From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Who was Justice Munir? Why is he so often quoted by Qadianis?
Date: 12 Apr 1992 15:31:44 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

Going throught the debates on the net I have observed that:

   It is more often the Qadianis (or Ahemedis if you will) who
   refer to justice Munir.

Let me ask the netters who was Justice Munir?

Two of his greatest accomplishments were:

(i) His judgement in the supremecourt staying Iskander Mirza's
    illegal dissolution of assemblies. This decision is the
    precedent on which Martial laws of Ayub, Yehya, Bhutto, Zia
    were legitimated and sowed the seeds of dissension in Bengal.

(ii) Munir report: One of the most vicious reports ever written
    in Pakistan history. Clearly going beyond the terms of
    reference in citing more often his personal opinions, in complete disregard     with all scholastic norms. (More on this later on in another
    posting. Those interested please refer to Khurshid Ahmed's
    "Analyzing the Munir Report")

Right now, truth of (ii) will be based on the viciousness and vindictivness 
of (i). Only (i) is enough to disqualify
him for saying any thing. It has plunged Pakistan in some of
its worst nightmares. Here is a glimpse of his master-piece
the historic most vicious, most illogical decision of our
legal history. I wonder how in the world, people can quote 
a man who has so viciously plunged Pakistan from one 
Martial law into another.


I can never believe in any thing Justice Munir says. Netters must note
that the whole legacy of Martial Laws (Ayub, Yahya, Bhutto, Zia) and
summararily dismissal of governments (Suharwardi, Junejo, and BB), 
and even the fall of East Pakistan,
rests on the precedence of Justice Munir's notorious decision.

It was 1956 (?), it was only 6 months after Suharwardi (a Bengali) has
assumed the position of Prime-Minister. Only a day earlier,
the PM had successfully gotten the budget passed (in parliamentary
traditions considered as a virtual vote-of confidence). 
Then the next morning, out of the
blue, comes the directive of Iskander Mirza that the PM be
removed. When the speaker of the dissolved assembly,
Maulvi Tameezuddin (yet another Bengali) submitted the writ petition
in Lahore High Court. The honourable Judges of the Lahore High Court,
judged the Mirza's (yet another Mirza?) 
decision to be extra-constitutional.

When Iskander Mirza appealed to the Supreme Court, against LHCs
unfavorable decision, there we
saw the worst thing that could have happened to the new nation 
and a nascent constitution.
The Chief Justice Munir, yes, the same justice they are quoting
as authority, ruled that Iskander Mirza's arbitrary action was
OK and thereby overruling LHC. The concept under which the
decision was made is called the "rule of necessity". the 
same concept which is behind the failure of 
all subsequent litigations against the Martial laws and summary
dismissals. Every arbitrary action of a dictator is done
by hiding behind this very same precedent of "rule of necessity".

It is the same decision which then sealed the democratic
tradition of our country for the next 30 years (till the
overturning of Zia's dismissal, but only after his death).
Bengalis in their long list of grieviences against West
Pakistan always start with this arbitrary dismissal of
the Bengali Prime Minister, and overturning of the appeal
by Munir of the Bengali speaker of the assembly.
( Remember that Muslim league
was formed by a Bengali in 1906 (Nawab Salimullah), and
the Pakistan Resolution was forwarded by a Bengali (Maulvi
__ haq,))

[Based on recollections from a series of columns published in
Jang, just before his death, by Late Pir Ali Mohammad Rashdi]


I also remeber a three part series on PBS on the twohundred
years anniversary of US constitution aired a few years ago.
 The presenter, Peter Jennings,
related a very similar incident in the Judicio-legal-constitutional
history of US constitution.

Some 10-20 years after the constitution (in late eighteenth century)
was promulgated, a governer was criticized for his actions in
Philidelphia(?) by a newspaper. The editor was imprisoned or
stopped from publication. Whatever, the petition was made in
the court against the extra-constitutional action of the Governor.
The court overturned the Governor's decision who then had to
leave his office. This episode is considered to be the
most critical juncture of the life of the nascent US constitution.
Had it been otherwise, who knows whether we would have been
here or not, debating the whole issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!