Source: https://pakistanconstitutionlaw.com/p-l-d-2000-sc-869-4/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 23:14:59+00:00

Document:
Sh. Liaquat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 504 and Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto’s case PLD 1998 SC 388 ref.
—Preamble—Proclamation of Emergency by Chief Executive of Pakistan dated 14-10-1999—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 91 & 184(3)—Term “Chief Executive”, import of—Constitution of Pakistan (1973) envisages Parliamentary form of Government where the Prime Minister acts as the Chief Executive of the country—By means of Proclamation of Emergency dated 14-10-1999 as also the Provisional Constitution Order, 1999 the Constitution has been only held in abeyance and the country is to be run as nearly as may be in accordance with the Constitution, therefore, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Army Staff while taking over the affairs of the country assumed to himself the title of “Chief Executive”—Validity—Since practically the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Army Staff was performing the functions of the Prime Minister, he held the position of Chief Executive in the scheme of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Indian Constitutional Law by H.M. Seervai, 4th Edn., p,20; Fazalul Qadir Chaudhry’s case PLD 1963 SC 486 and American Constitutional Law, 1995 Edn., p.204 ref.
—Preamble—Proclamation of Emergency by Chief Executive of Pakistan dated 14-10-1999—Constitution of Pakistan 91973), Art. 184(3)—Extra- constitutional step of taking over the affairs of Pakistan by the Armed Forces of Pakistan—Nature—Coup d’etat or revolution—Coup d’etat and revolution are interchangeable in the context of step of taking over the affairs of Pakistan by the Armed Forces and nothing substantial would turn on considering it from one angle or another.
Farzand Ali v. province of West Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 98; Madzimbuto v. Lardner Burke (1968) 3 AER 561; Texas v. White 74 US (7 Wall) 700 (at p. 733), 1868; Madzimbuto v. Lardner Burke 1966 Rhodesian L. Rep. 228 (General Division); Revolution and Political Change by C. Welch and Bunker Taintor; Attorney-General v. Mustafa Ibrahim 1964 Cyprus LR 195 Sup. Ct.; Revolutions, published in the Irish Jurist, 1977 and Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of the Army Staff PLD 1977 SC 657 ref.
—Preamble—Proclamation of Emergency by Chief Executive of Pakistan dated 14-10-1999—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 184(3)—Extra- constitutional step of taking over the affairs of Pakistan by the Armed Forces of Pakistan–Validity—Grant of power to Chief Executive of Pakistan to amend the Constitution–Extent—Power of the Chief Executive of Pakistan to amend the Constitution is strictly circumscribed by the limitations laid down by the Supreme Court—Limitations with regard to amendment of the Constitution by Chief Executive of Pakistan as laid down by the Supreme Court enumerated.
Mahmood Khan Ackakzai’s case PLD 1997 SC 426 ref.
(a) All acts or legislative measures which are in accordance with, or could have been made under the 1973 Constitution, including the power to amend it.
(b) All acts which tend to advance or promote the good of the people.
(d) All such measures as would establish or lead to the establishment of the declared objectives of the Chief Executive.
(ii) That Constitutional Amendments by the Chief Executive can be resorted to only if the Constitution fails to provide a solution for attainment of his declared objectives and further that the power to amend the Constitution by virtue of clause (6), sub-clause (i)(a) ibid is controlled by sub-clauses (b),(c) and (d) in the same clause.
(iii) That no amendment shall be made in the salient features of the Constitution i.e. independence of Judiciary, federalism, parliamentary form of Government blended with Islamic provisions.
(iv) That Fundamental Rights provided in Part II, Chapter 1 of the Constitution shall continue to hold the field but the State will be authorized to make any law or take any executive action in deviation of Articles 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 &24 as contemplated by Article 233(1) of the Constitution, keeping in view the language of Articles 10, 23 and 25 thereof.
(vi) That the superior Courts continue to have the power of judicial review to judge the validity of any act or action of the Armed Forces, if challenged, in the light of the principles underlying the law of State necessity as sated above. Their powers under Article 199 of the Constitution, thus, remain available to their full extent, and may be exercised as heretofore, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any legislative instrument enacted by the Chief Executive and/or any order issued by the Chief Executive or by any person or authority acting on his behalf.
The cases of former Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court, who had not taken oath under the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2000 (Order 1 of 2000), and those Judges of the Lahore High Court, High Court of Sindh and Peshawar High Court, who were not given oath, cannot be reopened, being hit by the doctrine of past and closed transaction.

References: v. 
 Art. 184
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 184