In a detailed judgement on the petitions filed against the imposition of emergency in Pakistan after its May nuclear tests, a seven-member bench, headed by chief justice Ajmal Mian, yesterday regretted that ``unlike the Indian constitution there is no check on the perpetual imposition of emergency in Pakistan''.

``The most disturbing effect of the proclamation would be that parliament under Article 232 (2) can take over the legislative power as well as the executive power of the provincial governments, thus denying the federating units their provincial autonomy even to the extent guaranteed under the constitution,'' the court observed.

The Nawaz Sharif government had imposed emergency in the country in May, citing threat of external aggressionfrom India and internal disturbances.

The country is still under emergency though a three-member supreme court bench in a short order earlier had held that the suspension of fundamental rights was ``not justified and the order was without lawful authority''.

The government had also frozen all the foreign currency bank accounts in the country through a presidential ordinance thus blocking nearly 11 billion US dollars deposited in these accounts and denying them any legal remedy.

At least five petitions had been filed against the imposition of emergency including those by former president Farooq Leghari, Pathan leader Ajmal Khattak and cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan.

In its 317-page judgement, the apex court observed that until the fall of Dhaka, Pakistani people enjoyed fundamental rights for a total period of seven years, six months and 14 days out of a total period of 24 years, four months and two days since independence in 1947.

Incidentally, out of its history of 51 years, Pakistan hasbeen under martial law for at least 25 years.

The court regretted that no amendment had been made in the constitution to check the indefinite imposition of emergency. It said, ``The present proclamation can remain in the field for years to come as it will depend on the sweet will of the government in power to advise the president for its revocation.''