What was objective resolution

He argued that there would be no interference in the internal affairs of the princely states but in the same breath said -. What else can we have in India? He argued that while Indians for a long time, since the Purna Swaraj Declaration , had called for severing ties with the British, there was never an intention of isolating India from the rest of the world; India would aim for friendship with the British people and the Commonwealth.

Nehru invoked the United Nations Organisation which was in its infancy: while the organisation had defects, India would continue to cooperate with it. Nehru went on to speak about the constitution itself. Unlike Dr. Qureshi, Mr. Osmani did not agree that the protection of the minorities was dependent upon the affection and respect of the majority. To the contrary, he argued that this duty was imposed upon Muslims by God.

He relied heavily on Mr. From the speeches made by various members of the Constituent Assembly, in support and opposition of the Objectives Resolution, certain trends emerge. The most noticeable of these trends is that the debate that ensued upon the introduction of the Resolution revolved around the issues concerning the relationship between State and religion, with a special focus on the status of non-Muslim religious minorities in the State envisaged by the Resolution.

While the Resolution itself contained provisions regarding democracy, federalism, independence of judiciary inter alia, none of these provisions attracted much attention. It is clear from this that the only real point of contention in the Resolution was within the first paragraph, that is, what precisely would be the status of religious principles in the Constitutional framework to be established under this Resolution.

It is also clear that there was consensus in the Assembly that the Resolution contained principles to guide any future Constitution-making in Pakistan. Not only did the Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan introduced it to have that effect, but members who opposed the Resolution and moved amendments to it relied on this fact to highlight the need to craft the text of it with extreme caution, precision, and clarity.

It is noticeable, however, that there was no indication whatsoever from any of the speeches made in the Constituent Assembly from which it could be concluded that the Resolution was meant to have any constitutionally enforceable, let alone a supra-constitutional status.

That the Resolution envisaged a State that was not neutral to the question of religion was also understood throughout the house. None of the members in support of the Resolution attempted to argue that the State would not discriminate on the basis of religion.

That much was clear. Instead, they argued that adequate safeguards would be provided to ensure that none of the minorities are hindered from practising and professing their distinct cultures and religions. Since the Objectives Resolution has served as the preamble to every Constitution adopted by Pakistan and a substantive part of the Constitution since , it has been subject to interpretation by the Courts.

The Constitutional courts of Pakistan have at different times assigned different roles and statuses to the Objectives Resolution. It is important to note that the entire Resolution was not held to be the grundnorm. Only the principle addressing the role of religion in the democratic Constitution as enshrined in its first paragraph was accorded that status.

Encouraged by this observation by the Chief Justice, Justice Afzal Zullah — a judge of the Lahore High Court at the time — observed in Zia-ur-Rehman v The State that the Objectives Resolution was the manifestation of the ideology which was the very foundation of Pakistan and to which all generations, including the founding fathers, of Pakistan had assented. Therefore, he concluded there was no bar in holding that it was a supra-constitutional provision.

Subsequently, the position was clarified by the Chief Justice Hamood-ur-Rehman himself when the same case reached the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice, in no uncertain terms, stated that the Objectives Resolution did not enjoy a supra-constitutional status. He went on to explain that the Resolution was a preamble and therefore, while it could be used to clarify an ambiguity within the language of the Constitution, it could in no way override an express provision of it.

It did not hold that the Resolution was the grundnorm. Leaving no room for doubt, the Chief Justice added that the preamble, or any resolution adopted by any assembly could not be in control of the substantive provisions of the Constitution. Such a proposition, he observed, was inconceivable even to the movers of the Resolution. In the case of Hussain Naqi v District Magistrate, Lahore also, it was categorically held that even if the Objectives Resolution was in fact the grundnorm as argued by counsel, it was the preamble to the Interim Constitution of and as such, it could not be enforceable in the courts of law.

The text of Article 2A is as follows:. This omission lends proof to the concerns raised by members of the Constituent Assembly in regarding the Resolution being used as a means to quell minority rights in the future. The insertion of Article 2A reignited the debate that had been settled in the Zia-ur-Rehman case. This time, the argument that the Objectives Resolution has a supra-constitutional status had on its side the express language of the Constitution.

In the Hakim Khan case , the question came up for adjudication before the Supreme Court. The Objective Resolutions provided the much-needed philosophy of the Indian Constitution and inspired in the shaping of the Indian Constitution. Basically, these resolutions were the aspirations of people who were making the Constitution.

It can be considered as the preamble of the vast dream, which the constitution makers sought to achieve after the independence in the form of a new India. And these resolutions were framed as the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. What were the Objectives Resolution? These resolutions were moved on 13 th December by Jawaharlal Nehru. Further, these resolutions were adopted on 22 nd January, by the assembly.

The summary of these resolutions is as follows-. Why were these resolutions adopted by the constituent Assembly? The Indian Preamble is based upon these resolutions, which can easily be seen in the preamble. The President of the Constituent Assemble, Dr.

Rajendra Prasad told all the assembly, that they must adopt this resolution without any second thought. Rather it was supposed to be the voice of seventy million people of Pakistan. On the other hand Objectives Resolution was strongly supported by Dr.

To counter the allegations they argued that Islam governs not only our relations with God but also the activities of the believers in other spheres of life as Islam is a complete code of life. After a great debate finally, the resolution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on March 12, Liaquat Ali Khan assured the minorities that they will get all the fundamental rights in Pakistan once the constitution based on the Objectives Resolution will be enforced.

However, this resolution created a division on the communal lines as the Muslim members except for Mian Iftikharuddin voted in favor of it and the non-Muslim opposed it.

It created a suspicion in the mind of minorities against the majority. Since the Resolution has yet not been implemented in Pakistan in the true spirit, the doubts in the minds of the minorities still exist.