1973 Constitution an uneasy marriage between socialism and Islam, govt tells SC

Hearing was an interesting exchange on political philosophy and Pakistan's history


Hasnaat Malik May 18, 2015
The National Museum of Pakistan, Karachi, is displaying the original copy of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan, bearing the signatures of the members of the then National Assembly who signed it. PHOTO: AYSHA SALEEM/EXPRESS

ISLAMABAD: The federal government told the Supreme Court on Monday that the 1973 Constitution was an 'uneasy marriage between socialism and Islam' which could never be successful. 

A 17-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Pakistan Nasirul Mulk, hearing the constitutional amendment case was told by the counsel for the federal government, Khalid Anwar, that Pakistan Peoples Party was the founder of the 1973 Constitution and the party won a majority on the basis of socialism, not religion, especially with the roti, kapra, makan slogan gaining currency.

Read: SC ponders over whether Pakistan can be declared a secular state

The court was told that Article 2 of the Constitution mentions Islam while Article 3 stated the elimination of exploitation, which was copied from Article 12 of the Soviet Union's 1936 constitution.

Monday's hearing was an interesting exchange on political philosophy and Pakistan's history. When Anwar referred to the sociological philosophies of Karl Marx, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh pointed out that he should also mention  Quaid-e-Azam's speeches. Moreover, while talking about a letter written by Allama Iqbal, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan said that egalitarianism is also a part of Islam.

Read: NA, Senate pass 21st Constitutional Amendment, Army Act Amendment

On military courts, Anwar questioned if military courts could be established in the US despite the US Supreme Courts having immense power, then why could they not be established in Pakistan, whereby the apex court takes power from the Constitution.

Read: Constitution’s basic structure must be protected: Supreme Court

COMMENTS (10)

Zubair Khan | 9 years ago | Reply Not an uneasy but mismatch marriage. Earlier both depart better for country. Let state to be secular and leave the religion as a matter between creation and Creator.
sam | 9 years ago | Reply nothing better to do than just criticising the only agreed upon constitution. secular or not! how long will this debate continue. its seems we r not ready to move forward. and of course the supreme court is an institution that looks after every evil on the society but will never succeed to get rid of any evil.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ