— Admission policy of Pakistan Medical Commission — MDCAT Benchmark Dispute between PMC and Sindh Cabinet — Scope — The Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC) had challenged a decision made by the Sindh Cabinet in a meeting — This decision involved lowering the benchmark for the Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Test (MDCAT) from 65% to 50% for admission into private and public medical colleges & universities in the province of Sindh — The Sindh Cabinet issued four notifications instructing universities to begin the admission process in MBBS and BDS programs by considering candidates who had achieved a 50% score in MDCAT 2021 as qualified — The Advocate General of Sindh, contesting the petitioner’s case, argued against the legitimacy of the law, highlighting its imperfections and incongruities with the quality and syllabus of pre-medical education across provinces — He contended that setting a benchmark of 65% for admission without clear rationale was discriminatory and disregarded the varying educational standards in each province — High Court observed that there was no provincial law empowering the Sindh government to regulate admissions in medical colleges post the 18th amendment — According to federal legislative lists, the federal government holds the authority to frame laws to maintain or elevate standards in higher education institutions, including determining eligibility for professions such as medicine and law — The court concluded that post the 18th amendment, executive authority over such matters shifted entirely to the federation, rendering provincial actions on the subject invalid — Based on this analysis, the court declared the notifications issued by the Sindh Cabinet void ab initio, as they lacked lawful authority and were deemed to have no legal effect. [2024 CLS 6 = 2022 CLC 1848 = 2024 CLC 53]

— Subject-matter of Federal and Provincial laws — Scope — Entries in the legislative list are to be interpreted liberally, assigned the widest meaning, and should not be read in a narrow sense — The purpose is to correlate with nature of the subject and cover all ancillary and subsidiary aspects of the matter which with a small effort can be perceived to be part of the subject — The words in the entries, it is often urged, are not to be construed in isolation and independent of the context in which they have been spoken and synthesized — While interpreting, it is said, the courts are required to construe the entries broadly in a manner to reconcile with the exigencies and requirements of the society which is on a constant course of a change, so that no aspect of the subject is left from legislation — It is also understood, the entries do not confer any legislative power, and they merely outline the subjects a particular legislature is competent to legislate on — And, that proposition, in any case, does not presuppose, or entail a recourse, imposing any restriction on the legislature to legislate on a particular feature of the subject, not articulately set down in the entry but can be said to be reasonably comprehended by it, as long as it does not transgress or encroach upon the power of the other legislature on the subject, or violate the fundamental rights of a person — For, the legislative power is subject to constraints provided in the Constitution itself. [2024 CLS 6 = 2022 CLC 1848 = 2024 CLC 53]

— Subject-matter of Federal and Provincial laws — Inconsistency between Federal and Provincial laws — Scope — Article 142 proceeds to distinguish the subjects falling within either the federal or the provincial legislative competence — And defines, subject to the Constitution, parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any matter in the Federal Legislative List plus all matters pertaining to such areas in the federation as are not included in any province — A provincial assembly has power to make laws with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Federal Legislative List — Both parliament and a provincial assembly have power to make laws with respect to criminal law, criminal procedure and evidence — The main object of this provision, it seems, is to underline parameters to guide both the federal and provincial legislatures to exercise their respective legislative authority within — Parliament to have exclusive authority on subjects, topics and activities enumerated in the Federal Legislative List and matters incidental or ancillary thereto — Whereas, the provincial legislature to have legislative competency on subjects, topics, and activities not mentioned in Federal Legislative List, in addition to the matters relating to criminal law, criminal procedure and evidence — In a case where both the federal and provincial legislatures have made a law on the same subject claiming concurrent jurisdiction and there is a conflict between them — Then, per Article 143, to the extent of any repugnancy between the two laws, the federal law shall prevail — Quite often, while interpreting this provision, it has been said that whenever a law is framed on a particular subject, a presumption of legislative competence and legitimacy is attached to it — And where the validity of a law is questioned, and two interpretations are possible, the one upholding the law has always to be preferred and adopted — The courts have been advised, in such circumstances, to lean in favour of upholding the constitutionality of the legislation instead of striking it down as unconstitutional and to save rather than to destroy the law until and unless the law is shown to have violated fundamental rights of a person or has been enacted in a flagrant disregard to legislative competence of other legislative. [2024 CLS 6 = 2022 CLC 1848 = 2024 CLC 53]