excepted specifically from the definition of the term Law. In view of this, we can neither go into the vires of the Constitution including the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 nor into the vires of any fiscal Law.
Both these petitions are dismissed.