IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN  
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja, CJ 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa  
 
Constitution Petition No.56 of 2003 
 
Muhammad Kowkab Iqbal.  
 
 
 
… Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
Govt. of Pakistan thr. Secretary Cabinet Division, Islamabad.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondent(s) 
 
 
Constitution Petition No.112 of 2012 
 
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi 
 
 
 
… Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
President of Pakistan and others  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondent(s) 
For the petitioner(s):  
Mr. Kokab Iqbal, ASC, in person 
(in Const.P.56) 
 
 
 
 
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi, in person  
(in Const.P.112/12) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the applicant(s):  
Mr. Abid Saqi, ASC with  
 
 
 
 
Mohtarma Parveen Malik 
 
 
 
 
(in CMA-4981/2015) 
 
For the Federation: 
 
Mr. Aamir Rehman, Addl. AGP 
 
 
 
 
Mohtarma Saba Mohsin Raza, Addl. Secy. M/o  
 
 
 
 
 
Information. 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Irum Najam, Joint Secy. Cabinet Div. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Khalil Ahmed Chaudhry, Dy. Secy. Cabinet Div. 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Rashid Hamid, Dy. Secy. National Language Authority 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehboob Bugti, Dy. Director, National Language Authority  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Tanvir Hussain Shah, S.O. Cabinet Div. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Iftikhar Shah, PS to Secy. M/o Information  
 
 
 
 
 
For Govt. of Punjab:  
Mr. Razzaq A. Mirza, Addl. Advocate General 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed, Director Rawalpindi Arts Council 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Sajjad Hussain, Asstt. Director  
 
For Govt. of Sindh: 
 
Mr. Shehryar Khan Qazi, Addl. AG 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For Govt. of KP: 
 
Mian Arshad Jan, Addl. AG 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Hidayatullah, Dy. Secy. Education  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Liaquat Amin, Asstt. Director Information Deptt.  
 
 
 
 
 
For Govt. of Balochistan: 
Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Khan Swati, Addl. AG 
 
 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
26.08.2015 
 
 
Const.P.56 of 2003 
2 
ORDER  
 
Jawwad S. Khawaja, CJ.- These two Constitution Petitions filed under Article 184 
(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan have raised an issue which has a direct nexus with the 
life of every common man and woman living in Pakistan. Mr. Muhammad Kowkab Iqbal, 
Petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 56 of 2003 and Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi, 
Petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 112 of 2012, have prayed for the implementation of 
Article 251 of the Constitution, which commands the state to adopt Urdu as the official 
language of the country and also stipulates that steps may be taken by the provinces for the 
promotion of provincial languages. Since both Constitution Petitions have sought similar 
relief, the same were heard together. 
2. 
As the matter revolves around Article 251 of the Constitution, for ease of reference, 
it is reproduced as under: 
“National Language  251.  
(1) 
The National language of Pakistan is Urdu, 
and arrangements shall be made for its being used for official and other purposes within 
fifteen years from the commencing day. 
(2) 
Subject to clause (1), the English language may be used for official purposes 
until arrangements are made for its replacement by Urdu. 
(3) 
Without prejudice to the status of the National language, a Provincial 
Assembly may by law prescribe measures for the teaching, promotion and use of a 
provincial language in addition to the national language.” 
(emphasis supplied) 
3.  
The Petitioner, Mr. Kowkab Iqbal, submitted that the State and the Government are 
deliberately not implementing Article 251 of the Constitution and on account of the non-
implementation of this provision a societal and linguistic divide has been created in society.  
It was further argued that this constitutional provision was to be implemented within 15 
years of the date of coming into effect of the Constitution. The said period expired in the 
year 1988 and while 27 years have elapsed since then the said mandatory provision has still 
not been implemented. Similar submissions were made by the other Petitioner, Syed 
Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi. 
4.  
At this juncture, we may highlight the constitutional significance of the issue raised 
in these petitions which seems to be lost on the respondent. The importance of our national 
language has been stressed upon in various judgments of this Court. In one of our recent 
Const.P.56 of 2003 
3 
judgments, District Bar Association, Rawalpindi Vs. Federation of Pakistan (Constitution 
Petition No. 12 of 2010 etc), wherein the 18th and 21st Constitutional Amendments were 
challenged, it was observed that: 
”ﻞﮑﯿﭨرآ ﮯﮐ ﻦﯿﺋآ ہﻠﺼﯿﻓ ہﯾ251 ﮯﻠﮩﭘ ﮯﺳ سا ۔ﮯﮨ ﺎﮨر ﺎﺟ ﺎﯿﮐ ﺮﯾﺮﺤﺗ ﮟﯿﻣ ودرا ﺮﻃﺎﺧ ﯽﮐ ﮯﻧﺮﮐ ارﻮﭘ ﺎﺿﺎﻘﺗ ﯽﻨﯿﺋآ جرد ﮟﯿﻣ 
ﻞﮑﯿﭨرآ ﻢﮨ ﯽﮭﺑ251ﮐ تﺎﺟرﺪﻨﻣ ﮯﮐ  ﯽﺋﺎﺑﻮﺻ روا نﺎﺑز ﯽﻣﻮﻗ ﮟﯿﻣ رﻮﻣا یرﺎﮐﺮﺳ روا ﮟﯿﮨ ﮯﮑﭼ ﻻد ہﺟﻮﺗ فﺮﻃ ﯽﮐ ﺖﯿﻤﮨا ﯽ
 نﺎﺘﺴﮐﺎﭘ ِقﺎﻓو مﺎﻨﺑ ﺮﯿﻣ ﺪﻣﺎﺣ ناﻮﻨﻌﺑ ہﻣﺪﻘﻣ ۔ﮟﯿﮨ ﮯﮑﭼ ﺮﮐ ﺮﮔﺎﺟُا ﻮﮐ ﺖﯿﻤﮨا ﯽﮐ ﺞﯾوﺮﺗ ﯽﮐ ںﻮﻧﺎﺑز)2013 
SCMR 1880
(
 ﮟﯿﻣ
 ہﮐ ﮟﯿﮨ ﮯﮑﭼ ﺮﮐ نﺎﯿﺑ ﻢﮨ ﯽﮭﺑ’’ تﺪﺷ سﺎﺴﺣا ہﯾ ﺮﺜﮐا ﮟﯿﻣ ﺖﻋﺎﻤﺳ ﯽﮐ ﯽﺋاوررﺎﮐ ﯽﺘﻟاﺪﻋ ِﺖﻨﺤﻣ ﯽﮐ ںﻮﯿﺋﺎﮨد ﯽﺌﮐ ہﮐ ﮯﮨ ﺎﺗﻮﮨ ﮯﺳ
 ﺮﺜﮐا روا ۔ﮯﮨ نﺎﺑز ﯽﮐ ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ ﻢﮐ ﯽﮨ ﺖﮩﺑ ںﺎﮨ ےرﺎﻤﮨ یﺰﯾﺮﮕﻧا ﯽﮭﺑ جآ دﻮﺟوﺎﺑ ﮯﮐ ںﻮﺷوﺎﮐ ﯽﮐ ںﻮﻠﺴﻧ اﻮﻧ ﮯﺑ ﯽﺌﮐ روا ہﻗﺎﺷ
 ﮯﮐ نﻮﻧﺎﻗ روا ﻦﯿﺋآ ہﮐ ﮯﮨ ہﯾ ہﺠﯿﺘﻧ ۔ﮯﮨ رﺎﮐرد ہﮐ ﯽﻨﺘﺟ ﮯﺘﮭﮐر ﮟﯿﮩﻧ ترﺎﮩﻣ ﯽﻨﺗا ﮟﯿﻣ سا ﯽﮭﺑ نﺎﺒﺣﺎﺻ ﺞﺟ روا ءﻼﮐو ﻞﺿﺎﻓ
ﺘﺒﺴﻧ ﻞﮑﯿﭨرآ ﺮﮕﻣ ہﮕﺟ ﯽﻨﭘا ﻮﺗ ﯽﮔﺪﯿﭽﯿﭘ ﯽﻨﻓ ہﯾ ۔ﮟﯿﮨ ﮯﺗﻮﮨ مﻮﻠﻌﻣ ﻢﮩﻓ ِﻞﺑﺎﻗﺎﻧ روا ﮦﺪﯿﭽﯿﭘ ﯽﺋﺎﮩﺘﻧا ﯽﮭﺑ ﮯﺘﮑﻧ ﮦدﺎﺳ ًﺎ251 ذﺎﻔﻧ مﺪﻋ ﮯﮐ 
 ﺮﭘ دﻮﺧ ﮦو ہﮐ ﮯﮨ سﺎﮑﻋ ﺎﮐ ﺶﮨاﻮﺧ سا ﯽﮐ ماﻮﻋ ﮯﮐ نﺎﺘﺴﮐﺎﭘ ﻦﯿﺋآ ارﺎﻤﮨ ۔ﮯﮨ کﺎﻨﺸﯾﻮﺸﺗ ﮦدﺎﯾز ﮟﯿﮩﮐ ﯽﮭﺑ ﮯﺳ سا ﻮﻠﮩﭘ ﮏﯾا ﺎﮐ
اﻮﺿ ﯽﻧﻮﻧﺎﻗ مﺎﻤﺗ ﮯﻟاو ﮯﻧﻮﮨﻮﮔﻻ ﮯﺘﮨﺎﭼ ﺎﻨﮭﺠﻤﺳ ﺖﺳار ِﮦاﺮﺑ ﻮﮐ ںﻮﻠﺼﯿﻓ ﮯﯿﮔ ﮯﯿﮐ ردﺎﺻ ﺖﺑﺎﺑ ﯽﮐ قﻮﻘﺣ ﯽﻨﯿﺋآ ﮯﻨﭘا روا ﻂﺑ
 ﮟﯿﻣ نﺎﺑز ﯽﺋﺎﺑﻮﺻ ﺎﯾ ﯽﻣﻮﻗ ہﮑﻠﺑ ،ﮟﯿﮩﻧ ﮟﯿﻣ نﺎﺑز ﯽﺋاﺮﭘ ﮏﯾا ﻮﺗ ںﻮﮨ ﺐﻃﺎﺨﻣ ﮯﺳ نُا ﺐﺟ ناﺮﻤﮑﺣ ہﮐ ﮟﯿﮨ ﮯﺘﮨﺎﭼ ہﯾ ﮦو ۔ﮟﯿﮨ
ﮟﯿﻣ قﻮﻘﺣ یدﺎﯿﻨﺑ ﮯﮐ نا ہﮑﻠﺑ ﮯﮨ ہﺒﻟﺎﻄﻣ ﺎﮐ ﺲﻔﻧ ِتﺰﻋ فﺮﺻ ہﻧ ہﯾ ۔ﮟﯾﺮﮐ ﻮﮕﺘﻔﮔ ﮏﯾا ۔ﮯﮨ ﺎﺿﺎﻘﺗ ﯽﮭﺑ ﺎﮐ رﻮﺘﺳد روا ﮯﮨ ﻞﻣﺎﺷ 
۔ﮯﮨ ہﺨﺴﻧ ﮦدﻮﻣزآ روا ﺎﻧاﺮﭘ ﮏﯾا ﺎﮐ ﺖﯿﺟاﺮﻣﺎﺳ ہﯾ ﮟﯿﮩﻧ قﺎﻔﺗا ﺾﺤﻣ ﺎﻧﺮﮐ ردﺎﺻ ﻢﮑﺣ ﺮﭘ ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ ﮟﯿﻣ نﺎﺑز ﯽﮑﻠﻣ ﺮﯿﻏ 
 ﯽﻨﯿﻃﻻ فﺮﺻ نﺎﯿﺑ ﺎﮐ نﻮﻧﺎﻗ و عﺮﺷ ںﺎﮩﺟ ﺎﮨر جار ﺎﮐ ںﻮﺘﻟاﺪﻋ ﯽﺋﺎﺴﯿﻠﮐ ﮏﺗ ﮯﺻﺮﻋ ﮏﯾا ﮟﯿﻣ پرﻮﯾ ہﮐ ﮯﮨ ﯽﺗﺎﺘﺑ ﮟﯿﻤﮨ ﺦﯾرﺎﺗ
ﮟﯿﻣ نﺎﺑز ﮟﯿﻣ ﺪﮩﻋ ﯽﺋﺎﯾرآ ﮟﯿﻣ ﺪﻨﮨ و کﺎﭘ ﺮﯿﻐﺻﺮﺑ ںﺎﮩﯾ ۔ﯽﮭﺗ ﮟﯿﮩﻧ نﺎﺑز ﯽﮐ ﯽﺴﮐ اﻮﺳ ﮯﮐ ںوداﺰﮩﺷ روا ںﻮﺒﮨار ﻮﺟ ،ﺎﮭﺗ ﺎﺗﻮﮨ 
 ﮯﮐ ﯽﺴﮐ اﻮﺳ ﮯﮐ ںﻮﺗﮉﻨﭘ روا ںﻮﯾﺮﺘﺳﺎﺷ ، ںﻮﻨﻤﮨﺮﺑ ہﮐ ﺎﺗ ﺎﯾد ﺮﮐ دوﺪﺤﻣ ﮟﯿﻣ رﺎﺼﺣ ﮯﮐ تﺮﮑﺴﻨﺳ ﻮﮐ نﻮﻧﺎﻗ ﮯﻧ ﮯﻘﺒﻃ ناﺮﻤﮑﺣ
 نﺎﺑز ﯽﺘﻟاﺪﻋ روا یرﺎﺑرد ﮟﯿﻣ ﺪﻌﺑ ۔ےﮍﭘ ہﻧ ﮫﭽﮐ ﮯﻠﭘ ﻮﺗ ﯽﮐ ںﻮﺴﯿﺋر روا ںﻮﯿﺿﺎﻗ ،ںﻮﮨﺎﺷدﺎﺑ ﻮﺟ ﯽﮨر ﯽﺳرﺎﻓ ﮏﺗ ہﺻﺮﻋ ﮏﯾا
 یرﺎﻤﮨ ہﯾﺎﺳ ِﺮﯾز ﮯﮐ چﻮﺳ ﻦﻤﺷد ﺐﯾﺬﮩﺗ ﯽﮐ ﮯﻟﺎﮑﯿﻣ ڈرﻻ ﺪﻌﺑ ﮯﮐ ﮯﺒﻠﻏ ﮯﮐ ںوﺰﯾﺮﮕﻧا ۔ﯽﮭﺗ ہﻧ نﺎﺑز ﯽﮐ ماﻮﻋ ﻦﮑﯿﻟ ﯽﮭﺗ نﺎﺑز
ﺟ روا ۔ﮯﮨ یرﺎﺟ ﮏﺗ جآ ﮯﺳ ﯽﺘﻤﺴﻗﺪﺑ ﻮﺟ اﻮﮨ عوﺮﺷ بﺎﺑ ﺎﯿﻧ ﮏﯾا ﺎﮐ ﺮﯿﻘﺤﺗ ﯽﮐ ںﻮﻧﺎﺑز ﯽﻣﻮﻗ روا ﯽﻣﺎﻘﻣ ﮏﯾا ﮟﯿﻣ ہﺠﯿﺘﻧ ﮯﮐ ﺲ
 ﺖﯿﻠﻗا ﺐﻟﺎﻏ روا یﻮﻗ ﻦﮑﯿﻟ ﻞﯿﻠﻗ ﮏﯾا ﮯﻧ ﺲﺟ ﮯﮨ ﺎﯿﻟ ﻢﻨﺟ ﮯﻧ ﻖﯾﺮﻔﺗ ﯽﺗﺎﻘﺒﻃ) ﮯﻟﺎﮭﺒﻨﺳ ﺖﻣﻮﮑﺣ ِنﺎﻨﻋ روا ﮯﮨ ﯽﺘﻧﺎﺟ یﺰﯾﺮﮕﻧا ﻮﺟ
ﮯﮨ ﮯﺋﻮﮨ ( سﺎﻨﻟا ماﻮﻋ روا)ﮟﯿﮩﻧ ﺎﻨﺷآ ﮯﺳ یﺰﯾﺮﮕﻧا ﻮﺟ ( ﯽﻣﻮﻗ رﻮﻃ ﯽﮭﺑ ﯽﺴﮐ ﻮﺟ ﮯﮨ ید ﺮﮐ اﺪﯿﭘ ﺞﯿﻠﺧ ﯽﺴﯾا ﮏﯾا نﺎﯿﻣرد ﮯﮐ
زﺎﺳ ﮯﯿﻟ ﮯﮐ ﯽﺘﮩﺟ ﮏﯾ ںﻮﮭﻨﺟ ،ﮯﮨ تﻮﺒﺛ ﺎﺘﻟﻮﺑ ہﻨﻣ ﺎﮐ رﻮﻌﺷ ﯽﺒﯾﺬﮩﺗ روا ﯽﺳﺎﯿﺳ ﮯﮐ ماﻮﻋ ےرﺎﻤﮨ ہﺘﺒﻟا نﺎﺘﺴﮐﺎﭘ ﻦﯿﺋآ ۔ﮟﯿﮩﻧ رﺎﮔ
 ﻞﮑﯿﭨرآ ﮯﻧ251 ﻞﮑﯿﭨرآ روا 28 جاور و ﻢﺳر ہﻧﺎُﻤّﮑﺤﺗ ﯽﮭﺑ ﻮﮐ ںﻮﻧاﺮﻤﮑﺣ روا ،ﮯﮨ ﺎﯾد ہﮐ دﺎﺑ ﺮﯿﺧ ﻮﮐ چﻮﺳ ہﻧﺎﻣﻮﮑﺤﻣ ﮟﯿﻣ 
ﻦﯿﺋآ ۔ﮯﮨ ﺎﯾد ہﯾﺪﻨﻋ ﺎﮐ ﮯﻧﺎﻨﭘا ہﻧﺎﻣدﺎﺧ ِﺖﻨُﺳ روا ﮯﻧﺮﮐ کﺮﺗ ﮯﮐ نا ﻢﮐ زا ﻢﮐ ﺎﯾ ﺎﻧﺎﻨُﺳ ﮟﯿﻣ ودرُا ﮯﻠﺼﯿﻓ ﻖﻠﻌﺘﻣ ﮯﺳ ﺢﯾﺮﺸﺗ ﯽﮐ 
 ﮏﯾا ﮯﯿﻟ ﮯﮐ ﮯﻧﺎھﮍﺑ ﮯﮔآ ﻮﮐ یﮍﮐ ﯽﺳا ﮯﻧ ٰﯽﻤﻈﻋ ِﺖﻟاﺪﻋ ۔ﮯﮨ یﮍﮐ ﯽﺳ ﯽﭨﻮﮭﭼ ﮏﯾا ﯽﮐ ﮯﻠﺴﻠﺳ ﯽﺳا ﺎﻧاﺮﮐ ﮟﯿﻣ ودرا ﻢﺟاﺮﺗ
ﮯﮨ ﺎﺗﺮﮐ ﻞﻘﺘﻨﻣ ﮟﯿﻣ نﺎﺑز ﻢﮩﻓ مﺎﻋ ﻮﮐ ںﻮﻠﺼﯿﻓ ﯽﺘﻟاﺪﻋ ﻮﺟ ﮯﮨ ﺎﯿﮐ ﻢﺋﺎﻗ ﯽﮭﺑ ﻢﺟاﺮﺗ ۂﺒﻌﺷ‘‘ ﺮﻣا سا ںﺎﮩﯾ۔ یروﺮﺿ ﺖﯾﺎﮩﻧ ﮦدﺎﻋا ﺎﮐ
 یرﺎﮐﺮﺳ رﻮﻄﺑ ﻮﮐ ودرا ہﮐ ﮯﮨ ﻢﮑﺣ ﯽﻨﯿﺋآ ہﯾ ہﮑﻠﺑ ﺎﮐ ﯽﻧﺎﺳآ ﻦﺗ یرﺎﻤﮨ ﯽﮨ ہﻧ روا ﮟﯿﮩﻧ ہﻠﻣﺎﻌﻣ ﺎﮐ ﺪﻨﺴﭘ ﺎﻧ ﺪﻨﺴﭘ یرﺎﻤﮨ ہﯾ ہﮐ ﮯﮨ
 ۔ﮯﺋﺎﺟ ﯽﮐ ﺞﯾوﺮﺗ ﯽﮐ ںﻮﻧﺎﺑز ﯽﺋﺎﺑﻮﺻ روا ﮯﺋﺎﺟ ﺎﯾﺎﻨﺑ ﯽﻨﯿﻘﯾ رﻮﻣا ﺮﮕﯾد ﮯﺋاﺮﺑ روا نﺎﺑز‘‘ 
 
Const.P.56 of 2003 
4 
5.  
Indeed the importance of this issue cannot be emphasized enough. Yet, the way in 
which this issue is being dealt with by the Government has been very casual and non 
serious.  
6. 
During the course of this year alone, these petitions have come up for hearing 
before this Court eighteen times. However, despite the time the Court dedicated to this 
crucial issue, no substantial progress was made. On 12.05.2015, for instance, Mr. Abdul 
Rashid Awan, DAG for the Federation, clearly submitted that in spite of his best efforts the 
Secretary Cabinet and the Secretary Information, Government of Pakistan, and other 
concerned functionaries were not paying any heed to the Constitutional imperative in 
Article 251. Although, reports were filed in Court thereafter, with regret we say that these 
reports were not satisfactory and no substantial action has been taken by the concerned 
authorities for the implementation of Article 251 of the Constitution. The same is the 
situation till now.  
7. 
Almost all orders of the Court in the present case portray this dismal situation and 
lack of interest by the concerned functionaries in implementing the command of Article 251 
of the Constitution. The following synopsis of only some of the Court orders over the last 
seven months will demonstrate this: 
S# Order 
dated 
Synopsis of Court order and related submissions 
1 
22.01.2015 
Mr. Abdul Rasheed Awan, learned DAG, requested for some time to 
submit a concise statement. 
2 
10.04.2015 
The learned law officer was unable to give any satisfactory reply why 
the breach of Article 251 had not been rectified yet. In order to ascertain 
causes of delay he once again requested for some time. 
3 
23.04.2015 
Learned law officer sought time to file a more comprehensive 
statement. 
4 
30.04.2015 
Learned law officer once again sought time to file concise statement. 
5 
12.05.2015 
Learned law officer stated that despite his best efforts the Secretary 
Cabinet and the Secretary Information, Government of Pakistan, and 
other concerned functionaries were not paying heed to the matter and 
to the orders of this Court. 
6. 
13.05.2015 
Learned Attorney General appeared and assured that if some time is 
given to the Government then solid suggestions shall be presented for 
implementation of Article 251 of the Constitution.  
Const.P.56 of 2003 
5 
7. 
20.05.2015 
The Court observed that attitude of Federal Govt. was non-serious. 
Learned DAG sought time to file his report. Rs. 10,000/- costs were also 
imposed on the Federal Govt. 
8. 
02.06.2015 
Despite orders, the Federal Government was unable to explain what 
steps had been taken over the last 42 years for implementation of 
Article 251 and who was responsible for such omission. 
9. 
05.06.2015 
It was observed that Punjabi language was not being given its place by 
the Government of the Punjab and no substantial steps had been taken 
for this purpose although in the other Provinces concrete steps had 
been taken. 
10. 11.06.2015 
Secretary Information stated that summary with suggestions had been 
sent to Secretary Cabinet for implementation of Article 251.  
Assistant Advocate General Punjab requested for some time to file 
report. 
11. 02.07.2015 
Decision of Cabinet awaited; Case was adjourned. 
12. 10.07.2015 
Cabinet decision still pending as Prime Minister is out of country.  
13. 11.08.2015 
Secy. Information informed the Court that vide letter dated 06.07.2015 
certain directions have been issued by the Govt. Mr. Sikandar Javed, 
Chairman GEC informed the Court that the Law Ministry was neither 
taking any interest in the legal dictionary made by them to facilitate 
Urdu translation of laws nor was it rendering any financial assistance. 
14. 18.08.2015 
Court still not informed of satisfactory arrangements by the 
Government. 
8. 
This record shows that other than words, no progress has been made for 
implementation of Article 251 of the Constitution. The Government appears to be acting on 
the untenable premise that it has the right not to adhere to Article 251 of the Constitution. 
This is most disturbing. The language of Article 251 leaves no room for such an 
interpretation. Article 251 uses the term “shall”, which shows that it is a mandatory 
provision and not an optional or directory one. Defiance of Article 251 should not be 
allowed.  
9. 
Here we may advert to Article 5 of the Constitution which stipulates that “… 
obedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen …”. It also needs 
to be emphasized that all senior functionaries of the State take an oath to “preserve protect 
and defend the Constitution”. State functionaries in positions of authority  therefore, cannot 
give short shrift to the Constitution which they are bound to preserve, protect and obey. On 
various occasions we have pointed out that the rule of law begins with the powerful; if the 
Const.P.56 of 2003 
6 
Government itself does not follow the commands of the Constitution then it cannot 
legitimately exercise authority to enforce the law on the general public.  
10.  
In the case of Sindh High Court Bar Association Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 
2009 SC 876 at 1242) this Court has remarked that it “would … be for the representatives of the 
people and for all thinking people to determine if the absence of the rule of law within the upper 
echelons and formal structures of the State has, in a significant way, generated the lawlessness which 
so permeates our society today.”  The lack of interest shown by the Government to the 
constitutional command contained in Article 251 directly feeds into the lawlessness that 
prevails in our society. Here it may be useful for us to take guidance from a famous 
incident involving Baba Farid Ganj Shakar. 
11. 
 A mother brought her child to Baba Sahib with a complaint that her son was eating 
too much ‘shakar’ and should be cautioned against this habit. Baba Sahib asked that lady to 
bring the child again after one week. When she brought her son again, Baba Sahib forbade 
the child and he obeyed. The woman asked Baba Sahib why he did not just forbid the child 
when she had visited last. Baba Sahib replied that at that time he himself was copiously 
consuming ‘shakar’ and therefore, could not have asked the child to abstain. This wisdom 
seems to be lost on those in Government.   
12. 
What is also lost on the Government is that Article 251 is not a stand-alone 
provision;. this provision is directly linked to the realization of various fundamental rights 
protected by the Constitution, especially the right to dignity (Article 14),  the right  to equal 
treatment under the law (Article 25), and the right to education (Article 25A). It is a 
corollary of a person’s right to dignity enshrined in the Constitution that his or her 
language (national or provincial) should be respected and recognized by the State which 
exercises authority over him or her. Likewise, it is a corollary of a person’s right to equality 
that he or she must not be denied access to economic and political opportunities because he 
or she is only conversant in the languages recognized and referred to in Article 251 and not 
conversant with the English language. When the state refuses to recognize this it denies to 
its citizens equality of status and opportunity and also their dignity in a very real sense. 
13.  
There is also no doubt that the right to education has a direct link with language. 
Article 25A of the Constitution states that the “State shall provide free and compulsory 
education to all children of the age of five to sixteen years in such manner as may be determined by 
Const.P.56 of 2003 
7 
law.” Empirical studies throughout the world (including those by UNESCO) advocate the 
use of a child’s native language in instruction since this is the language the child grows up 
with and which is in use in his home and around him.  But the Government seems to be 
ignoring this important issue.     
14. 
We may also note here that it is not as if the Government lacks the imagination or 
expertise to conceive ways in which Article 251 may be implemented. For instance, even in 
1981 certain recommendations were made by the National Language Authority, (presently 
renamed as National Language Promotion Department vide Notification dated 17.08.2012), 
for implementation of Article 251. The same are reproduced herein below: 
ن�ز �� غو� ہرادا)ن�ز �� ہر� ( ت�ر� �١٩٨١ء  
)�ا (ت�ر� � � � ��ا � ودرا � ر� � ن�ز ىر�ور� روا ى�دُ  
)i(
 � ن�� ر� ِ١٩٨١� ر� � ن�ز ىر�ور� روا ى�د � ودرا راو �� � � ىر� �ڈرآ �ا � ءُ �ا � � ��ا 
۔�� ىر� ��������  
ii( )
١٩٨١۔�� � م� � �� �� روا ىر� � ہد� ،�دادور � ن�ز ودرا � م�ا � ءُ  
١٩٨٢ ( iii)
 ہو � �� � �� ۔� �� � م� ��� � �� � �د م�ا ر�ا ى�د � ن�ز ودرا � م�ا � ءُ �� ودراُ
۔ے� �ا� ز� � � ىرا�� � �  
١٩٨٣ ( iv)
 م� � ر� نا�ا ل� ��� ��و روا � �� � ر� � ن�ز ودرا روا ت� �� م� � ن�وڈ �� � ءُِ
۔�� �د م�ا � ن�ز ودرا ر�اُ  
 
)ب (� � ��ا � �رذ ر� � ودراُت�ر�   
١٩٨٤ )i( 
 ���ا � � ء)م� �آ ،� �ا �ا ،ےا �ا ( � � � �ا �ا روا �ا � ،م� �ا ،ےا � ،��ڈ �اراو �
۔� � ن�ز ودرا � �رذُ  
ii( )
١٩٨٦ا �ا روا ےا � � ،�ا �ا ،م� �ا ،ےا �ا ،ىا � ،� �ا �ا ،� �ا � � � ء � ن�ز ودرا ت��ا م� � �ا �ُ
۔ں�  
( iii)
١٩٨٧۔ں� � � ودرا � ت��ا � ےا � �ا روا � �ا �ا � � ءُ  
(iv)
 � ودرا � ر� � ن�ز � �ر� ۔��� �� ل� ودرا لڈ� �ا � ن�وڈ �ا � � � � � � � شر� � � ُُ
 ل�ا �ا � ت�� � م� روا �� � �� ودرا � ت�� � ىڈ �ا � م� ۔�� �ا� � ��رو � � �د غو� �ُ
۔�� � � �� � م� � ں�� � � �رذ ى��ا � �� �د را� ىرو� �د � ودرا ��ُ   
  
)ج (� ت��ا � ��ت�ر� � � �� ر�ا �رذ � ودرا ُ  
)i(
 � � � � �� �� �� �ز� �ا � ودرا � � ت��ا � �� ُ٥٠۔ں�   
Const.P.56 of 2003 
8 
ii( )
 � � �� �ا� فر� �� ىر�ا �ا � بدا ودرا ُ٢٠٠۔ں� �   
(iii)
 ر� ىر� � ودرا � � ت��ا � �� ُ۔�� �د � ى��ا روا ودرا ت� �� م� روا �� ��ا � ر� � ن�ز �ُ  
 
Various other committees have been formed and recommendations submitted from time to 
time. What is lacking therefore is not imagination or expertise, but the will to preserve, 
protect, defend and obey the Constitution . 
15. 
Even as these petitions were being heard, vide letter No. 1/Prog/2015 dated 
06.07.2015 issued by Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, the Cabinet Division 
directed that certain short term measures be taken by all Ministries and Divisions. The 
letter for ease of reference is being reproduced as under: 
"ن�� ��  
ن�وڈ ��،��� ��  
  
�1/Prog/2015
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 �ر�6 ��� 2015ء  
 
نا� :ت��ا � � ل�ا � ن�ز ودرا � � �� �د و ىر��  
 
 �رآ � ن�� �آ ،� � � � � پآ � �251� �� �د روا ىر�� � ن�ز ودرا  �� �� � ل�ا � 
۔� ا� � � � � ��� ر� � �� � ن�� �ا �زو ب� ت� � � سا ۔�  
 
2۔�� �د � عو� ت�ا�ا � ر� ىر� � � �� �آرد � � � �� � � � شرا� ا� �ا� �ر� ۔   
 
)ن� �ا مرا �اڈ(  
�ى�� �ا)��(  
 
� ں��وڈ روا ں�رازو م�  
ن�� جر�ا ��� ��ا روا ���  
ع�ا �ا� �:  
1د�آ م�ا ، �آ �ا �زو ،�ا �زو �ا� ى�� ۔  
2د�آ م�ا ن�� �� �رو �� و ت�� ،ت��ا ترازو ى�� ب� �� ۔ِ  
  
�� �  
ىر�/ت�ا�ا �� �:  
Const.P.56 of 2003 
9 
١ےرادا م� �او �� م� م�ا �ز � ق�و ۔)ىر�� � و ىر�� ( �� �� ودرا ر�ا � ہ� � � ں�� �اُ
۔��  
٢ےرادا �او �� م� م�ا �ز � ق�و ۔)ىر�� � و ىر�� (� ہ� � �� ودرا � �ا� م�ُ۔�� ��   
٣ےرادا م� �او �� م� م�ا �ز � �� ��و ۔)ىر�� � و ىر�� ( ى��ا � ہ� � مر� � ح� �
۔�� �ا� � � ودرا �� �ُ  
٤ ہ�و ں� ،ںورادا � ،ں�ر� ،ں�� ،ں�� ،ں�ا� � ں� � �ا �ا� م� ۔ � � �� ہار �
۔� �� � ںا�وآ ر�ا � ہ� � ڈر� � � ودرا �� �� � ى��ا   
٥ ،ن�� فآ � �ا ،� �� ،ا�او ،ن�� فآ ل� �ڈآ ،رآ � � ےا ،� �ا � ،�آ ٹر�� ۔
� ں� �� روا �� ��ارڈ
������� ت�ار�ا م� � ٹر�� ۔�� �ا� � ودرا � ہ� � تا�و�د م� ُ
۔�� � � � � ودرا �� � ى��اُ   
٦ےرادا م� �او �� م� م�ا �ز � �� ��و ۔)ىر�� � و ىر�� ( �� �و �ا)
 (Website
 ہ� �
� � � ودرا ر�ا �۔�  
٧ � ى��ا ر�ا � ہ� � ڈر� �� � � ض� � �� ہار � ںور� � ں�ا�� ى� �� � � ےر� ۔
۔�� � � � � ودرا ��ُ  
٨ت�� ىر�� م� ۔/۔�� � عو� � ودرا ر�ا � ہ� � راو �ا� �اورر� � ں��اُ  
٩� ر� ۔ � م� سا روا �� �ر� � ودرا �� روا ر�ا � � �ا روا ے�� ىر�� ��و م� روا �ا �زو ،ُ
۔�� �د � ز�آ ر�ا � ہ� � راو ��  
١٠� � �� سا � � �� ىد � ى�� � ن�ز �� غو� ہرادا � � � �و� و ذ� � ودرا ۔ُِ � ىروآ � 
� � � رود � زا � � �� �� � ں�و�ر � �ار’’۔  
 
It remains to be seen to what extent these directions will be followed.  
16.  
We may also emphasize here that implementing Article 251 is not just a matter of 
obeying the Constitution: it has real practical implications for the Pakistani public.  In this 
regard, we may refer to a highly relevant historical fact. In 1972, the provincial government 
in Balochistan led by the Chief Minister and the provincial government in North West 
Frontier Province (now KPK) led by the Chief Minister Maulana Mufti Mahmud took some 
concrete steps towards introducing Urdu as the official language in their respective 
Provinces. A note by a former Chief Secretary of NWFP (now KPK) highlights the fact that 
as a result, available human and financial resources of both provincial governments were 
optimized. Again in 2004, the government in KPK introduced the National language for 
official and other purposes. In addition, the use of Urdu as the official language augmented 
the self esteem of civil servants employed by the two Governments. At that time, it was 
Const.P.56 of 2003 
10 
immediately noticed that this measure remarkably improved the efficiency of the 
concerned provincial governments: even an Assistant in BS-11 was able to initiate notings 
in Urdu which was a language he was educated and familiar with. The very same activity 
and perhaps with a lesser quality, is now being undertaken by a Section Officer in BS-17 
(since official noting is required to be in the English language).  
17. 
In the governance of the Federation and the Provinces there is hardly any necessity 
for the use of the colonial language which cannot be understood by the public at large. 
Even for many civil servants and public officials, who may have received education in 
English, this language would in most cases, not be the language most used by them. Many 
officials are therefore forced to spend time on attempting to initiate and take decisions in a 
language which they are not entirely comfortable with. The time thus spent is quite 
wasteful because a lot of energy is dedicated to deciphering the language of the noting 
(which could have been easily drafted in the Urdu language) itself rather than 
understanding its content or substance. This wasteful exercise at times results in absurd 
and farcical outcomes which would be wholly avoided by use of the National language.      
18. 
It is not at all the object of this judgment to denigrate the importance of English as a 
language used in international commerce and other activities which require the use of that 
language. The point before us as noted above is very different. Article 5(2) of the 
Constitution commands that “[o]bedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation 
of every citizen …”. We are tasked to both obey the Constitution and to enforce it, and we 
cannot shy away from our obligation to the same while the nation suffers even if some may 
(from habit or training) find it more convenient to continue using the colonial language.  
 
19. 
Therefore, bearing in mind the constitutional commands in Articles 5 and 251 
reproduced above and noting the inaction and failure of successive governments to 
implement this important provision, we have no option but to order as under:- 
i)  
the provisions of Article 251 shall be implemented with full force 
and without unnecessary delay by the Federal and Provincial 
Governments; 
ii) 
the time-lines (given in letter dated 06.07.2015 reproduced above) 
which are given by the Government itself must be considered for 
Const.P.56 of 2003 
11 
implementation by the Government in line with Article 251 for 
implementation; 
iii) 
the Federal Government as well as Provincial Governments 
should coordinate with each other for uniformity in the 
“rasmulkhat” for the National language; 
iv) 
Federal as well as provincial laws should be translated in the 
National languages within three months; 
v) 
statutory, regulatory and oversight bodies shall take steps to 
implement Article 251 without unnecessary delay and also ensure 
compliance by regulatees;  
vi) 
in 
the 
competitive 
examinations 
at 
Federal 
level 
the 
recommendations of government bodies noted above, should be 
considered by the Government for implementation without 
unnecessary delay;  
vii) 
Judgments in cases relating to public interest litigation and 
judgments enunciating a principle of law in terms of Article 189 
must be translated in Urdu and should be published in line with 
Article 251 of the Constitution;  
viii) 
in Court cases government departments should make all 
reasonable efforts to submit their replies in Urdu to enable citizens 
to effectively enforce their legal rights;  
ix) 
if, subsequent to this judgment, any public bodies or public 
officials continue to violate the constitutional command contained 
in Article 251, citizens who suffer a tangible loss directly and 
foreseeably resulting from such violation shall be entitled to 
enforce any civil rights which may accrue to them on this account. 
20. 
Copies of this Judgment shall be sent to all the Federal as well as Provincial 
Secretaries, who are to take immediate steps for enforcement of Article 251 in line with 
Article 5 of the Constitution. The concerned Federal and Provincial Secretaries shall submit 
Const.P.56 of 2003 
12 
reports showing compliance with the above orders. The first report of progress should be 
fixed in Court within three months. 
  
 
             Chief Justice 
 
 
 
            Judge  
 
 
 
           Judge  
 
 
 
NOTE: To meet the requirement of Article 251 of the Constitution, the Urdu version 
of this judgment is also issued. In view of Article 251(3), the Provinces may issue 
translations in provincial languages. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Jawwad S. Khawaja) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Chief Justice 
 
Islamabad, the   
 
Announced on  8th September, 2015.  
 
M. Azhar Malik/* 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.