Federal political system resolve the problem of premature dissolutions of government in

5.3.2 Pakistan 
The power of the judiciary is not greatly different from that of the USA, its main role 
is to interpret the constitution and federal laws.
385
As discussed earlier at 3.4, 
Virk
386
and de Smith
387
separately argued that Pakistan's federal judiciary played 
an important role in the country's political instability by interpreting the laws so as 
to favour usurpers of power such as military chiefs by ratifying their 
unconstitutional actions ex post facto. As discussed in Chapter, 4, the researcher’s 
finding is to the contrary, that in the majority of the cases,
388
the judges did not in 
fact have scope to act otherwise than they did. First, they were bound by the 
parameters of the legislation they were required to interpret. Second, they were 
bound by precedent in the shape of the initial Tamizuddin case.
Pakistan's federal court succeeded its British Indian predecessor, the Federal Court 
of India and subsequently established the Supreme Court in 1956. It has retained 
its name ever since.
389
Pakistan's constitution defines the composition, jurisdiction, powers and functions 
of the Court.
390
Like the USA, Pakistan's Supreme Court also exercises original, 
383
Peter Radan, 'An Indestructible Union... of Indestructible States: The Supreme Court of the 
United States and Secession' (2006) 10 Legal History 187, 188. 
384
LT Mohs, 'Alaska's Initiative Process: The Benefits of Advance Oversight and a Recommendation 
for Change' (2014) 31(2) Alaska Law Review 295. 
385
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Part VII. 
386
Muhammad Nasrullah Virk, 'Doctrine of Necessity-Application in Pakistan- Cases of 
Immense Importance- A Critical Review' (2012) 2(2) International J. Soc. Sci. & Education, 82. 
387
Stanley A. De Smith, Constitutional and Administrative Law (Penguin 1986) 80. 
388
Such as the Maulvi Tamizuddin case, the Nusrat Bhutto case and the Musharraf case. 
389
Supreme Court of Pakistan. 'History' (2017) 
<
http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/page.asp?id=113
> accessed on 28 November 2018 
390
The Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Article 176 - 191 

---

94 
appellate and review jurisdiction.
391
The constitution of Pakistan provides for the 
independence of the judiciary.
392
Nevertheless, the constitution assigns the 
Supreme Court the responsibility of maintaining harmony and balance between the 
legislature, executive and judiciary.
393
In theory, the Supreme Court is required to 
preserve, protect and defend the constitution.
394
As described in Chapter 4, Pakistan has undergone several episodes of martial law, 
where the constitutions were either abrogated or held in abeyance. These extra-
constitutional acts were challenged in the courts. The analysis of those cases in 4.3 
revealed patterns of how the courts approached those cases by invoking necessity 
and how they impacted significantly on the development of the political system in 
Pakistan so that the first occasion on which a parliamentary term was completed 
was in 2008.
395
As also described in Chapter 4, the implementation of the doctrine of necessity was 
innovated by Pakistan's judiciary and has played an important role as several 
dissolutions of governments have been associated with this doctrine.
By contrast, the US Supreme Court did not need a legal justification to substantiate 
its action in its decision of Texas v White, because it was in its original jurisdiction 
rather than trying to justify a previous decision by an executive. It is argued, the 
US Supreme Court has never had to ratify an action taken by the executive or 
legislature in the name of necessity since it is completely independent of the other 
branches by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Due to the application of checks and balances in the US political system, people in 
power cannot necessarily take decisions motivated by their own self-interest and 
even if they take, they are highly unlikely to implement. However, it is possible, for 
the president to make an executive order which can be brought to the Supreme 
Court to check its constitutionality. For example, most recently the constitutionality 
391
ibid. 
392
ibid. 
393
ibid, Articles 175 – 212. 
394
ibid, 
395
Fayyaz Hussain and Abdul Khan, 'Role of the Supreme Court in the Constitutional and Political 
Development of Pakistan: History and Prospects' (2012) 5(2) Journal of Politics and Law 82 85 

---

95 
of President Obama's Affordable Care in 2014 and President Trump's Muslim Travel 
Ban in 2017,
396
were checked and reviewed by the Supreme Court. 
In the constitutional history of Pakistan as discussed in Chapter 4, people in power 
such as prime ministers, presidents and military chiefs have considered their self-
interests. Briefly, as described in 4.3.3, Bhutto in the initial 1973 Constitution 
assigned all powers to the Prime Minister (i.e. himself) leaving only a ceremonial role 
for the President. General Zia, through the 8th Amendment, shifted all the powers 
to the President (i.e. himself). Sharif had to repeal the 8th Amendment through the 
13th Amendment to revert all powers to the Prime Minister (i.e. himself) and General 
Musharraf, through the 18th amendment, restored the 8th amendment so shifting 
powers back to the president (i.e. himself).
The Supreme Count technically cannot nullify these amendments since they are 
passed by the legislature following the defined constitutional procedure. There is no 
issue about who exercises the power: the president or the Prime Minister. The 
question of why the power keeps shifting from one office to another raises issues of 
self-interest. On this basis, it would have been appropriate for the Supreme Court 
to put an end to this practice by nullifying those amendments relating to power 
shifts. The Supreme Court's invariable silence on the matter has raised issues of 
impartiality and independence. 
Important factors promoting the integrity, impartiality and independence of the US 
Supreme Court judiciary is that they hold lifetime appointments and their 
nominations are approved by a popularly elected house. Whereas, in the case of 
Pakistan, judges are appointed by a bureaucratic promotion system and retire at 
the age of 65. It is argued that, in the case of Pakistan, without sureties of tenure, 
the judiciary lacks the security of position required for independent, bold, brave and 
impartial decisions. 
The functioning of the Supreme Court and the tenure of judges may not be directly 
related to the political system since these can be reformed by any political system, 
however, it is the separation (of powers) element that is paramount and is one of 
the key factors selected for the Democratic Federal Political System. 
396
Jeffrey Crouch, Mark J Rozell. and Mitchel A. Sollenberger ‘The Law: The Unitary Executive 
Theory and President Donald J. Trump’ (2017) 47 Presidential Studies Quarterly 561, 561. 

---

96