IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
    (CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN  
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE TARIQ PARVEZ 
 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NOS. 72 & 73 OF 2015 
(Constitutional Petition under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973) 
 
 
Justice Raja Jilal ud Din, Chief Judge  
Petitioner in  
Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit Baltistan 
(C.P.No.72/2015) 
 
Justice Muzaffar Ali, Judge Supreme 
 
Petitioner in  
Appellate Court, Gilgit Balistan 
 
 
(C.P.No.73/2015) 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, 
Respondents 
 
Ministry of Law & Justice, Human Rights,  
(in both Petitions) 
Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, etc. 
 
For the Petitioners: 
Mr. Asaf F. Vardag, ASC with 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR (in both petitions) 
 
Respondents: 
 
N. R. (in both cases) 
 
Date of Hearing:  
26.01.2016 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
TARIQ PARVEZ, J.- Through this consolidated 
order we intend to dispose of Constitution Petition Nos. 72 of 
2015 titled (Justice Raja Jilal-ud-Din, Chief Judge Supreme 
Appellate Court, Gilgit-Baltistan) and Constitution Petition 
Nos. 73 of 2015 titled (Justice Muzaffar Ali, Judge, Supreme 
Appellate Court, Gilgit). The two petitions have been filed by 
C. P. Nos.72 & 73 of 2015 
2 
the two Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-
Baltistan with the intent to seek indulgence of this Court by 
exercising jurisdiction vested in it under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.  
2. 
 
Concise facts relevant for the decision of these two 
petitions on merits but for providing of background on which 
these petitions have been instituted are that the two Hon’ble 
Petitioners were elevated as Judges of the Supreme Appellate 
Court of Gilgit-Baltistan with effect from the date they entered 
the offices vide Notification of January 28, 2013. Justice Raja 
Jalal-ud-Din as per documents attached and recorded in the 
petitions is holding the office of Chief Justice whereas Justice 
Muzaffar Ali as Judge of the said Court.  
3. 
 
The learned counsel appearing for the two 
petitioners referred to Article 60(8) of the Gilgit-Baltistan 
(Empowerment and Self-Governance Order, 2009) (hereinafter 
referred to as the “Order”). He submits that under Clause (8) 
of the Article the Chief Judge and Judges of the Supreme 
Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan shall be appointed for a 
term not exceeding three years and may be appointed for 
such further term as the Government of Pakistan may 
determine. He further submits that such fixation of tenure as 
a Chief Judge and the Judge is contrary to provision of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and thus 
C. P. Nos.72 & 73 of 2015 
3 
ultravires. He argued that the tenure fixed for the office of 
Chief Judge and Judge of the Supreme Appellate Court 
adversely affect the independence of the judiciary which is the 
fundamental right of each citizen of the State to have the 
cover and protection of an independent judiciary whereas if a 
Judge of the Superior Court is appointed on tenure basis and 
on expiry of the tenure his appointment is at the discretion of 
the Government for further extension of term, shall militate 
against the concept of independence of judiciary which goes 
to the very route of the administration of justice.  
4. 
 
The learned counsel went on to argue that it is 
within the domain of this Court to be watchful regarding 
rights of all citizens. He has referred to notification dated 
13.09.1981 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Kashmir 
Affairs and Northern Affairs Division whereby the Citizenship 
Act, 1951 has been enforced and adopted within the Northern 
Areas as such the people living in Northern Areas are entitled 
to all and same protection of the fundamental rights 
guaranteed in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan as any other citizen living within Pakistan. He 
submits that the Hon’ble Chief Judge of the Supreme 
Appellate Court and a Judge of the said Court are having 
similar jurisdiction in their respective territorial limits as the 
Hon’ble Judges of this Court. He has also referred to Article 
C. P. Nos.72 & 73 of 2015 
4 
179 of the Constitution where-under a Judge of the Supreme 
Court of Pakistan shall hold office until he attains the age of 
65 
years. 
He 
further 
argued 
that 
the 
petitioner 
in 
Constitution Petition No. 73 of 2015 will retire on completion 
of his term of three years when he will not be even 62 years of 
age and that the two petitioners would be at the mercy and 
discretion of the Government of Pakistan which may 
determine for their appointment for further term. The crux of 
his submission is that the service tenure of the Chief Justice 
and Judges of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Balistan 
shall be brought at par with that of the Judges of the 
Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Chief Judge and Judge of 
the Azad Jammu & Kashmir. 
5. 
 
We have all and every respect for the hon’ble two 
petitioners who are Chief Judge and Judge of the Supreme 
Appellate Court of Gilgit-Balistan and in that we have 
refrained ourselves not to make any observation regarding 
merits or demerits of the case to avoid any aspersion on their 
person. 
6. 
 
We posed a question to the learned counsel 
regarding exercise of jurisdiction by this Court in terms of 
Article 184(3) of the Constitution which provides as under:- 
“(3) 
Without prejudice to the provisions of 
Article 199, the supreme Court shall, if it 
C. P. Nos.72 & 73 of 2015 
5 
considers that a question of public importance 
with reference to the enforcement of any of the 
Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of 
Part II is involved, have the power to make an 
order of the nature mentioned in the said Article.” 
7. 
 
The significant words and the language used has 
been considered by this Court in a number of judgments 
which shall be cited and referred in the following lines but for 
the present, emphasis is placed on “a question of public 
importance” and “with reference to the enforcement of any of 
the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II is 
involved”. 
8. 
 
In the instant case the two petitioners were 
incumbent of hon’ble office holders as detailed above have 
sought indulgence by this Court in respect of tenure of the 
Chief Judge and a Judge of the Supreme Appellate Court as 
envisaged and fixed under Article 60 Sub Article (8) of the 
Order. To us the issue relates to the personal rights of the two 
petitioners in respect of office they are holding at present. The 
petitioners have sought to be treated in similar way as Judges 
of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in terms of Article 179 of 
the Constitution or as the Judge of the Supreme Court of 
Azad Jammu & Kashmir.  
C. P. Nos.72 & 73 of 2015 
6 
9. 
 
The Judges of this Court including the Hon’ble 
Chief Justice of Pakistan are appointed through a procedure 
now envisaged i.e. Article 175(a) of the Constitution whereas 
the mode of appointment of the Chief Judge and a Judge of 
the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan is provided 
under Article 60(5) of the Order where the powers of 
appointment of the Chief Judge or a Judge of the Supreme 
Appellate Court are vested with the Chairman of the Council 
on the advice of the Governor Gilgit-Baltistan and other 
Judges shall be appointed by the chairman on the advice of 
Governor after seeking views of the Chief Judge. The plain 
reading of the above two Articles reveals that Article 175(9) of 
the Constitution and Article 60(5) of the Order are differently 
framed and constituted. A person who has been appointed as 
Chief Judge and Judge of the Supreme Appellate Court of 
Gilgit-Baltistan in terms of Sub-article (5) of Article 60, his 
term of office has to be governed under Sub-article (8) of 
Article 60. In no manner such appointment would attract the 
original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) because 
no question of public importance in the first instance and 
that too with reference to enforcement of any of the 
fundamental right conferred by Chapter I of Part II is 
involved. The condition precedent for invoking original 
jurisdiction under the above referred Article presupposes that 
C. P. Nos.72 & 73 of 2015 
7 
a question has arisen which is of public importance at large, 
affecting each and every individual/person and that too 
anyone or more than one fundamental right as given and 
protected under the Constitution which in any manner is 
violated but has caused any damage or created hurdle in 
enforcement of fundamental right of public at large.  
10. 
 
Regarding securing the independence of judiciary 
with reference to Hon’ble Judge may it be the Chief Judge or 
a Judge of the Supreme Appellate Court, the Order has itself 
provided protection by providing Article 66 regarding 
establishment of Supreme Judicial Council. Sub-article (3) of 
Article 66 provides that a Judge of the Supreme Appellate 
Court or of the Chief Court shall not to be removed from office 
except as provided by this Article i.e. special procedure has 
been prescribed there-under which is akin to that as given 
under Article 209 of the Constitution, thus, the security of the 
office of a serving Judge in Gilgit-Baltistan is at par with the 
Hon’ble Judge of the Superior Courts in Pakistan. 
11. 
 
This Court has been always very careful while 
invoking 
its 
jurisdiction 
under 
Article 
184(3) 
of 
the 
Constitution both ways i.e. efforts are made to exercise its 
jurisdiction wherever it finds that a question of law of public 
importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the 
Fundamental Rights under the Constitution but also 
C. P. Nos.72 & 73 of 2015 
8 
remained careful not to exercise such jurisdiction where it 
finds that either the question involved is not a public 
importance or it has no reference to the enforcement of any of 
the Fundamental Rights.  
12. 
 
It was therefore that it was ruled by this court in 
“Al-Jehad Trust v President of Pakistan (PLD 2000 SC 84)” 
that “If the petitioner succeeds in establishing breach of any 
of the Fundamental Rights involving a question of “public 
importance”, he is entitled to the appropriate relief.” In case 
reported as “Anwar Aziz v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 
SC 549)”  it was held that “cases must be such as give rise to 
questions affecting the legal rights or liabilities of the public 
or the community at large, even though the individual, who 
was the subject-matter of the case, might be of no particular 
consequence.”,. Rule was reframed in “Al-Jehad Trust v 
Lahore High Court (2011 SCMR 1688)” as follow:- 
“A bare perusal of Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution would reveal that it has been 
couched in a very simple and plain language, 
thus, 
it 
hardly 
needs 
any 
scholarly 
interpretation. The jurisdiction as conferred 
upon Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of 
the constitution can be exercised only where 
a 
question 
of 
public 
importance 
with 
reference to the enforcement of any of the 
fundamental rights is involved, meaning 
C. P. Nos.72 & 73 of 2015 
9 
thereby 
that 
the 
question 
of 
public 
importance is sine qua non for exercise of 
jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution.”   
13. 
 
Conscious of the special jurisdiction and of the 
fact that a case may not brought before this court for 
invoking its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) it was 
ruled in Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri v Federation of 
Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 413) that “Burden of proof was upon 
the petitioner to demonstrate as to which of his Fundamental 
Rights had been infringed upon but he failed to point out an 
infraction of any of his Fundamental Rights”. It was also 
concluded by a larger Bench of this Court in Abdul Wahab v 
HBL (2013 SCMR 1383) that “For the purpose of qualifying 
the test of “question of public importance”, the issue involved 
in a matter before the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of 
the Constitution must belong and should concern the public 
at large, the State or the nation…if the proposition/matter 
involved the alleged violation of the Fundamental rights of an 
individual or a group of individuals, how so large it might be, 
but had no concern and effect on the public, then it could not 
be termed as “question of public importance.” 
14. 
 
Considering the case law given above and very 
brief facts regarding the appointment of the two hon’ble 
C. P. Nos.72 & 73 of 2015 
10 
petitioners we find that the cause of grievance if any cannot 
be specifically highlighted and brought into the purview of 
anyone of the fundamental rights of any of the petitioner and 
even if so is not a question of public importance because it 
will be touching upon as to terms of office of the two hon’ble 
individuals holding prestigious offices under the Order. We, 
thus, find no force in these petitions for invoking our 
jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The same are, therefore, 
dismissed.  
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
January 26, 2016 
Shirazi/* 
 
 
 
“NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING”