In such like cases regarding exercise of writ
jurisdiction, the apex court in case titled “Birg. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad
Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division,
Islamabad and 2 others” (1994 SCMR 2142), in para 12 of page 2153
observed as under:
“12. The power under Article 199 of the Constitution is the power of
judicial review. That power “is a great weapon in the hands of
Judges, but the Judges must observe the Constitutional limits set by
our parliamentary system on their exercise of this beneficial power,
namely, the separation of powers between the Parliament, the
Executive and the Courts”. (Lord Scarman in Nottinghamshire C.C. v.
Secretary of State (1986) (All ER 199, 204). Judicial review must,
therefore, remain strictly judicial and in its exercise, Judges must
take care not to intrude upon the domain of the other branches of
Government. As was succinctly put by Hamoodur Rehman, J. (as he
then was) in Mir Abdul Baqi Baluch v. The Government of Pakistan
(PLD 1968 SC 313, 324), under a Constitutional system which
provides for judicial review of executive actions:-
“It is, in my opinion, a fallacy to think that such a judicial review
must be in the nature of an appeal against the decision of the
executive authority. It is not the purpose of judicial authority
reviewing executive actions to sit on appeal over the executive or to
substitute the discretion of the Court for that of the administrative
agency”.
Used in Judgment of
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Misc.-Post-arrest Bail-Under Section 497 CR.P.C
972-B-20
| 2020 LHC 890 |
0 Comments