## Facts

- The Prime Minister, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, led an elected parliamentary government; relations with the President deteriorated amid claims of political instability and efforts to destabilize the government.
- On April 18, 1993, the President invoked Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution to dissolve the National Assembly, dismiss the Prime Minister and Cabinet, appoint a caretaker setup, and call elections.
- The President’s order asserted that governance could not be carried on in accordance with the Constitution and that an appeal to the electorate was necessary.
- Sharif filed a constitutional petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 184(3), seeking a declaration that the dissolution was unlawful and restoration of the Assembly and his government; the Speaker filed a similar petition heard together.
- Respondents raised a preliminary objection that Article 184(3) was not maintainable for this dispute; the Court heard that objection with the merits.
- A central factual contention supporting dissolution was that numerous Members of the National Assembly had resigned, allegedly undermining the government’s parliamentary base; the resignations were not processed through the Speaker as required.
- An eleven-judge bench heard the matter and decided it by a 10–1 majority.

## Issues

1. Whether petitions challenging dissolution of the National Assembly and dismissal of an elected government were maintainable under Article 184(3) as matters of public importance involving enforcement of fundamental rights.
2. Whether the President’s “opinion” under Article 58(2)(b) was subject to judicial review or was insulated as a political question.
3. Whether the constitutional conditions for invoking Article 58(2)(b) were satisfied on the record, including whether alleged parliamentary resignations had legal effect.
4. If the dissolution was unlawful, whether the Court should restore the National Assembly, Prime Minister, and Cabinet and how to treat acts performed by the caretaker government.

## Decision

- The Court held the petitions maintainable under Article 184(3) because dissolution of an elected assembly and removal of the Prime Minister implicated fundamental rights and public importance.
- The Court rejected the claim that Article 58(2)(b) conferred an unfettered presidential discretion; the exercise of power was reviewable for constitutional compliance and bona fides.
- The Court declared the April 18, 1993 dissolution order ultra vires Article 58(2)(b), without lawful authority, and of no legal effect.
- The Court restored the National Assembly, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet to their pre-dissolution status.
- To prevent administrative disruption, the Court validated actions taken by the caretaker government during the interim despite holding the dissolution legally ineffective.
- One judge dissented, taking a more deferential view of the President’s assessment of political conditions.

## Legal Principles

- Fundamental rights operate as enforceable limits on state power; governmental actions that disrupt representative institutions may trigger constitutional scrutiny as rights-affecting measures.
- Article 184(3) permits direct Supreme Court jurisdiction where issues of public importance are linked to enforcement of fundamental rights, including political participation and democratic representation.
- The President’s power under Article 58(2)(b) is not absolute; the “opinion” must rest on constitutionally relevant grounds and is reviewable to determine whether the constitutional precondition for dissolution exists.
- In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister’s mandate is tested through National Assembly confidence mechanisms; political disagreement or instability claims do not substitute for constitutional requirements for dissolution.
- Alleged resignations by members do not affect parliamentary strength unless they comply with constitutional procedure: resignations must be addressed and delivered to the Speaker and become effective only after the Speaker’s satisfaction that they are voluntary and genuine and the seat is declared vacant.
- When a constitutional act is declared void, a court may nonetheless preserve legal continuity by validating interim administrative acts to avoid governance breakdown.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court invalidated the President’s dissolution of the National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b), held the dispute justiciable and maintainable under Article 184(3) due to its impact on fundamental rights and democratic governance, restored the elected government, and clarified that parliamentary resignations must satisfy strict constitutional procedure to have legal effect while validating interim caretaker actions to preserve administrative continuity.


Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan, P.L.D. 1993 S.C. 473 (Pak. 1993)