Church of Dworkinology

Vs
Federation of Pakistan

Facts of the Case:

On a Friday morning in May 2011, police was informed that Mr. Daud is distributing
leaflets on sheesham road.
It promoted the beliefs of particular religion. Among the core beliefs of Dworkinology
are that believers are encouraged to proselytize.
Mr. Daud was arrested and FIR was lodged under section 10 of the act. Mr.Daud filed
writ petition in the Lahore High Court under article 199 of the constitution for
quashment of FIR and for finding section 10 of prevention of litter act 2011 as
unconstitutional.

Maintainability of Writ Petition:

Does the Honorable court has the jurisdiction to entertain the issue in hand under
article 199?
It is humbly submitted in the honorable court; yes your honor honorable court has the
jurisdiction to entertain the issue in hand under article 199 which states as
Article 199 clause 2 states that
Subject to the constitution the right to move a High court for the enforcement of any
of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter-1 of Part-ii shall not be abridged

In the above said article there are two prerequisites to invoke the jurisdiction of the
honorable court; there must be the infringement of fundamental right and the
aggrieved party must itself come to the court for enforcement of fundamental right.
From this article it is quite clear that any person can move to a high court at any time
for the enforcement of Fundamental right. Writ to enforce fundamental rights is to
make an order giving such directions to any person, Authority or government as may be
appropriate for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights conferred by
chapter-1 of part-ii. This writ has been filed by the aggrieved person himself so High
court has the jurisdiction to hear the case. The Supreme Court, if it considers that a
question of public importance, with reference to the enforcement of any of the
Fundamental Rights ensured by the Constitution of Pakistan is involved, it has the power
to make any appropriate order for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Public
Importance means when society at large has been affected by some act or fundamental
right of large number of people has been violated. Then any person on behalf of the
others can file writ petition in Supreme Court, even a person who is not directly
aggrieved can file a writ petition.
But here in the present case there is no matter of public importance as an individual has
come to the court for the enforcement of his fundamental rights, if violation of
fundamental rights of any other person belonging to same sect has been done then he
would also have definitely come to the court for enforcement of his fundamental rights.
But no other person come to enforce his rights neither this writ petition has been filed
in representative character or on behalf of any sect.
There is a case law that will elaborate my stance i.e. Human Rights Commission of
Pakistan vs Government of Pakistan, 1998 CLC 1830it was held in this case that High
Court in ordinary words meant any High Court, if person performing functions took
action by infringing a fundamental right of a citizen, his right to move High court was
not abridged. If a citizen of Pakistan belonged to any province of Pakistan, was residing

in a different province, when his fundamental right was infringed. High court of that
province had jurisdiction to issue writ to that effect.
In this case this point has been clearly mentioned by the court that in case of violation
of any fundamental right, a person can file a writ petition in High court. So this writ
petition has rightly been filed in high court and from the precedent which I have
referred this point has become crystal clear that High court is competent to hear this
case as in the present case two fundamental rights have been infringed and aggrieved
person himself has file this writ petition.

Either Right to Freedom of Speech has been violated or not?

Constitution of Pakistan has recognized the right to Freedom of Speech as fundamental
right. Article 19 says that
Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall
be freedom of the press subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the
interest of Glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defense of Pakistan or any part
thereof, friendly relation with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in
relation to contempt of court, [commission of] or incitement to an offence.
Freedom of speech and freedom of press are fundamental personal rights and liberties
which are the corner stones of the Democratic institutions. Constitution of Pakistan has
not put any undue restrictions on the freedom of speech granted to the citizens of
Pakistan.
The word expression has a wider sense and includes every type of speech, writing,
figures, indications, any sign or mark, pamphlets etc. it can be political, social, economic
and religiousetc. The word speech has also been used in this article but here we are

concerned with the word expression, as in the present case petitioner was distributing
leaflets of which he is entitled to do according to the provisions of constitution.
But contrary to the provision of Constitution of Pakistan Section 10 of Prevention of
Litter act 2011 prevent citizen of Pakistan from exercising his right to freedom of
expression. As it says that
It is an offence for any person to distribute leaflets or other printed
material on public high ways in the designated area.
So this provision is in contradiction with article 19 of the constitution and is derogation
of it. Public high way is the place where you can have the opportunity to communicate
with the masses at large and can convey your message easily by printed material. In the
present case Mr. Daud was communicating by leaflets he was not disturbing any one
and the police arrested him just on the base of Section 10 of Prevention of litter act. The
main purpose behind establishment of this act was to prevent pollution it was not made
for violating the fundamental rights of any citizen. In the present case petitioner has not
pollute the environment.
Although right to freedom of speech is an absolute right yet some restrictions have
been imposed by the constitution.
No one can make a speech or can express any material by any mean which is
1. against the glory of Islam
2. against the integrity or security of Pakistan
3. That will have adverse effect on friendly relations with foreign states.
4. That can disturb the public order
5. that is against Decency or Morality

6. that is a Contempt of Court

7. That incite to commission of an offence.
Petitioner has not done any act which falls under any category as mentioned; I shall
elaborate my stance with the help of case law.
In Begum Zeb-un-Nisa Hamidullah vs Pakistan, PLD 1958 SC 35 an order was pass
prohibiting the publication of Mirror for six months under the provisions of security
of Pakistan, Act, 1952 which was challenged where upon it was held that no restriction
can be imposed on freedom of speech and expression except for the purposes
mentioned in the article. The provision of the act was in conflict with the fundamental
rights of citizen. So provisions of the Constitution will prevail instead of the provisions
of Security of Pakistan Act 1952.
There is another case law in this regard i.e. Khwaja Muhammad Sarwar vs the province
of West Pakistan, PLD 1964 Lahore 718The petitioner made an application to DC for
use of loud speaker which was objected by the police and s 144 Crpc had already been
imposed. Appeal by the Commissioner was also rejected after which a writ petition was
filed. The ordinance for banning use of loud speaker was promulgated in 1962 and
rights were sanctioned on 10th January 1964 including the right to freedom of speech
and expression. It was held in Samuel Saia vs people of state of New York that
loudspeakers are indispensable source of effective public speaking. It was held that s 2
of the ordinance is unreasonably placing restrictions on the freedom of speech and
denial of loud speakers means the denial of right to communicate. S 2 was repealed by
this order impliedly when government officers were restrained from making any order
under this action. It was further held that the use of loud speaker finds no mention in
the article and use of loudspeaker is indispensable for effective public speaking.
Same in the present case section 10 is imposing unreasonable restrictions on freedom of
expression so it should be declared void. Use of leaflets or pamphlets finds no mention

in the article yet it is an effective way of communication so this right to communicate

should not be hindered by any provision of law.

Either right to freedom of religion has been violated in this case or not?
Constitution of Pakistan recognized right to freedom of religion as a fundamental right
of citizens, articles 20 states that
subject to law, public order and morality;
a) Every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion
and;
b) Every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to
establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.
This freedom is only available to the citizens of Pakistan and these freedoms are further
subject to the restrictions imposed by law i.e. public order and morality. Nothing in this
article shall affect any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may
be associated with religious practice.
The right has been made subject to law the reason is that the religious beliefs are held,
professed, practiced and propagated in public by speaking, processions and placard and
accompanied by denunciations of other religions that are bound to clash with the rights
of others and thus lead to breach of peace. It is for consideration that the practice and
propagation of religion is made subject to law, it does not mean that right can be taken
away by law.
I will elaborate my stance by presenting to you a case law, i.e.
In jibender kishore ch

Vs

the province of east Pakistan

1956 SC 9
In this case it was held that subject to law does not mean that it takes away the
fundamental rights of citizens but it means that it will be interpreted in favor of citizens
especially with respect to those provisions which are designed to safeguard the freedom
of conscience and worship.

The law can only regulate the manner in which religion is to be professed, practiced
and propagated.
Public order means public peace, safety and tranquility. Security of state is the
responsibility of state, the law and order is the responsibility of the province and public
order is the responsibility of local authorities, which shows that public order is at a
limited place and is localized.
Here, in the present case, right to freedom of religion has been violated as petitioner was
exercising his fundamental right to propagate his religion by distributing leaflets but
section 10 of prevention of littre act 2011 put an unreasonable restriction on this
fundamental right. As section 10 clause 3 states that
the promotion of any religious belief is not a legitimate reason under sub section 2.
So, this provision is clearly putting unreasonable restriction on the exercise of
fundamental right to propagate the religious beliefs which is in contradiction with the
provisions of constitution of Pakistan.

Pray:
According to Rules of interpretation whenever any law or its provisions goes against the
constitution then the provisions of Constitution will prevail. In addition to it Article 8
Clause 1 says that
Any law or any custom or usage having the force of Law in so far as it is inconsistent
with the rights conferred by this chapter shall to the extent of such inconsistency be
void
It clearly supports our stance that whenever any law is made which contradict with the
provisions of the constitution then it will be considered as void. Section 10 of
prevention of litter Act 2011 is in derogation of two basic fundamental rights i.e. Right
to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
So it is prayed to the respected court to please repeal the section 10 of this act and make
an order to quash the FIR.