1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner is an advocate practising at Karachi and is a Muslim. He has challenged the validity of the Enforcement of Shariah Act (Act X of 1991 hereinafter referred to as the Shariah Act) through this petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution on the ground that the said Act violates his Fundamental Right under Article 20 of the Constitution. The said Article reads as follows: "Subject to law, public order and morality,--
(a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and
(b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions."
2. ' On enquiry as to how the Shariah Act impinges upon his aforementioned Fundamental Right he states that the Act does not permit him to profess, practise and propagate his religion. In this context, he has made special reference to section 3 of the Shariah Act which reads as follows: "3. Supremacy of Shariah.--(1) The Shariah that is to say, the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, shall be the Supreme Law of Pakistan.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the judgment of any Court or any other law for the time being in force, the present political system, including the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and Provincial Assemblies and the existing system of Government, shall not be challenged in any Court, including Supreme Court, the Federal Shariat Court or any authority or Tribunal: ' Provided that nothing contained herein shall affect the rights of the non-Muslims guaranteed by or under the Constitution."
3. ' When asked to specifically point out how this section will disable him from professing, practising and propagating his religion he is unable to cite specific instance apart from alleging that he will not be able to obtain a loan from the House Building Finance Corporation without insuring the liability of paying interest on the amount of the loan. It is to be noticed that the competence of the House Building Finance Corporation to charge interest on a loan advanced by it does not flow from section 3, ibid; consequently, this section cannot be declared void on the ground that it does not enable the petitioner to obtain an interest-free loan from the said Corporation. Apart from the above, the petitioner has not been able to refer to any provision of the Act which would stand in his way from practising, professing or propagating his religion. In the circumstances the Act does not on the face of it violate his Fundamental Right as guaranteed by Article 20 of the Constitution. This petition is clearly misconceived and is hereby dismissed.