NRO,s Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Original Jurisdiction)
Present
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.
Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal
Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday
Mr. Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan
Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani
Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk
Mr. Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Ch. Ijaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Muhammad Sair Ali
Mr. Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui
Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali
Mr. Justice Khilji Arif Hussain
Mr. Justice Rahmat Hussain Jafferi
Mr. Justice Tariq Parvez
Mr. Justice Ghulam Rabbani
CONSTITUTION PETITION NOS. 76 TO 80 OF 2007 & 59/2009,
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1094 OF 2009
(On appeal from the order dated 15.1.2009 passed
by High Court of Sindh at Karachi in
Const.P.No.355 of 2008)
AND
HRC NOS.14328-P TO 14331-P & 15082-P OF 2009
Dr. Mobashir Hassan (Const.P.76/07)
Roedad Khan (Const. P.77/07)
Qazi Hussain Ahmad (Const.P.78/07)
Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif (Const.P.79/07)
Muhammad Tariq Asad (Const.P.80/07)
Syed Feroz Shah Gillani (Const.P.59/09)
Fazal Ahmad Jat (C.A.1094/09)
Shaukat Ali (H.R.C.14328-P/09)
Doraiz (H.R.C.14329-P/09)
Zulqar nain Shahzad (H.R.C.14330-P/09)
Abid Hussain (H.R.C.14331-P/09)
Manzoor Ahmad (H.R.C.15082-P/09)
… … … Petitioners.
Versus
Federation of Pakistan, etc.
… … … Respondents.

Dates of hearing : 07th -10th & 14th - 16th December, 2009.
O R D E R
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ. – The above titled
Constitution Petitions have been filed under Article 184(3) of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan [hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Constitution’] challenging the constitutionality of the National
Reconciliation Ordinance (No.LX) 2007 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the
NRO’], while HR cases and Civil Appeal, by leave of the Court, have been
filed by the applicants/appellant for extension of benefit of the NRO to
them.

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
2. Succinctly stating the facts, giving rise to instant proceedings, are that
on 5th October, 2007, the President of Pakistan, in purported exercise of
powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 89 of the Constitution, issued the
NRO, whereby, certain amendments have been made in the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898, the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and the
National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 [hereinafter referred to as “the
NAB Ordinance”]. By means of Section 2 of the NRO, Section 494 of
Cr.P.C. has been amended. Likewise, vide Section 3 of the NRO, Section
39 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 has been amended.
Similarly, Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the NRO amended Sections 18, 24 and 31A
of the NAB Ordinance, respectively, whereas by means of Section 7 of the
NRO, Section 33F has been inserted in the NAB Ordinance.
3. The NRO came under challenge, as stated above, before this Court,
through listed petitions. These petitions came up for hearing before the
Court on 12th October, 2007 when after hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the Court proceeded to issue notices to the respondents as well
as to Attorney General for Pakistan, for a date in office after three weeks,
while making the following observation:-
“however, we are inclined to observe in unambiguous terms that
any benefit drawn or intended to be drawn by any of the public
office holder shall be subject to the decision of the listed petitions
and the beneficiary would not be entitled to claim any protection of
the concluded action under Sections 6 and 7 of the impugned
Ordinance, under any principle of law, if this Court conclude that
the impugned Ordinance and particularly its these provisions are
ultra vires the Constitution”.
3
rd
4. Pending decision of these petitions, on November, 2007,
emergency was proclaimed in the country by the then President of Pakistan
and also the Chief of Army Staff and under the garb of Provisional
Constitution Order, 2007, Provisional Constitution (Amendment) Order,

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
2007 was issued, whereby, Article 270AAA was inserted in the
Constitution, which provided protection to all the laws including the
Ordinances in force on the day on which the Proclamation of Emergency of
3
rd
3
November 2007 was revoked. As a result of above constitutional
amendment, the apparent interest was that the NRO should attain
permanence. The Proclamation of Emergency as well as other extraconstitutional
instruments were challenged before this Court in the case of
Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan v. General Pervez Musharraf (PLD
2008 SC 178), when the Court declared the Proclamation of Emergency of
rd November, 2007, the Provisional Constitution Order, 2007, Provisional
Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007, the Oath of Office (Judges) Order,
2007 and the President’s Order No.5 of 2007, to be validly enacted.
However, this Court, vide its judgment dated 31st July 2009, in the case of
Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD
2009 SC 879) declared all the above five instruments to be unconstitutional,
illegal and void ab initio, as a result whereof Article 270AAA stood deleted
from the Constitution. Consequently, the NRO, as well as 37 other
Ordinances, which were meant to be protected, were shorn of the
permanency purportedly provided under Article 270AAA of the
Constitution and sanctified by the judgment passed in Tikka Iqbal
Muhammad Khan’s case (ibid). However, through the same judgment,
this Court, while supporting the doctrine of trichotomy of powers, as
envisaged in the scheme of the Constitution and to prevent any disruption,
enabled the Parliament to reconsider and, if thought fit, to enact, all the 37
Ordinances including the NRO, as Acts of Parliament. For this purpose the
life of the Ordinances stood extended for another 120 days (in case of
Federal Legislation) and 90 days (in case of Provincial Legislation). This

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
constituted an opportunity to the democratic Government at the Centre and
in the Provinces to legitimize the acts, actions, proceedings and orders,
initiated, taken or done, under those Ordinances, by placing them before the
Parliament, to make them enactments of Parliament, with retrospective
effect.
5. In pursuance of above judgment of 31st July, 2009, the NRO was
placed before the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on Law &
Justice, in its meeting held on 29th & 30th October, 2009. During the
discussions and deliberations, some of the members did not agree with the
decision of the Committee and left the proceedings in protest. However,
ultimately, on 2nd November, 2009 the Committee recommended that, after
the proposed amendments in the Bill for enacting the NRO, the same may
be passed by the Assembly. It is pertinent to mention here that despite
finalization of the report of the Standing Committee on NRO and before its
approval by the Chairperson of the Committee, the Minister concerned
withdrew the Bill under Rule 139 of Procedure & Conduct of Business in
the National Assembly, 2007. As a result, the NRO could not be passed by
the Parliament, within its extended life, therefore, it lapsed.
6. The petitioners in these Constitution Petitions have challenged the
vires of the NRO with the prayer that the same may be declared ultra vires
the Constitution, viod ab initio and of no legal effect. For convenience, the
prayer made in Constitution Petition No. 76 of 2007, filed by Dr. Mubashir
Hassan, is reproduced herein below:-
“1) Section 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the NRO may kindly be declared
to be void ab initio, of no legal effect and ultra vires the
Constitution, in particular Articles 25, 62, 63 and 175
thereof.

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
2) During the pendency of the instant petition, the respondents
may kindly be restraint from taking any action under or in
terms of the impugned Ordinance. The respondents may in
particular, be restrained from withdrawing any request for
mutual assistance and civil party, letters rogatory and like
issued to any Foreign Government, Court or other
Authority or Multilateral Organization.
3) Any other order deemed beneficial to the interest of Justice
and equity, may also kindly be made.
7
7. The instant petitions came up for hearing before this Bench on
th
December 2009, when Mr. Shah Khawar, Acting Attorney General for
Pakistan, placed on record a written statement on behalf of Federation of
Pakistan. Relevant paras therefrom are reproduced herein below:-
“2. That the Federation believes in supremacy of the
Constitution of 1973 and the Parliament.
3. That the National Reconciliation Ordinance, 2007 was
promulgated by the previous regime and I am under
instruction not to defend it.”
8. Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned Sr. ASC appearing on behalf of the
Federation of Pakistan, through Ministry of Law & Justice, filed Civil
Misc. Applications No. 4875 & 4898 of 2009 in Constitution Petitions
No. 76 & 77 of 2007. Contents of paras at page 11 & 12 of the said
applications are reproduced herein below:-
“If however, this Hon’ble Court wishes to rule upon wider issues
other than those raised in the petition and prayer the Federation requests
that fresh petitions be filed precisely stipulating these issues whereupon
the Federation will seek instructions on such new petition.
Pak Today is poised at the cross roads. One road leads to truly federal
democratic welfare sate with the balance of power between an
Independent judiciary, a duly elected Govt. representing the will of the
people a determined executive which is fighting the war against terrorism
and poverty. The second road leads to destabilization of the rule of law.
The people of Pakistan await your verdict.”

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
When we confronted the learned counsel with above contents of his
applications, he requested that the same may be treated as deleted. In this
behalf, he, however, filed a written statement, contents whereof are
reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
“STATEMENT
In Compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Pakistan to appraise the Hon’ble Court as to how the Federation
would interpret the wording “the second road leads to the
destabilization of the rule of law”, it is submitted as follows:-
(1) There is no mention of the wording ‘threat to democracy’
in the Statement.
(2) The Federation supports the Prosecution, in accordance
with law, of persons alleged to have done wrong doing. The
Federation does not oppose the Petitions seeking a
declaration that the National Reconciliation Ordinance
2007 (NRO) is illegal and unconstitutional.
(3) With regard to the “wider issues” mentioned in paragraph
No.9 these refer to those matters which were raised by the
Petitioner’s counsel during oral arguments and which find
no mention whatsoever in the Petitions. For example,
submissions made in respect of Articles 89 (in particular
the alleged concept of “implied Resolution”) and A.264 on
the effect of Repeal.
(4) The Federation’s view is that those who have benefited
under the NRO should be proceeded against under the
appropriate laws before the courts having the competent
jurisdiction. As factual matters need to be determined by
the trial courts.
(5) So far as my comments made yesterday before this Hon’ble
Court concerning the threat from GHQ, the CIA and the
contents of paragraph 9 of the CMA are concerned these
were my personal views and were not made on the
instructions of the Federation of Pakistan. As such I
withdraw the same, which should not be considered by this
Hon’ble Court in any manner whatsoever and the same
should be deleted and expunged from the record.
(6) It is emphasized that the Federation of Pakistan holds this
Hon’ble Court in the highest esteem and has the greatest
respect for the same.”
9. Learned Advocates General of Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and
Balochistan appeared and supported the stance taken by the Attorney
General for Pakistan.

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have
also gone through the material placed on record in support of their
submissions.
11. As it has been noted above that challenge to NRO was thrown by the
petitioners, no sooner same was promulgated by the President and
admission order dated 12th October, 2007, was passed, to examine
following questions:-
“2. Mr. Salman Akram Raja, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 76 of 2007 argued
that:--
a) Section 7 of the impugned Ordinance being selfexecutory
in nature amounts to legislative judgment,
which is impermissible intrusion into the exercise of
judicial powers of the State and thus falls foul of
Article 175 of the Constitution which envisages
separation and independence of the judiciary from
other organs of the State.
b) Legislative judgment cannot be enacted by the
Parliament. [ Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj
Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299)].
c) By promulgating Section 7 of the impugned
Ordinance, Article 63(1)(h) and 63(1)(l) of the
Constitution have been made ineffective, as regards
chosen category of people, therefore, it is ultra vires
the Constitution as it amounts to defeat the
constitutional mandates.
d) Impugned Ordinance exhorts about or indemnifies a
particular class of people i.e. public office holders
from proceedings, actions and orders passed by the
competent authorities, whereas no such powers are
available to the Parliament or, for that matter, to the
President of Pakistan under Federal or Concurrent
Legislative List. Further; the President is empowered
only to pardon an accused person, under Article 45 of
the Constitution, after passing of sentence by a Court
of law, whereas by means of impugned Ordinance, the
President has been empowered to indemnify or pardon
an accused, against whom proceedings are pending
before Investigating Agency or a Court of law or in
appeal by giving a blanket cover.
e) The impugned Ordinance violates the provisions of
Article 25 of the Constitution because it is not based
on intelligible differentia, relatable to lawful objects,
therefore, deserves to be struck down.
f) The impugned Ordinance is against the public policy

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
because it also provides protection against future
action in terms of its Section 7 and it had also
rendered Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution
ineffective.
g) Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 494 of Cr.P.C.
added by means of impugned Ordinance are contrary
to provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 494 of
Cr.P.C. where it has been provided that cases can only
be withdrawn with the consent of the Court, whereas,
in newly added Sub-Sections, powers of the “Court ”
have been conferred upon the Review Boards of the
Executive Bodies, therefore, these Sub-sections are
also contrary to Article 175 of the Constitution.
and
No criteria has been laid down as to why the cases
1st
falling between the day of January 1986 to
12th day of October 1999 have been covered under
these provisions, inasmuch as definition of political
victimization has not been provided in these Subsections,
as a result whereof it has been left at the
subjective consideration of Review Board/ Executive
Bodies to determine the same. Thus such provisions
cannot exist in any manner.
h) The impugned Ordinance has been promulgated in
colorable exercise of Legislative powers and its
various provisions have created discrimination among
ordinary and classified accused, therefore, all these
provisions tantamount to malice in law.
i) The provisions of impugned Ordinance are so
overbroad that these have provided blanket cover to all
the holders of public offices, including chosen
representatives and ordinary employees, therefore, the
object of national reconciliation cannot be achieved by
allowing it to exist.
j) The provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the impugned
Ordinance are highly discriminatory in nature,
therefore, are liable to be struck down.
k) Section 6 of the impugned Ordinance is contrary to the
basic principles relating to annulment of judgments,
even if passed in absentia, in accordance with existing
law, according to which unless the basis for the
judgment, in favour of a party, is not removed, it could
not affect the rights of the parties, in whose favour the
same was passed but when the Legislature
promulgated the impugned Ordinance, in order to
remove the basis on which the judgment was founded,
such judgment shall have no bearing on the cases.
[Facto Belarus Tractor Ltd. v. Government of
Pakistan (PLD 2005 SC 605)]. Hence, provisions of
the impugned Ordinance as a whole are against the
concept of equality of Islamic Injunction, provided
under Article 2A of the Constitution, therefore, on this
score as well, deserves to be struck down being ultra

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
vires the Constitution.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, learned Sr. ASC for
petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 77 of 2007, while adopting
the above arguments, added that :i)
The impugned Ordinance is purpose specific and
period specific, therefore, violates Article 25 of the
Constitution.
4. Dr. Farooq Hassan, Sr. ASC appearing in Constitution
Petition No. 78 of 2007 on behalf of petitioner, while adopted the
arguments raised by Mr. Suleman Ahmed Raja, ASC contended
that:-
i) The impugned Ordinance is contradictory to and
violative of the United Nation’s Convention Against
Corruption, enacted in 2005 and ratified by Pakistan
on 31st of August 2007.
ii) Under the Constitution, no indemnity or amnesty can
at all be given to any one, except granting pardon in
terms of Article 45 of the Constitution.
iii) Sections 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the impugned Ordinance are
violative of the doctrine of trichotomy of powers.
iv) The impugned Ordinance has in fact changed the basic
structure of the Constitution.
v) The impugned Ordinance has also violated the
principles of political justice and fundamental rights
because it allows plundering of national wealth and to
get away with it. More so, it tried to condone
dishonesty of magnitude which is unconscientious and
shocking to the conscience of mankind.
5. Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR appeared on behalf of Mr.
Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC in Constitution Petition
No.79 of 2007 and adopted the above arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
6. Mr. Tariq Asad, ASC appearing in Constitution Petition
No. 80 of 2007 also adopted the above arguments, while adding
that:-
a) The impugned Ordinance has been promulgated on the
basis of personal satisfaction of the President of
Pakistan but for extraneous reasons and to provide
indemnity/immunity to the public office holders,
therefore, is liable to be struck down.

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
12. Subsequent thereto cases remained pending except when their
hearing was fixed on 27th February, 2008 and order dated 12th October,
2007, was vacated in following terms : -
“3. These Constitution Petitions are adjourned to a date in
office due to indisposition of the learned counsel for the
petitioners. Meanwhile, in view of the rule laid down in the case of
Federation of Pakistan vs. Aitzaz Ahsan (PLD 1989 SC 61), the
observations made by this Court in Para 8 of the order dated
12.10.2007 in Constitution Petitions No.76-80 of 2007 to the effect
that “however, we are inclined to observe in unambiguous terms
that any benefit drawn or intended to be drawn by any of the
public office holder shall be subject to the decision of the listed
petitions and the beneficiary would not be entitled to claim any
protection of the concluded action under Sections 6 and 7 of the
impugned Ordinance, under any principle of law, if this Court
conclude that the impugned Ordinance and particularly its these
provisions are ultra vires the Constitution” are deleted.
Resultantly, the Ordinance shall hold the field and shall have its
normal operation. The Courts and authorities concerned shall
proceed further expeditiously in the light of the provisions of the
Ordinance without being influenced by the pendency of these
petitions.”
13. As it has been noted above that while deciding the case of Sindh
High Court Bar Association (ibid), all the Ordinances which were not laid
before the Parliament, on account of insertion of Article 270AAA in the
Constitution, were shorn of permanency, therefore, the Parliament was
asked to examine all such Ordinances within a period of 120 and 90 days,
as the case may be, commencing from 31st July, 2009, when a 14 Member
Bench announced judgment. The period so assigned by the Court expired
on 28th November, 2009 but the NRO was taken back from the Parliament,
leaving for this Court to examine its constitutionality in the cases listed
above. It is a cardinal principle of jurisprudence that courts are not required
to give decisions of cases in vacuum rather it has to consider facts as well,

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
giving a cause to a person to approach Courts. The NRO gave benefits to a
class of people, whose identification is not difficult to ascertain, namely
accused persons, involved in criminal and corruption cases, during the
period commencing from 1st January, 1986 to 12th October, 1999 and this
classification has created a divide amongst ordinary citizens of Pakistan and
a class of alleged criminals who statedly have committed crimes of murder,
dacoity, rape, looting/plundering of money/resources of this nation.
Therefore, prima facie, to understand the nature of such beneficiaries,
Federal Government, Provincial Governments and the NAB were asked to
provide details in this behalf. In response to such query the Government of
Sindh through its Advocate General filed a large list of such like accused,
who being charged for the cases of criminal nature, benefited from the
NRO, which included heinous and minor crimes, as well. As far as the
remaining Governments and the Federating Units are concerned, they
categorically denied extension of benefits of the NRO to even a single
accused in their respective jurisdictions. However, NAB has submitted a
list containing names of 248 persons, who benefited from the NRO within
and outside the country. A cursory perusal of this list suggests that barring
the cases inside the country, huge benefit has been availed by some of the
persons in the cases pending against them outside the country. At this stage
it is to be noted that application of the NRO, beyond the territories of the
country, is a question which requires consideration on jurisdictional plane
of this Court as well. NAB has also provided a list of the persons, who were
convicted in absentia under Section 31A of the NAB Ordinance.
14. In depth examination of the NRO suggests that it has not been
promulgated to provide reconciliation on national basis as this nation has
seen reconciliation in 1973, when a Constituent Assembly gave the

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
Constitution of 1973 to the nation, guaranteeing their fundamental rights,
on the basis of equality and brotherhood, as a result whereof, the nation had
proved its unity, whenever it faced a challenge to its sovereignty and
existence. The representation of the people, in subsequent Legislative
Assemblies, has upheld the provi sions of 1973 Constitution, except for few
occasions when they have made amendments under peculiar circumstances.
However, salient features of the Constitution i.e. Independence of
Judiciary, Federalism, Parliamentary form of Government blended with
Islamic provisions, now have become integral part of the Constitution and
no change in the basic features of the Constitution, is possible through
amendment as it would be against the national reconciliation, evident in the
promulgation of the Constitution of 1973, by a Legislative Assembly.
Therefore, promulgation of the NRO seems to be against the national
interest and its preamble is contrary to the substance embodied therein.
Thus, it violates various provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, by
means of instant short order, reasons of which shall be recorded later, we
hold as follows:-
(i) that the NRO is declared to be an instrument void ab initio being ultra
vires and violative of various constitutional provisions including
Article Nos. 4, 8, 25, 62(f), 63(i)(p), 89, 175 and 227 of the
Constitution;
(ii) that as a consequence of the said declaration, all steps taken, actions
suffered, and all orders passed by whatever authority, any orders
passed by the courts of law including the orders of discharge and
acquittals recorded in favour of the accused persons, are also declared
never to have existed in the eyes of law and resultantly of no legal
effect;

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
(iii) that all cases in which the accused persons were either discharged or
acquitted under Section 2 of the NRO or where proceedings pending
against the holders of public office had got terminated in view of
Section 7 thereof, a list of which cases has been furnished to this Court
and any other such cases/proceedings which may not have been
brought to the notice of this Court, shall stand revived and relegated to
the status of pre-5th of October, 2007 position;
(iv) that all the concerned courts including the trial, the appellate and the
revisional courts are ordered to summon the persons accused in such
cases and then to proceed in the respective matters in accordance with
law from the stage from where such proceedings had been brought to
an end in pursuance of the above provisions of the NRO;
(v) that the Federal Government, all the Provincial Governments and all
relevant and competent authorities including the Prosecutor General of
NAB, the Special Prosecutors in various Accountability Courts, the
Prosecutors General in the four Provinces and other officers or
officials involved in the prosecution of criminal offenders are directed
to offer every possible assistance required by the competent courts in
the said connection;
(vi) that similarly all cases which were under investigation or pending
enquiries and which had either been withdrawn or where the
investigations or enquiries had been terminated on account of the NRO
shall also stand revived and the relevant and competent authorities
shall proceed in the said matters in accordance with law;
(vii) that it may be clarified that any judgment, conviction or sentence
recorded under section 31-A of the NAB Ordinance shall hold the field
subject to law and since the NRO stands declared as void ab initio,
therefore, any benefit derived by any person in pursuance of Section 6
thereof is also declared never to have legally accrued to any such
person and consequently of no legal effect;

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
(viii) that since in view of the provisions of Article 100(3) of the
Constitution, the Attorney General for Pakistan could not have
suffered any act not assigned to him by the Federal Government or not
authorized by the said Government and since no order or authority had
been shown to us under which the then learned Attorney General
namely Malik Muhammad Qayyum had been authorized to address
communications to various authorities/courts in foreign countries
including Switzerland, therefore, such communications addressed by
him withdrawing the requests for Mutual Legal Assistance or
abandoning the status of a Civil Party in such proceedings abroad or
which had culminated in the termination of proceedings before the
competent fora in Switzerland or other countries or in abandonment of
the claim of the Government of Pakistan to huge amounts of allegedly
laundered moneys, are declared to be unauthorized, unconstitutional
and illegal acts of the said Malik Muhammad Qayyum;
(ix) that since the NRO stands declared void ab initio, therefore, any
actions taken or suffered under the said law are also non est in law and
since the communications addressed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum to
various foreign fora/authorities/courts withdrawing the requests earlier
made by the Government of Pakistan for Mutual Legal Assistance;
surrendering the status of Civil Party; abandoning the claims to the
allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including
Switzerland, have also been declared by us to be unauthorized and
illegal communications and consequently of no legal effect, therefore,
it is declared that the initial requests for Mutual Legal Assistance;
securing the status of Civil Party and the claims lodged to the allegedly
laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland are
declared never to have been withdrawn. Therefore the Federal
Government and other concerned authorities are ordered to take
immediate steps to seek revival of the said requests, claims and status;

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
(x) that in view of the above noticed conduct of Malik Muhammad
Qayyum, the then learned Attorney General for Pakistan in addressing
unauthorized communications which had resulted in unlawful
abandonment of claims of the Government of Pakistan, inter alia, to
huge amounts of the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign
countries including Switzerland, the Federal Government and all other
competent authorities are directed to proceed against the said Malik
Muhammad Qayyum in accordance with law in the said connection;
(xi) that we place on record our displeasure about the conduct and lack of
proper and honest assistance and cooperation on the part of the
Chairman of the NAB, the Prosecutor General of the NAB and of the
Additional Prosecutor General of the NAB, namely, Mr. Abdul Baseer
Qureshi in this case. Consequently, it is not possible for us to trust
them with proper and diligent pursuit of the cases falling within their
respective spheres of operation. It is therefore, suggested that the
Federal Government may make fresh appointments against the said
posts of persons possessing high degree of competence and
impeccable integrity in terms of Section 6 of the NAB Ordinance as
also in terms of the observations of this Court made in the case of
Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 607).
However, till such fresh appointments are so made, the present
incumbents may continue to discharge their obligations strictly in
accordance with law. They shall, however, transmit periodical reports
of the actions taken by them to the Monitoring Cell of this Court
which is being established through the succeeding parts of this
judgment;
(xii) that a Monitoring Cell shall be established in the Supreme Court of
Pakistan comprising of the Chief Justice of Pakistan or a Judge of the
Supreme Court to be nominated by him to monitor the progress and
the proceedings in the above noticed and other cases under the NAB
Ordinance. Likewise similar Monitoring Cells shall be set up in the
High Courts of all the Provinces comprising of the Chief Justice of the

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
respective Province or Judges of the concerned High Courts to be
nominated by them to monitor the progress and the proceedings in
cases in which the accused persons had been acquitted or discharged
under Section 2 of the NRO;
(xiii) that the Secretary of the Law Division, Government of Pakistan, is
directed to take immediate steps to increase the number of
Accountability Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of cases;
15. We place on record our deep sense of appreciation for the learned counsel
for the parties as also for the learned amicii curiae who have rendered invaluable
assistance to us in these matters.
The petitions stand allowed and disposed of by this short order in terms
noted above.
Islamabad
16.12.2009
Irshad /*
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

Koi thu Roye,,,,

Koi thu Roye leput ker Jawan Lasho se-----
Es leye thu Woh beton ku Maa detha hai.|

Who am I?

Dont know why I felt a something in this picure, don’t know who she is and what could be the story behind her situation. But one thing dears, next time when you say I love you mother, think and imagine about this lady and see as a society what we have gained so far…