The landmark case of Begum Nusrat Bhutto vs. Chief of Army Staff (PLD 1977 SC 657) is a pivotal moment in Pakistan’s constitutional history. This case examined the legal validity of the military takeover on July 5, 1977, by General Zia-ul-Haq and its implications for democracy and the Constitution. This article provides a detailed overview of the case to help law students understand its significance, particularly for the LAW GAT exam.
Introduction
In 1977, Pakistan experienced a military coup that ousted the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. This led Begum Nusrat Bhutto, his wife, to challenge the legality of the military’s actions in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The case is significant for its discussion on the doctrine of necessity and the role of the judiciary during political crises. The Supreme Court’s decision shaped the legal and political landscape of Pakistan for years to come.
Historical Context
The 1970s were marked by political turmoil in Pakistan. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) won the 1977 general elections amid allegations of widespread electoral fraud. The opposition, united under the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA), accused Bhutto’s government of rigging the elections, leading to nationwide protests. The political unrest culminated in a military coup by General Zia-ul-Haq on July 5, 1977, who imposed Martial Law, dissolved the assemblies and arrested Bhutto and other political leaders.
Facts of the Case
Begum Nusrat Bhutto filed a constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, seeking to:
- Challenge the legality of the Martial Law regime.
- Declare the arrests and detentions of political leaders as unlawful.
- Restore democratic governance and uphold fundamental rights.
The petition named the Chief of Army Staff (General Zia-ul-Haq) and the Federation of Pakistan as respondents, questioning the suspension of constitutional rights.
Legal Issues Raised
The case raised critical legal questions:
- Was the imposition of Martial Law constitutional?
- Could fundamental rights be suspended during a state of emergency?
- Did the military coup violate the basic structure of the Constitution?
- Should the judiciary validate an extra-constitutional action using the doctrine of necessity?
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Begum Nusrat Bhutto):
- Martial Law violated the Constitution of 1973.
- Arbitrary arrests and detention orders infringed on fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
- The military takeover undermined the sovereignty of democratic institutions.
Respondents (Chief of Army Staff and the Martial Law regime):
- The coup was necessary to prevent chaos and ensure the stability of the state.
- The actions taken were in response to a political crisis that rendered civilian governance untenable.
- The judiciary should recognize the de facto nature of the military regime for the sake of national interest.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Anwar-ul-Haq, delivered a judgment validating the military takeover. Key aspects of the ruling included:
Application of the Doctrine of Necessity:
- The Court invoked the doctrine of necessity to justify the coup.
- It ruled that the takeover was a “necessary evil” to save the state from collapse.
Recognition of the Military Regime:
- The Court acknowledged General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime as a de facto government.
- It held that extra-constitutional measures could be validated if taken in the larger interest of the country.
Conditions Imposed:
- The regime was required to adhere to its stated commitment to restore democracy.
- Martial Law authorities were directed to hold elections within 90 days and ensure constitutional governance.
Legal Doctrines and Principles Discussed
Doctrine of Necessity:
- First introduced in Pakistani jurisprudence in Dosso’s case (PLD 1958 SC 533), this doctrine allows validation of extra-constitutional actions under exceptional circumstances.
- In this case, the Court extended its application, arguably broadening the scope of judicial validation for military interventions.
Supremacy of the Constitution:
- While recognizing the military takeover, the Court emphasized the need to eventually restore constitutional rule.
Critical Analysis
The judgment has been widely debated for its implications on Pakistan’s democracy and judiciary:
Strengths:
- Addressed the immediate political crisis and provided a semblance of legal continuity.
- Imposed conditions on the military regime to restore democracy.
Weaknesses:
- Set a precedent for judicial validation of military coups, undermining constitutional supremacy.
- Failed to hold the regime accountable for delaying elections and extending Martial Law indefinitely.
Aftermath of the Judgment
- Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was tried for murder in a controversial trial and executed in 1979, deepening political divisions.
- General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime prolonged its rule, introducing significant constitutional amendments that altered Pakistan’s legal framework.
- The case remains a reference point in discussions on judicial independence and the limits of the doctrine of necessity.
Relevance for LAW GAT Exam
Law students must focus on:
- Understanding the doctrine of necessity and its application in this case.
- Examining the balance between judicial independence and political realities.
- Critically analyzing the role of the judiciary in constitutional crises.
Examination Tip
Highlight key judgments like Dosso’s case, Asma Jilani’s case, and Begum Nusrat Bhutto’s case to show the evolution of judicial responses to extra-constitutional actions.
Conclusion
The Begum Nusrat Bhutto vs. Chief of Army Staff case underscores the complex relationship between law, politics, and the judiciary in Pakistan. It serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of compromising constitutional principles for expediency. For aspiring lawyers and legal scholars, this case highlights the importance of safeguarding democracy and judicial independence in the face of political challenges.
Important Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)
In which year was the case of Begum Nusrat Bhutto vs. Chief of Army Staff decided?
A) 1975
B) 1977
C) 1979
D) 1981
Answer: B) 1977
Who was the petitioner in the case?
A) Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
B) Asma Jahangir
C) Benazir Bhutto
D) Begum Nusrat Bhutto
Answer: D) Begum Nusrat Bhutto
What was the primary legal issue in this case?
A) Violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution
B) Disqualification of a Prime Minister
C) Military court proceedings
D) Election rigging
Answer: A) Violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution
Which court heard the case?
A) Lahore High Court
B) Islamabad High Court
C) Supreme Court of Pakistan
D) Federal Shariat Court
Answer: C) Supreme Court of Pakistan
Who was the Chief Justice of Pakistan at the time of this case?
A) Justice Anwar ul Haq
B) Justice Hamood ur Rahman
C) Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry
D) Justice Saeed uz Zaman Siddiqui
Answer: A) Justice Anwar ul Haq
What was Begum Nusrat Bhutto challenging in her petition?
A) The dissolution of Parliament
B) The imposition of Martial Law
C) The detention of political leaders
D) The rigging of elections
Answer: C) The detention of political leaders
Under which constitutional article was the petition filed?
A) Article 184(3)
B) Article 199
C) Article 245
D) Article 270
Answer: A) Article 184(3)
What doctrine was used by the Supreme Court to validate the military takeover?
A) Doctrine of Basic Structure
B) Doctrine of Necessity
C) Doctrine of Proportionality
D) Doctrine of Political Question
Answer: B) Doctrine of Necessity
Who imposed martial law, which led to the filing of this case?
A) General Pervez Musharraf
B) General Ayub Khan
C) General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq
D) General Yahya Khan
Answer: C) General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq
What was the outcome of the case?
A) Martial law was declared unconstitutional
B) The Supreme Court upheld martial law
C) Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was released immediately
D) New elections were ordered
Answer: B) The Supreme Court upheld martial law