' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---By this Shariat Petition under Article 203-D of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) petitioner, Dr. Abdul Malik Irfani, Editor {{URDU TEXT}} Islamabad has challenged sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Law Report Act, 1875 read with Law Reports (Amendment) Act, 1989 (Act II of 1990) being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.S).
For ready reference the sections are reproduced as under:-- "5. Certification by the Courts, etc.---A Court or Tribunal deciding a matter shall at the end of the judgment or order, as the case may be, certify in the form specified in the Schedule that it is based upon or enunciates a principle of law or decides a question of law which is of first impression or distinguishes, overrules, reverses or explains a previous decision.
' Explanation.---For the purpose of this Act, the expression 'Court or Tribunal' includes the Federal Shariat Court, a Service Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the National Industrial Relations Commission.
6. Restriction on the publication of judgments and ordeRs,---No judgment or order of a Court/Tribunal shall be published or printed by any publisher, printer or any other person, unless it is approved for reporting by a Court or Tribunal or is certified under section 5.
7. Penalty---(1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 6 shall be punished with fine which may extend to one lac rupees or in default of payment of fine with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months.
(2) All copies of a publication in respect of which a person is convicted under subsection (1) shall stand forfeited to the Provincial Government.
8. Jurisdiction to try offences.--No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the Presiding Officer of the Court or Tribunal by which the judgment or order in respect of which the offence was committed was given or made, or by an officer generally or specially empowered by him in this behalf and no Court other than a Court of Session shall try any such offence."
2. In support of petition, the petitioner has relied upon following verses of the Holy Qur'an:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
3. Reliance was also placed on Articles 189 and 201 of the Constitution and case reported in PLD 1980 SC 160 and theory advanced by Mr. Frank in Book Modern Theories of law.
4. It may be observed that on 1340-1991 Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque, an eminent jurist, who was present in the Court in connection with some other cases, agreed to act as amicus-curiae to assist this Court and to submit written notes on the points involved in the petition. But he has neither sent any note nor had come for assistance.
5. Dr. Sajid-ur-Rahman Siddiqui, Research Advisor of this Court has placed on the file his research note and urged that Quranic verses and Ahadees of the Holy Prophet (SAWS) quoted by the petitioner were not relevant to the subject. He has submitted that there were no clear and specific Injunctions of Islam either in the Holy Quran or Ahadith with regard to the subject.
6. The main enactment which has offended the petitioner admittedly is restriction on publication of judgments and orders passed by a Court or Tribunal, is Section 6 of the Act. In this section indeed a discretion has been given to a Court or a Tribunal to approve any judgment or order to be published or not.
7. In his research note Dr. Sajid-ur-Rahman Siddiqui, Research Advisor, while relying on two verses 59 and 65 of Sum Al-Nisa has canvassed that the sanctity of the Court and its respect is pivotal concept in the Injunctions of Islam. The same are reproduced as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' O ye who believe'
' Obey God, and obey the Apostle, ' And those charged ' With authority among you ' If ye differ in anything ' Among yourselves, refer it ' To God and His Apostle, ' If ye do believe in God ' And the Last Day; That is best, and most suitable ' For final determination. {{URDU TEXT}} ' But no, by thy Lord, ' They can have ' No (real) Faith, ' Until they make thee judge ' In all disputes between them, ' And find in their souls ' No resistance against ' Thy decisions, but accept ' Them with the fullest conviction.
8. It may be observed that during the course of arguments attention of the petitioner was drawn to words of sub-para. (2) of para. 6 of the petition and was asked as to who is competent to determine that publication of those laws which are necessary for information of people?
9. However, the petitioner could not submit valid explanation but while relying on PLD 1980 SC 160 stressed that every judgment and order was necessarily to be published for information and guidance of people.
10. It may be observed that in abovesaid sub-para. The petitioner has stressed for publication of "Laws" when obviously this section also does not put any restriction on publication of laws but permits publication of orders judgments which enunciate a principle of law or a question of law which is of first impression of distinguishes one etc. With permission of a Court or Tribunal.
11. Undisputedly such determination could be better made by Authority, Court or Tribunal which pronounces the judgment or order.
12. The view is supported by verse 83 of Sura Al-Nisa. It reads as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' When there comes to them Some matter touching (Public) safety or fear, They divulge it.
' If they had only referred it To the Apostle, or to those Charged with authority Among them, the proper Investigation would have Tested it from them (direct). Were it not for the Grace And mercy of Allah unto you, All but a few of you Would have fallen Into the clutches of Satan.
13. So, is the intent of Articles 189 and 201 of the Constitution. They read as under:-- "189. Any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other Courts of Pakistan.
201. Subject to Article 189, a decision of a High Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all Courts subordinate to it."
14. The verses of the Holy Qur'an relied and quoted by the petitioner indeed are not relevant for declaring the impugned sections to be against the Injunctions of Islam.
15. The petition is, therefore, devoid of force and is dismissed accordingly. This is the reasoning of our short order dated 2-11-1992.