Home | Hon'ble Chief Justice | Hon'ble Judges | Registrar | News | Roster | Cause List | Leading Judgments | Contact Us



 Leading Judgments/Reports

Next Page   1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11


S.P.No & Parties

Matter Involved


Appeal Filed or not


1/I of 1990
Muhammad Siddique
  Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

 Section 20 of the Punjab  Pre- emption Act, 1913 has  been  challenged on the ground  of its  being repugnant to the  Injunctions of Islam.

 The Federal Shariat Court  held  that:
 Punjab Pre-emption Act,  1913 has  been repealed  and new law  namely the  Punjab Pre-emption  Ordinance 1990 has been  promulgated.The impugned  law  has becomes  infructuous therefore  this  petition was dismissed.



 Appeal not  filed.


2/I of 1990
Ghulam Sarwar etc.
Islamic Republic of Pakistan

 Section 31 of the N.W.F.P  Pre- emption Act, 1987 has been  challenged. According to the  petitioner, a fixation of a period  of Limitation as one year for  Institution of the suit was  against the spirit of Sharia.

 The Court observed that:
 Secretary Provincial Assembly  N.W.F.P stated in the Court that  he  has Instructed to the State to  fix a  period of 120 days for filing  suits in  the light of Islamic  Ideology  Council’s  recommendation and he  was  ready to amend the impugned  provision. The petitioner and his  counsel satisfied with this remarks  and the petition was disposed of  accordingly.



 Appeal not  filed.


R.P.No.3/I of 1990
Maqbool Ahmed Qureshi
 Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

 Review petition against the  judgment of this court, titled  Salahuddin and others Vs. State  in respect of Electoral system of  Pakistan. The petitioner has  requested to amend section 62,  63, 245 and 248 of the  Constitution of Pakistan.

 The Court held that:
 The Provisions of Constitution are  immune of examination. The  petition was dismissed.


 Appeal not  filed.


5/I of 1990
Mufti Iftikhar Uddin
Govt. of Pakistan

 The petitioner has challenged  Sections 8, 10, 14, 21 of the  Evacuee Trust Properties  (Management and Disposal) Act.  XIII of 1975 on the ground of its  being repugnant to the  Injunctions of Islam.

 The Court declared Sections  8,9,10, 14 and 21 as repugnant to  the Quran and Sunnah.
 (PLD 1992 SC- 188)


 Appeal not  filed.


6/L of 1990
Mr. Ismail Qureshi    
Govt. of the Punjab.

7/L of 1990
Rana M. Shabbir Ahmed
Govt. of the Punjab,

Rana M. Shabbir Ahmed
Govt. of the Punjab,

M. Idrees
Govt. of Punjab,

12/I of 1990
Ghulam Ahmed Awan
Punjab Govt.

Punjab Govt.

Ch. M. Saeed Cheema
Punjab Govt.

Mian Sher Alam
Punjab Govt.

 The petitioners have challenged  sections 2 (a) 6(2), 12, 20, 22,  24, 25, 27 (3,4) 29, 20, 23, 33,  35, 36 of the Punjab Pre-emption  Ord: V and XXVII of 1990 on the  ground of its being repugnant to  the Injunctions of Islam.

 The Federal Shariat Court declared  section 2(a) 6(2), 12, 13(3), 22, 29  and 35 (2) of the Punjab  Pre- emption Act, 1991 repugnant  to the Injunctions of Islam which  shall cease to be effective as on  31st December 1991 unless  amended and altered by the  Provincial Legislature to bring them  in conformity with the Injunctions  of Islam.
 (PLD 1991 FSC-80)




  Appeal   filed.


Abdullah Sani
Federation of Pakistan.

 The petitioner has challenged  sections 117 and 118 of the  Mohammedan Law on the  ground of its repugnancy to the  Injunctions of Islam. According to  the petitioner, section 117  provides that the bequest in  favour of relative is contradictory  to the Islamic Injunctions. Under  section 118 of the said law, a  Muslim cannot, by will dispose of  more than one third of his  estate, this limit is not prescribed  in the Holy Quran therefore,  violative to the Islamic  Injunctions.

 It was held that:
       The law of “will” undoubtedly  falls within the ambit of Muslim  Personal Law. In view of the  express bar on this Court to  examine Muslim Personal Law as  provided under Article 203-B (C) of  the Constitution, the petition was  dismissed for want of jurisdiction.



 Appeal filed.


Doctor Mahmoodur Rahman Faisal
Secretary of Law


 Regulation No.14 of the Pakistan  Insurance Corporation  Employees Provident Fund  Regulation, 1954, has been  challenged on the ground that in  view of verses of Sura Al-Baqara  No.188 and 275 it is repugnant  to the Injunctions of Islam.

 The Court held that:
        The Impugned regulation to  the extent that it relates to  interest was repugnant to the Holy  Quran and Sunnah and unless it is  brought in conformity with the  Injunctions of Islam by 30th June,  1992, it shall cease to be effective.
 (PLD 1992 FSC-530)




 Appeal filed.


28/I of 1990
Doctor Mahmood ur Rahman
Federation of Pakistan.

 Section 4 of the Court fee Act,  1870 has been challenged on  the ground of its being  repugnant to the Injunctions of  Islam.

 The Court declared Provisions of  sections 4, 6, 7 and 35 read with  Schedule I and II of the Court Fees  Act 1870, Sections 8 read with  schedule IV and V of the Punjab  Finance Act, No.XIV of 1973,  Punjab  Ord; 1981, Article 13 of  Schedule I,  as amended by Sindh  Finance Act  IV  of 1990, Sections 3  and 4 of  Baluchistan Finance  (Amendment)  Ord: 1981, the  relevant provisions  of N.W.F.P.  Finance Act, and any  other  provisions in the Central and  Provincial Statute relating to  charging fees on advalorem basis  or market value of subject matter,  as repugnant to the injunctions of  Islam.
 (PLD 1992 FSC P-195).



Shariat Petition Petitions and three, Shariat Suo Moto Notice cases,
Doctor Mahmood-ur-Rahman
Federation of Pakistan.

 Various provisions of the  following laws, regarding  Interest have been challenged,  on the ground of its being  repugnant to the Injunctions of  Islam:-
 1.  Interest Act 1839.
 II. The Govt. Saving Banks Act,      1973.
 III.The negotiable Instruments       Act, 1881.
 IV.The Land Acquisition Act,      1894.
 V. The Code of Civil Pro-edure,      1908.
 VI.  The Co-operative Societies        Act 1925.
 VII.The Co-operative Societies        Rules, 1972.
 VIII.The Insurance Act, 1938.
 IX.The State Bank of Pakistan      Act, 1956.
 X. The West Pakistan Money             Lenders Ordinance, 1960.
 XI. The West Pakistan Money        Lenders Rules, 1965.
 XII.The Punjab Money Lenders        Ordinance, 1960.
 XIII.The Sindh Money Lenders         Ordinance, 1960.
 XIV. The N.W.F.P. Money Lenders          Ordinance, 1960.
 XV.  The Baluchistan Money         Lenders Ord: 1960.
 XVI.The Agricultural Development         Bank of Pakistan Rules,         1961.
 XVII.The Banking Companies          Ord: 1963.
 XVIII.The Banking Companies           Rules, 1963.
 XIX. The Ban (National-isation)          (Payment of Compensation)          Rules, 1974.
 XX.   The Banking Companies          (Recovery of Loans)          Ordinance, 1979.

 The Federal Shariat Court while  accepting the petitions disposed  them of alongwith  S.S.M. No.2, 3  and 4/I of 1991 and held:-
 ‘A’ Riba is prohibited in Islam,  contention that banning of  Interest  will lead to a collapse of  International system has no merit.  In Pakistan, Mudariba and  Musharika system can be  Introduced. Riba is prohibited  because Riba is considered as  compensation for the repayment of  Loan-Since period is not valuable  property, therefore its return has  been declared un-lawful. Whether  it be money or any other thing.  Loan should be returned in same  kind and quantity and access over  and above would become Interest.
 ‘B’ Contention that it is Interest  doubled and redoubled only which  is prohibited, fails to take into  consideration other verses on  subject. Not only exorbitant or  excessive rate of Interest but a  small percentage of Interest is  also  prohibited.
 ‘C’ Riba forbidden in Quran and  Sunnah, includes Interest due on  loans taken or given for  commercial  and productive  purposes by the  banks and other  Financial  Institutions.
 ‘D’ Interest cannot be justified by  Maslaha or Ijtihad. The rule of  Muslaha or Ijtihad arises when  there is no direct text of the Holy  Quran and Sunnah. There are  several verses and traditions  prohibiting Interest.
 ‘E’ The Federation and four  Provincial Governments have been  instructed to bring such laws or  provisions thereof in conformity  with the Injunctions of Islam by  30th June 1992 the various  provisions of Laws discussed in  Judgment and declared repugnant  to the Injunctions of Islam will  cease to have effect as on Ist July  1992.
 (PLD 1992 FSC-1)

 Appeal filed  PLD 2000  SC 225  Review  petition was  also filed in  the  Supreme  court. While  disposing of  this petition,  the august  Supreme  Court  set- aside  the  above- cited  judgment as  well as the  judgment  delivered by  the Federal  Shariat  Court.


Ashfaq Ahmed and others
Govt. of Pakistan

S.Irtiza Hussain
Govt. of Sindh

Ch. Khan Muhammad
Govt. of Punjab.

 The petitioners have challenged  section 4 of West Pakistan urban  Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959  and Sections 8 & 9 of the Sindh  Rented Premises Ord: 1979  relating to fair fixation of rent  and section 13 of the West  Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction  Ordinance, 1959 and section  17(2)(vi) of Cantonment Rent  Restriction Act, 1963 on the  ground of their being repugnant  to the Injunctions of Islam.

 The Court declared the provisions  of sections 4 and 13 of the West  Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction  Ord: 1959 and sections 8, 9 and 15  of the Sindh Rented Premises  Ordinance 1979, as repugnant to  the Injunctions of Islam. The court  also observed that: These  provisions are in direct conflict with  the verses of the Holy Quran and  the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet  (S.A.W.S.)
 The petition challenging section  17(2)(vi) of Cantonment Rent  Restriction Act, 1963 was declared  to be misconceived and dismissed.
 (PLD 1992 FSc-286).

  Appeal filed.



Next Page   1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11






 Jurisdiction of the Court

Objectives & Functions

Chapter 3-A of 1973  Constitution

 Procedure Rules


Bench Registeries


Judicial Activity &  Statistics

Photo Gallery

Annual Report




© Copyrights 2012, Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan-All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer : The content available on this site are just for Information. Users are advised not to depend on the   information and use it for official purpose. Federal Shariat Court is not responsible for any damages arising in contract   from the use of the content of this site.