The Dissolution of the Constitutional Assembly
In 1954, the fledgling democracy in Pakistan faced a significant challenge when Governor General Ghulam Mohammad dissolved the constitutional assembly tasked with drafting the country’s constitution. This decision, central to the Tameez ud din Case, was made under the powers granted by the colonial-era Government of India Act of 1935, a move that was seen by many as a step backward for Pakistan’s democratic aspirations.
Maulvi Tameez ud din’s Fight for Democracy
Maulvi Tameez ud din, the speaker of the dissolved assembly, took decisive action to put Pakistan back on the democratic track. He challenged the Governor General’s decision in the Sindh High Court, arguing that as a free and independent country, Pakistan could not be governed under the outdated laws of the colonial era.
The Sindh High Court’s Ruling
The Sindh High Court ruled in favor of Maulvi Tameez ud din, restoring the constitutional assembly and upholding the principles of democracy. This was a significant victory for the democratic forces in Pakistan, and it was hoped that the country would now be able to move forward on a path of democratic governance.
The Supreme Court’s Intervention
However, this hope was short-lived. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Mohammad Munir, overturned the Sindh High Court’s decision and upheld the Governor General’s power to dissolve the assembly. The court’s ruling was based on the theory of “necessity,” which justified the Governor General’s actions under the Constitution of 1935.
The Dissenting Voice
The only judge who dissented from the majority opinion was Justice Allen Robert Cornelius, who argued that as a free and independent country, Pakistan’s assembly could not be dismissed under the colonial-era Act of 1935.
The Aftermath and the Theory of Necessity
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Maulvi Tameez ud din case laid the foundation for the “theory of necessity,” which would later be used by successive dictators to justify their unconstitutional actions. This decision proved to be a significant setback for democracy in Pakistan, paving the way for the country’s long struggle to establish a stable and functional democratic system.
The Changing of the Guard
In the midst of this political turmoil, Governor General Ghulam Mohammad’s health began to deteriorate. Despite his declining condition, he was reluctant to relinquish power. It was only through the intervention of Sikandar Mirza and General Ayub that Ghulam Mohammad was forced to resign, paving the way for Sikandar Mirza to become the new Governor General of Pakistan.
The Worsening Situation in East Pakistan
The new Governor General, Sikandar Mirza, continued the process of destruction initiated by his predecessor. He showed little interest in the constitution-making process and did not attempt to address the worsening situation in East Pakistan, despite his own roots in the region.
The Lasting Impact
The Maulvi Tameez ud din case marked a pivotal moment in Pakistan’s democratic struggle, with the Supreme Court’s decision laying the groundwork for the country’s subsequent slide towards authoritarianism. The legacy of this case continues to shape the political landscape of Pakistan, serving as a cautionary tale of the fragility of democratic institutions and the dangers of judicial overreach.
Conclusion
The Maulvi Tameez ud din case stands as a testament to the challenges faced by Pakistan’s nascent democracy in its formative years. The Supreme Court’s ruling, which prioritized the “theory of necessity” over the principles of democratic governance, set a dangerous precedent that would echo through the country’s history. As Pakistan continues to grapple with the legacy of this pivotal moment, it serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding democratic institutions and the rule of law, ensuring that the hard-won freedoms of the past are not eroded by the expediencies of the present.
