LAHORE UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

LAW 101 – Introduction to Legal Reasoning

Spring Semester 2020

Instructor: Asad Rahim Khan

Final Examination

Name: Sohaib Arif Marks Obtained: _________

Roll Number: 21110231 Total Marks: 50

SHORT QUESTIONS Marks Obtained: ______

Answer all of the five (5) questions below. Each question carries ten (10) marks. Please give your
answers underneath each question (if submitting digitally).

1. In Asma Jilani v. Govt. of the Punjab, it was held that the rule of stare decisis would not
apply. Was the same reasoning applied to Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of Army Staff five years later?
Why (or why not)?
In case of Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of Army Staff, it was reasoned that the circumstances surrounding
the dissolution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s government by Zia ul Haq were radically different from
the circumstances surrounding Dosso and Asma Jilani. In this particular case, the intent behind the
coup was not to usurp State power, but rather to get rid of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who, through massive
rigging, had illegally assumed power. The intent of the Chief Martial Law Administrator was to remain
in power to ensure that free and fair elections take place. Since the Martial Law became a necessity due
to unprecedented circumstances that threatened the very existence of the state it was considered
validated on the basis of doctrine of necessity. It is worth mentioning that Mr. Pirzada asserted that not
only is the doctrine of necessity part of the legal system of countries such as Britain, but also that it is
also consistent with the teachings of the Holy Quran.

2. “The appellant had also maintained that Mr. Salmaan Taseer used to indulge in different kinds
of immoral activities…[clearly showing] that it was not just the alleged commission of blasphemy by
Mr. Salmaan Taseer which prompted the appellant to kill him but there was some element of personal
hatred for Mr. Salmaan Taseer which too had played some part in propelling the appellant into action
against him. Such mixture of personal hatred with the asserted religious motivation had surely diluted,
if not polluted, the acclaimed purity of the appellant’s purpose. …For all the reasons detailed above, no
occasion has been found by us for reducing the appellant’s sentence from death to imprisonment for
life for the offences of terrorism and murder committed by him.

Did the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Malik Mumtaz Qadri v. The State (cited above) match its
reasoning in Ghulam Hussain v. The State? Why (or why not), and to what extent?
Ans.
In Ghulam Hussain v. The State, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, through his judgment, reoriented the definition of
terrorism by declaring that an act no matter how gruesome would not be considered as terrorism if “it is not
committed with the design or purpose specified or mentioned in clauses (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of section
 6 of the said Act [ATC 1997]” (pg. 57). This reasoning also matched the one used to declare the act
committed by Mumtaz Qadri as terrorism in Malik Mumtaz Qadri v. The State. In his judgement, Justice
Khosa clearly states that Mumtaz Qadri’s Actus Reus (his firing at Mr. Salman Taseer that caused his death)
fell “within the ambit of section 6(2)(a)” (pg. 31). Moreover, the fact that Mumtaz Qadri clearly stated that he
wanted his act to symbolic in the sense that it intimidated and served as a lesson to others who would dare to
do what Mr. Taseer allegedly did meant that his mens rea also fell within the ambit of section 6 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act 1997. Therefor, his act constituted terrorism.

3. Define mens rea and actus reus and illustrate your definition with specific cases.
Actus Reus is Latin for Bad Act. It states that a person must commit an act to be convicted of a crime.
Omission, failure at completing the crime, possession, conspiracy etc. all are different types of Actus
Reus. For example, in R v. Cato, Cato directly administration a noxious substance like heroine that
resulted in the death of the victim is considered to be his actus reus.
Mens Rea is Latin for bad mind. It states that a person must have an intent to do the crime. For
example, in case of Malik Mumtaz Qadri v. The State, Mumtaz Qadri killed Mr. Taseer in cold blood with
the intention of making his act symbolic and as a reminder for those who would dare doing what
Salman Taseer allegedly did. Hence his mens rea fell within the ambit of section 6 of the ATC 1997.

4. What were the principal points of divergence between the majority and dissenting
opinions in Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner?
The majority decision in Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner held that in Islam, the right to
property is absolute and that the state cannot interfere in it. The only limit imposed by Islam is Halaal
and Haraam. Moreover, within Islam, the state’s welfare role is limited, and that a greater emphasis is
laid on individual responsibility and acts of charity.
The dissenting opinion by Nasim Hasan Shah argued that everything belongs to Allah Almighty and
that man is not the absolute owner of everything. Individual rights should be balanced in such a way
that they result in socio-economic equilibrium. The fact that man is intrinsically selfish means that if
left to individuals alone, there would be widespread poverty and inequality. Consequently, within
Islam, an individual’s ownership rights are subordinate to their social responsibilities. Therefor, in a
society like Pakistan, it is the responsibility of the State to interfere to ensure that it satisfies the basic
necessities of its citizens – this is something that is consistent to the idea of an Islamic State. Hence,
land reforms can be considered as legal and Islamic measures necessary to bring about Adal.

5. What would be the possible consequences of Justice Ramday’s reasoning in Saima

Waheed’s case on the legal status of women in Pakistan?
Justice Ramday’s reasoning in Saima Waheed’s case essentially constituted a separate, but equal
doctrine for women. His argued that Islam had defined specific roles for both men and women: that
women, due to their biological characteristic, ought to be at home to look after and nourish her family
while the man toils outside for his family. By arguing that Islam discourages any liaison between men
and women besides the spouses or between others in the prohibited limit, he essentially argued that
women should be restricted to their homes. Moreover, Mr. Ramday’s reasoning also threatened the
fundamental right of equality guaranteed to women through Article 25 by arguing that this right is not
absolute – rather it is subject to certain restrictions. The consequences of such reasoning, especially
through the use of religion, could further stifle women within our society and restrict them to
traditional and outdated gender roles. Moreover, it also opens the door to further legislation directed
towards the individuality of women – be it their dressing or their personal wishes.