IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
Present: 
 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Dr.Muhammad Khalid Masud  
 
Civil Shariat Appeal No.1 of 2013 
Against the judgment dated 22.10.2012 
passed by Federal Shariat Court in Sh. 
Mis. Application No.06/1 of 2011 
Govt. of Punjab thr. Chief Secretary 
 
 
 
Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
Dr.Zahoor Ahmad Azhar 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
 
Barrister Qasim Chohan, Addl. AG. Pb. 
 
 
For the Respondent(s):  
N.R 
Date of Hearing:  
 
19.09.2018 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
 
 
CMA No. 8415-L of 2013 
 
 
 
Mushir Alam, Chairman.- For the reasons mentioned in 
this miscellaneous application the same is allowed and the delay in filing 
of Civil Shariat Appeal is condoned. Disposed of. 
 
 
Civil Shariat Appeal No.1 of 2013 
 
 
 
 
 Appellant, Government of Punjab, have challenged the 
judgment dated 22.10.2012 rendered by the learned Federal Shariat 
Court whereby directions to implement Article 31 (2)(c) of the 
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and Shariat Act, 1991 were issued. 
  
2. 
 
Briefly stating facts appears to be that Dr. Zahoor Ahmed 
Azhar, Respondent herein, through letter dated 14.12.2010 addressed 
to the Chief Justice, Federal Shariat Court sought intervention in the 
Civil Shariat Appeal No.1 of 2013 
 
2
matter of introduction of Arabic language in all walks of life and for 
issuance of necessary direction to the Federal Government to make 
Arabic language as a part of curriculum from primary to secondary 
school in following terms: 
  
 
 
 "
1۔  ۔����۠� �ۡ�� �ۗ��ٗ� �� ں�ۡ�ٗررو ٗڡ��ٗ� �� ٗ�ۡ�و�۠�٘� �ٗ��ٗ��٘� روا �ٗ�ۡ���ٓا ٗںا  
2۔  ۔����۠� �ۡ�د م�٘��ٗ����۠� �ۡ�� ٗںا�ۡ�� ������� ہو��� �� �ۡ���٘� �� ٗں�۠�ٗر �۠��� ������۠� �ۡ�� �ٗ�۠��ۨ� �� ٗں�٘����ۨ� ٘�����  
3۔   �ۡ���٘� �٘� �۠�رد ى�ٗ��ٙ� �ٰ��ا �� ى����ا�ۨ� �� �� ���ۡ�� �� �ۡ�ر�٘� �� ں�ۨ�۠� ٗں����� ��روا ٙ�ٗ�۠� ���٘�  ��ٗر��
۔����۠� �ۡ�� م�ٗ�٘�ٗ�ا  
 ���ٗ��ٗ�ۡ�و�٘��د �٘��۠� ��ا�� �ۡ�ا ��٘�ٙ�� �ۨ� ٘ٮ��ٗ�� ٗ�ۡ�٘� �� ٗص�ٗ� �� ٘ٮ�������ۡ�� �� ٘�ٗ�و���� ٘��ا��
۔"��� 
 
3.  
Letter was converted into Shariat Petition. Notices were 
issued to the Secretary Law and Justice, Government of Pakistan, 
Attorney General of Pakistan, Standing Counsel for the Federal 
Government, and Advocates General of all the four Provinces. Attorney 
General and Standing Counsels for the Federal Government chose not 
to appear. After hearing the Petitioner and Advocates General of all the 
four Provinces, and taking into consideration various reports of different 
committees and in consideration of facts narrated in the impugned 
Judgment, learned Bench, through impugned judgment directed the 
Federation of Pakistan to implement Article 31 (2)(c) of the Constitution 
of Pakistan and Shariat Act, 1991. All the four Provinces were also 
directed to report the compliance, operative part contained in 
paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment runs as follows:  
 
“Federation of Pakistan is directed that, under Article 
31(2)(a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, Shariat Act, 1991 and the facts mentioned 
above, necessary steps, stated to be already under way, 
in certain respects in this regard, as mentioned above, 
Civil Shariat Appeal No.1 of 2013 
 
3
be finalized early for promotion of Arabic language for 
the educational and other relevant systems. It should 
regularly be monitored in order to ensure positive 
progress on the same, to be submitted to the Cabinet 
within six months.” 
 
4. 
 
Appeal in hand under Article 203(F) of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been preferred by the Province 
of Punjab alone. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, 
contended that impugned judgment cannot be sustained, Federal 
Shariat Court in terms of Article 203D of the Constitution of Pakistan, 
1973 had no jurisdiction to issue direction for the implementation of 
Article 31 (2)(a) of the Constitution. Secondly, the Principle of Policy as 
contained in Articles 29 to 40 of the Constitution, 1973 are merely the 
guiding principles for the State governance, which cannot be enforced 
by any Court including Federal Shariat Court. And, lastly that the    
draft Bill “the Teaching of Holy Quran and Arabic language, Act, 2009” 
which was proposed and remained under consideration of various 
Ministries has never seen the light of day, and or reports of various 
Committees including Senate Committee cannot be made basis of issuing 
any direction as has been done through impugned Judgment.  
Respondent, though served through his counsel, chose to remain 
absent. 
 
5. 
 
Heard the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab and 
perused the record. Pivotal question that has engaged our attention is 
whether the Federal Shariat Court, under the facts and circumstances of 
case before us, has jurisdiction to issue any declaration and or direction 
of the nature as reproduced above or otherwise.  
 
Civil Shariat Appeal No.1 of 2013 
 
4
6. 
 
Unlike wholesome original jurisdiction conferred on the High 
Courts and Supreme Court in terms of Article 199 and Article 184 (3) of 
the Constitution, respectively, to examine the justiciability of action or 
inaction as per law on the part of any State functionary, authority, 
organ and or person and to issue appropriate declaration, directions, or 
order as the case may be, such diversity of jurisdiction is conspicuously 
absent from the jurisdictional armory of Federal Shariat Court, [for 
illustrative study one may refer to celebrate case of Saeedullah Kazmi 
versus Government of Pakistan (PLD 1981 SC 42)]. 
 
7. 
 
Federal Shariat Court has been instilled in our Constitution 
through amendment Ordinance, 1980 in the Constitution of Pakistan, 
1973 in Part VII, whole new chapter 3A (Article 203A to 203J) was 
added, installing Federal Shariat Court and Shariat Appellate Bench in 
the Supreme Court. Federal Shariat Court on its own motion or on the 
petition of a citizen of Pakistan or the Federal or Provincial Government 
examine existing law and or any provision thereof is in conformity and 
not repugnant to Injunction of Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy 
Prophet (PBUH). Limit and extent of original jurisdiction of the Federal 
Shariat Court is well defined in terms of Article 203D of the Constitution 
of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which reads as follow: 
 
203D. (1) The Court may, either of its own motion or on 
the petition of a citizen of Pakistan or the Federal 
Government or a Provincial Government, examine and 
decide the question whether or not any law or provision of 
law is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, as laid down 
in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, 
hereinafter referred to as the Injunctions of Islam. 
 
(1A)  Where the Court takes up the examination of 
any law or provision of law under clause (1) and such law 
Civil Shariat Appeal No.1 of 2013 
 
5
or provision of law appears to it to be repugnant to the 
Injunctions of Islam, the Court shall cause to be given to 
the Federal Government in the case of a law with respect 
to a matter  in  the  Federal  Legislative List or  to  the  
Provincial Government in the case of a law with respect to 
a matter not enumerated [in the  Federal  Legislative List], 
a notice specifying the particular provisions that appear to 
it to be so  repugnant,  and  afford to such Government 
adequate opportunity to have its point of view placed 
before the Court.  
 
(2) If the Court decides that any law or provision of 
law is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, it shall set out 
in its decision: 
(a) the reasons for its holding that opinion; and  
(b) the extent to which such law or provision is so 
repugnant;   
and specify the day on which the decision shall take effect.  
Provided that no such decision shall be deemed to 
take effect before the expiration of the period within which 
an appeal therefrom may be preferred to the Supreme 
Court or, where an appeal has been so preferred, before 
the disposal of such appeal. 
 
(3)  If any law or provision of law is held by the 
Court to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam: -  
 
(a) 
the President in the case of a law with respect 
to a matter in the Federal Legislative List or 
the Governor in the case of a law with respect 
to a matter not enumerated in [said List] shall 
take steps to amend the law so as to bring 
such law or provision into conformity with the 
Injunctions of Islam; and  
 
(b)  
such law or provision shall, to the extent to 
which it is held to be so repugnant, cease to 
Civil Shariat Appeal No.1 of 2013 
 
6
have effect on the day on which the decision 
of the Court takes effect. 
 
8. 
 
Article 203D, as reproduced above, clearly set down the 
original jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court, to the extent of 
examining the statute laws, custom or usage having force of law, 
including statutory rules, regulations framed thereunder on the 
touchstone of Injunctions of Islam and issuance of declaration in 
relation thereto, however Constitution, Muslim Personal Laws, fiscal law 
and law of procedure of any Court as mentioned in Clause (c) of Article 
203B ibid; are kept beyond the pale of its jurisdiction. [See Dr. M. 
Aslam Khaki versus Syed Muhammad Hashim and 2 others (PLD 2000 
Supreme Court 225)].  
 
9. 
 
Having examined the Jurisdictional bounds of the Federal 
Shariat Court, we have noted that the Federal Shariat Court has issued 
a direction in the form of writ of mandamus as reproduced in paragraph 
3 above, which is clearly beyond its jurisdictional authority. 
 
10. 
 
Learned Bench of the Federal Shariat Court, fell into error, 
treating Article 31(2) of the Constitution, as command of the 
Constitution or law capable of implementation by the Federal Shariat 
Court. As discussed above, jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court is 
confined to the extent of examining the compatibility or otherwise of 
law (per Article 293B (c) ibid) on the touchstone of Injunctions of Islam. Once 
a law or any provision thereof is held to be repugnant to Injunctions of 
Islam, by the Federal Shariat Court then it becomes the responsibility of 
the appropriate legislature to harmonize it in accordance with 
Injunctions of Islam, otherwise declaration so made by the Federal 
Shariat Court becomes effective on the day so specified in its decision.    
Civil Shariat Appeal No.1 of 2013 
 
7
 
11. 
 
It may be observed that Principles of Policy as embedded 
(Articles 29 to 40), infact are the guidelines for the State, stand alone, 
are not enforceable. Sub-Article (1) ibid on one hand places 
responsibility on each organ and authority of State to strive to achieve 
the same on the other sub Article (2) of Article 30 ibid insulates it 
against examination even by the High Courts and Supreme Court unless 
same are translated into command of the Constitution and or law like 
Article 141A, Article 10A, Article 25A, corresponding to Articles 32, 
37(d) and 37 (b) & (c) respectively grafted through 18th Constitutional 
Amendment [For illustrative cases one may see Mehr Zulfiqar Ali Babu versus 
Government of the Punjab and others (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 11), 
President of Baluchistan High Court Bar Association versus Federation of 
Pakistan and others (2012 SCMR 745) and Hafiz Abdul Waheed versus Mrs. 
Asma Jehangir and another (PLD 2004 Supreme Court  219)].  
 
12. 
 
As discussed above original jurisdiction of the Federal 
Shariat Court is circumscribed by Article 203D of the Constitution, to 
the extent of examining any law to be in conformity with Injunctions of 
Islam or otherwise. Federal Shariat Court has no jurisdiction to examine 
or be influenced by any proposed draft legislation, Bill “the Teaching of 
Holy Quran and Arabic language, Act, 2009,” which has not yet been 
translated into the Act of Parliament nor possess any jurisdiction in the 
nature of Article 199 or 184(3) of the Constitution, for the enforcement 
of fundamental rights or to issue order, declaration or directions to 
implement any command of the Constitution or law. The direction given 
to Federation of Pakistan and all of the four Provinces through 
impugned judgment to take necessary steps under Article 31 (2)(c) of 
the Constitution and “Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991”  “for 
Civil Shariat Appeal No.1 of 2013 
 
8
promotion of Arabic language for educational and other relevant 
purposes”, the jurisdiction and authority, if any, to issue such direction, 
may rest elsewhere but, certainly not with the Federal Shariat Court.  
 
13. 
 
In view of foregoing discussion, impugned judgment dated 
22.10.2012 is set aside, Civil Shariat Appeal stands allowed.  
 
Chairman  
 
 
Member 
 
 
Member 
 
ISLAMABAD, THE  
19th of Sep., 2018 
Arshed 
 
Approved for Reporting