The case of Nawaz Sharif vs. President of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 473) is a critical landmark in Pakistan’s constitutional history. It revolves around the contentious use of Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution, which allowed the President to dissolve the National Assembly. This case highlights the political and legal tensions between the Prime Minister and the President, and its judgment significantly influenced the balance of power between these two key offices.
For LAW GAT students, this case offers important insights into constitutional interpretation, the separation of powers, and the judiciary’s role in political disputes.
Introduction
This case emerged during a period of political instability in Pakistan. It was a direct consequence of the power struggle between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Ghulam Ishaq Khan in the early 1990s. The case tested the scope of the President’s powers under Article 58(2)(b) and established judicial precedents regarding the limits of presidential authority in a parliamentary democracy.
Historical and Political Context
The early 1990s were a volatile time in Pakistan’s politics. Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), became Prime Minister in 1990. However, his relationship with Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the President, deteriorated over time due to policy disagreements and personal animosity. The friction between the two leaders created a deadlock, leading to political instability.
This period also saw the Eighth Amendment, which significantly expanded presidential powers, including the authority to dismiss the Prime Minister and dissolve the National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b). The use of this power in 1993 by Ghulam Ishaq Khan triggered a constitutional crisis, prompting Nawaz Sharif to challenge the dismissal in the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case
In 1993, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan invoked Article 58(2)(b) to dissolve the National Assembly and dismiss Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, citing political instability and governance failure. Nawaz Sharif filed a constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, challenging the dismissal as unconstitutional and arguing that it violated the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Legal Issues Raised
The case raised several significant constitutional questions:
- Was the President’s dismissal of the Prime Minister and National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b) lawful?
- What are the limits of presidential power in a parliamentary democracy?
- Can the judiciary intervene in disputes between the Prime Minister and the President?
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Nawaz Sharif):
Challenge to Article 58(2)(b): Nawaz Sharif argued that the President’s action was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Parliamentary Supremacy: The Prime Minister, as the leader of the majority party in the National Assembly, was the rightful head of the government, and his dismissal undermined democratic principles.
Judicial Review: He asserted that the judiciary had the authority to review the President’s actions and restore the National Assembly.
Respondent (President of Pakistan):
Defence of Article 58(2)(b): Ghulam Ishaq Khan argued that his decision to dissolve the Assembly was lawful and necessary to prevent political instability.
Constitutional Authority: The Eighth Amendment explicitly granted the President discretionary powers to dissolve the Assembly.
State Stability: The dismissal was justified to maintain peace and governance amid the ongoing political crisis.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its judgment, sided with Nawaz Sharif, ruling that the dissolution of the National Assembly by the President was unconstitutional. Key points of the judgment included:
Limits of Article 58(2)(b):
The Court interpreted Article 58(2)(b) narrowly, emphasizing that the President could not dissolve the Assembly without demonstrable and justifiable reasons.
Mere political differences between the President and Prime Minister were not sufficient grounds for invoking this power.
Parliamentary Democracy:
The Court underscored the supremacy of Parliament in Pakistan’s constitutional framework and the need to protect democratic processes.
Judicial Oversight:
The judiciary has the authority to review the President’s decisions to ensure they conform to constitutional principles.
Restoration of Nawaz Sharif:
The Supreme Court reinstated Nawaz Sharif as Prime Minister and directed the revival of the National Assembly.
Legal Doctrines and Principles Discussed
Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy:
The judgment reinforced the primacy of the National Assembly in a parliamentary system. The President’s role was deemed largely ceremonial, with limited powers to interfere in the Assembly’s functioning.
Separation of Powers:
The decision highlighted the distinct roles of the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches, emphasizing that no single authority should dominate.
Judicial Review:
The Court’s intervention demonstrated its role as a guardian of the Constitution and an arbiter of disputes between state functionaries.
Aftermath and Political Consequences
Although Nawaz Sharif was reinstated as Prime Minister, the political crisis persisted. The lack of trust between him and Ghulam Ishaq Khan paralysed governance. Eventually, under pressure from the military and other political actors, both Nawaz Sharif and Ghulam Ishaq Khan resigned to resolve the crisis. This case marked a turning point in Pakistan’s constitutional history, exposing the flaws in the balance of power created by the Eighth Amendment.
In 1997, the Eighth Amendment was repealed through the Thirteenth Amendment, stripping the President of the power to dissolve the Assembly and restoring parliamentary supremacy.
Critical Analysis
Strengths of the Judgment:
- It upheld the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution.
- It set boundaries for the misuse of presidential powers.
- It reinforced the judiciary’s role in protecting the Constitution.
Weaknesses of the Judgment:
- The Court did not address the broader issue of the Eighth Amendment’s impact on Pakistan’s governance structure.
- The resolution of the crisis ultimately relied on political, rather than judicial, mechanisms.
Long-term Implications:
The case highlighted the fragility of Pakistan’s democratic institutions and the challenges of cohabitation between the Prime Minister and President.
Relevance for LAW GAT Exam
- Understand Article 58(2)(b) and its constitutional context.
- Analyze the role of the judiciary in balancing powers between the President and Prime Minister.
- Study the political and legal aftermath of the case to comprehend its long-term impact.
Examination Tips:
- Focus on the Court’s reasoning regarding Article 58(2)(b).
- Highlight the principles of parliamentary democracy and judicial review.
- Compare this case with other key cases, such as Benazir Bhutto vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416) and Asma Jilani’s case (PLD 1972 SC 139).
Conclusion
The Nawaz Sharif vs. President of Pakistan case underscores the tension between constitutional principles and political realities. It serves as a landmark judgment in affirming parliamentary supremacy and limiting presidential powers. For LAW GAT aspirants, this case is a cornerstone for understanding Pakistan’s constitutional development and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democracy.
Important Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)
What was the main issue in the case of Nawaz Sharif vs. President of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 473)?
A) Dissolution of the National Assembly
B) Imposition of Martial Law
C) Disqualification of Nawaz Sharif
D) Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments
Answer: A) Dissolution of the National Assembly
Who was the President of Pakistan at the time of this case?
A) Farooq Leghari
B) Ghulam Ishaq Khan
C) Rafiq Tarar
D) Pervez Musharraf
Answer: B) Ghulam Ishaq Khan
Under which Article of the Constitution did the President dissolve the National Assembly?
A) Article 58(2)(b)
B) Article 184(3)
C) Article 199
D) Article 245
Answer: A) Article 58(2)(b)
Which court decided the Nawaz Sharif vs. President of Pakistan case?
A) Lahore High Court
B) Islamabad High Court
C) Federal Shariat Court
D) Supreme Court of Pakistan
Answer: D) Supreme Court of Pakistan
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?
A) The dissolution was upheld as constitutional
B) The dissolution was declared illegal and unconstitutional
C) The court refused to hear the case
D) The court recommended fresh elections
Answer: B) The dissolution was declared illegal and unconstitutional
Who was the Chief Justice of Pakistan at the time of this case?
A) Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry
B) Justice Nasim Hassan Shah
C) Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui
D) Justice Asif Saeed Khosa
Answer: B) Justice Nasim Hassan Shah
What was the political outcome after the Supreme Court reinstated the National Assembly?
A) Nawaz Sharif completed his term
B) Both Nawaz Sharif and Ghulam Ishaq Khan resigned under a political agreement
C) A new Prime Minister was appointed
D) Fresh elections were immediately announced
Answer: B) Both Nawaz Sharif and Ghulam Ishaq Khan resigned under a political agreement
Which constitutional principle was reinforced by the Supreme Court’s judgment?
A) Doctrine of Necessity
B) Supremacy of the Judiciary over the Executive
C) Judicial restraint in political matters
D) Presidential supremacy in governance
Answer: B) Supremacy of the Judiciary over the Executive
How did the Supreme Court’s ruling affect the use of Article 58(2)(b) in later years?
A) It strengthened the President’s power to dissolve the Assembly
B) It led to the eventual removal of Article 58(2)(b) in 1997
C) It had no significant impact on future dissolutions
D) It led to military intervention
Answer: B) It led to the eventual removal of Article 58(2)(b) in 1997
What was a key legal argument used by Nawaz Sharif’s side in the case?
A) The President had unlimited power under Article 58(2)(b)
B) The dissolution violated democratic principles and lacked constitutional justification
C) The judiciary had no authority to review presidential actions
D) The case should have been decided by Parliament, not the judiciary
Answer: B) The dissolution violated democratic principles and lacked constitutional justification