Taking up the argument based on the Objectives Resolution,
the Court held that:
―Therefore, in my view, however solemn or
sacrosanct & document, if it is not incorporated
in the Constitution or does not form a part
thereof it cannot control the Constitution. At any
rate, the Courts created under the Constitution will
not have the power to declare any Provision of the
constitution itself as being in violation of such a
document. If in fact that document contains the
expression of the will of the vast majority of the
people, then the remedy for correcting such a
violation will lie with the people and not with the
judiciary. It follows from this that under our own
system too the Objectives Resolution of 1949, even
though it is a document which has been generally
accepted and has never been repealed or
renounced, will not have the same status or
authority as the Constitution itself until it is
incorporated within it or made part of it. If it
appears only as a preamble to the Constitution,
then it will serve the same purpose as any other
preamble serves, namely, that in the case of any
doubt as to the intent of the law-maker, it may be
looked at to ascertain the true intent, but it cannot
control the substantive provisions thereof...‖
The Objectives Resolution was later made substantive part of
the Constitution through Article 2A yet in Hakim Khan (supra)
and Kaneez Fatima (supra) it was held that even then the
Courts cannot strike down any provision of the Constitution on
the touch stone of Objectives Resolution.