Lawyers strike in protest against Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha’s arrests halt all trials, Islamabad High Court PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has upheld the government’s decision to ban the import of books from India and Israel, holding that the right to read is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions imposed by law, including those justified for foreign policy reasons.
The court also noted that the foreign policy of the federal government cannot be examined in a judicial review by any court and that its review or reconsideration is the sole prerogative of the executive branch.
“We have recognized the right to read as corollary to the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution, this right is not absolute but qualified. Article 9 itself expressly provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty “except in accordance with law”.
“In the instant case, the law has taken its course. The federal government has acted within its domain of executive authority by regulating trade,” said a 21-page judgment authored by Justice Aamer Farooq while upholding the Statutory Regulatory Orders (SROs) Nos. 927 and 928(I)/2019 issued under its constitutional and state authorities. foreign policy, national security and sovereign discretion.
Although the Lahore High Court had also upheld the validity of the SROs and declared them intra vires the Constitution and relevant statutory framework, it nevertheless issued certain directions to the federal government.
However, the director challenged these directions in the Supreme Court.
The FCC ruling noted that the executive authority of the federation rests with the federal government and is exercised by the prime minister and the cabinet in the name of the president.
“Under Article 97 of the Constitution, the Confederation is empowered to exercise executive authority in matters falling within the legislative competence of Parliament.
“In order to determine the extent of the executive power of the Federation, it is therefore necessary to examine the scope of the legislative powers of Parliament. At this stage, we note the justification relied upon by the petitioners for imposing the impugned ban, namely, the considerations of national security and foreign policy. We refrain from examining the nature of the relationship of Pakistan to the said countries or policy rationale,” the statement of reasons for adopting said. such countries or the policy.
The judgment further said that the courts have consistently held over the years that they should not interfere in matters of national security and foreign policy.
