The Maulvi Tamizuddin case challenged the Governor General of Pakistan's dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1954. The Sind Chief Court initially ruled in favor of Maulvi Tamizuddin, invalidating the Governor General's proclamation. However, the Federal Court overturned this decision, holding that the enactments of the Constituent Assembly required the assent of the Governor General. One judge dissented, stating that the Constituent Assembly was a sovereign body that could amend the statutes under which the Governor General functioned.

1. MAULVI TAMIZUD DIN CASE
1955
By
Fazal Akbar
DMG Probationer at
Civil Services Academy Lahore
Dated: 15th September, 2011

2. Basic Facts
• The Constituent Assembly amended
Sections 9, 10, 10-A, 10-B of the Govt of
India Act, 1935 through the Govt of India
(Amendment) Act, 1954.
• These amendments reduced the powers
of Governor Genral.
• GG reacted and dissolved the CA on 24th
October, 1954.

3. Continued….
• GG issued a proclamation in this regard.
• Maulvi Tameez-ud-Din was president of the
CA. So he challenged the proclamation in the
Sind Chief Court.
• He prayed for a writ of Mandamus and a writ
of Quo Warranto.

4. Continued…..
• Writ of Mandamus : to restraint respondents from
giving effect to the proclamation and from interfering
with the exercise of his functions as President of CA.
• Writ of Quo Warranto: to oust ministers of the
Cabinet (respondents 2-10) appointed by the
Governor General.

5. Govt’s Reply
• Section 6 (3) of the Indian Independence Act,
1947 gave the GG of each of the new
dominions full powers to assent to any law of
the legislature of the dominions.

6. Continued….
• The Sind Chief Court has got no jurisdiction
to issue any writ and Section 223-A which
was inserted by the CA in the Govt of India
Act, 1935 giving writ jurisdiction to the
Court, was never assented to by the
Governor General of Pakistan.

7. Situation on Ground
• The laws or any amendment made in the
Govt of India Act, 1935 were never sent for
approval to Governor General from 1947
to 1954. So many laws were in operation
and many cases had been decided or were
under trial in this regard.

8. Continued….
• Governor General was not having power to
dismiss Assembly and to issue Emergency
Power Ordinance,1955 under Govt. of India
Act, 1935 .
• Under the Indian Independence Act,1947,
Governor General was bound to give his
assent to the laws made by the CA till the
new Constitution.

9. Sind Chief Court’s Decision
• Sind Chief Court decided in favour of
Maulvi Tamizuddin.
• The proclamation issued by the Governor
General was invalidated

10. Judgment of Chief Court
• Objection against S.223-A was overruled.
• Objection against new S.10 was overruled.
• The word “law” in S.6 (3) has reference only
to ordinary law and not constitution.
• CA was a sovereign body and was not
subject to checks and balances.

11. Judgment Continued….
• CA had powers to repeal not only S.6 (3) of
Indian Independence Act but the whole of
the Act itself.
• Rule 15 was properly framed by CA with
regard to dissolution.
• The Indian Independence Act does not
contain express provision for dissolution.

12. Judgment Continued….
• Legislatures are created by statute so
statute should provide for their dissolution.
• Bracton’s maxim “that which is not
otherwise lawful is lawful by necessity.
• The argument, that GG was having His
majesty’s prerogative to dissolve the CA,
was not valid.

13. Govt’s Appeal
• Govt filed an appeal to Federal Court
headed by Justice Munir.
• Could the Governor General ( a nominee of
the Queen) imply his power to deny the
laws of the CA ( a representative body)?

14. Continued….
• Has the Constituent Assembly lost its
representative mandate in 1954 as it was
elected in 1946 ?
• The Federal Court decided in favour of the
Govt on 21st March, 1955.

15. Federal Court’s Decision
• FC did not go into the question that
whether CA was rightly dissolved.
• Held that enactments of CA, in the
capacity of legislative or constituent
body, required the assent of GG.

16. Decision Continued….
• Legislation of CA is a part of Govt of
dominion under Section 5.
• When CA functions under S.8 (1) of
IIA, it acts as a legislature of the
dominion within the meaning of S.6
of that Act.

17. Decision Continued….
• Justice A.R Cornelius dissented from the
bench members.
• He said that the CA be placed above the GG
for two reasons:
1. That CA was a sovereign body; and
2. Statutes under which GG functioned, were
under its competence to amend.

18. Decision Continued….
• The CA was not a creation of the British
Parliament but was a body created by a
supra-legal power to discharge the function
of preparing a constitution.
• The nature of freedom extended under the
IIA, resulted in making free peoples in the
dominions of Pakistan and India who
enjoyed the advantage of representative
institutions on British pattern.