President’s Order Nos. 4 and 13 of 1962
fall within the category of “existing law” is Article 225(7) of the
As President’s Orders Nos. 4 and 13 fairly
and squarely fall within the definition of “existing laws” defined in Article
225(7) they were continued in force, (that is to say, they continued in force
even after 21.11.64 when the Electoral College was constituted.)
In the absence of any other provision
continuing the laws made under clause (8) of Article 229, they would have come
to an end on and from the 21st of November, 1964, the date when the Electoral
College was declared to have been constituted. As, however, Article 225
contains such a provision the argument that these provisions are meant to
govern only laws other than those which were operative on the authority of
Article 229, cannot be accepted. President’s Orders Nos. 4 and 13 of 1962 are
still in force and will cease to be operative only when a notification under
section 117 of the National and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Act (IV of
1963) is issued. (Sattar. J.)
Vs. Election Tribunal, East Pak. (1966) 18 DLR 16.
have effect from 2 1. 11.64.
Salahuddin Ahmed, J. (disagreeing with
President’s Orders Nos. 4 and 13 of 1962 are
temporary Acts and are subject to the consequences of such Acts. Article 229
ceased to have effect on the constitution of the Electoral College as provided
in Article 158 of the Constitution on the 21st November, 1964, and with this
according to the accepted principle of interpretation came to an end the said
Orders. The source, namely, Article 229 having ceased to exist, these orders
which followed from that source, too, must die a natural death.
The expression “subject to this Constitution”
in Art. 225 must necessarily mean subject to Article 229 of the Constitution as
well. Article 229, by its own decree ceased to have effect on the constitution
of the Electoral College of Pakistan and with this, the said orders, too,
ceased to exist as if they never existed.
Article 225 having made the continuance of
‘existing law subject to the Constitution” must mean that the Article saves
only such existing laws as are not hit by other provisions of the Constitution.
Thus interpreted the Article does not save the said orders. Ibid.