The government while referring to the debate of the Constituent Assembly states that there was a reason to provide for a prime ministerial system, particularly due to the experience of 1956-58. PHOTO: PML-N
The petition was filed by the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) office on behalf of the Ministry of Finance. The federal government has raised 26 points in the review petition. Likewise, the Punjab government has also decided to challenge that verdict.
PTI petitions SC against PM today
The federal government apprehended that a ‘potential constitutional crisis’ could emerge in the country in the wake of the judgment. Legal experts believe the apex court has actually elaborated the functioning of the parliamentary system of governance, where the cabinet should be taken on board on every important issue.
The government contends that the “principal of collective responsibility” has two main aspects — political and legal. According to the legal aspect of collective responsibility, an act of the executive, whosoever takes, is binding.
While the political aspect is that every minister is answerable to parliament for actions of the executive and if he does not agree with any decision of the government, he may resign. But he cannot express his differences through a decision in public.
The government contends that collective responsibility does not mean deciding collectively. The review petition also says that the restoration of the original text of the 1973 Constitution also supports that the prime minister has discretionary powers in every matter, adding in failing to appreciate that — in addition to the exercise of the executive authority of the federation -- the prime minister has certain additional constitutional functions, the difference between the prime minister and the cabinet has been rendered naught, thereby resulting in a potential constitutional crisis.
It further stated that the prime minister enjoys powers as the chief executive of the country that are independent of federal ministers or the cabinet chosen by him.
It is submitted that if for any reason, the prime minister were to dismiss the current (sitting) cabinet today and appoint a new cabinet consisting of entirely different federal ministers tomorrow, the absence of the cabinet in the intervening night will not render the country without a federal government.
In the past, portfolios and powers of the federal ministers will be vested with the prime minister for the intervening period. This illusion qualifies an interpretation of Article 90(1) whereby the federal government is considered to be consisted of the prime minister and federal ministers, but not necessary in the form of a cabinet.
The government while referring to the debate of the Constituent Assembly states that there was a reason to provide for a prime ministerial system, particularly due to the experience of 1956-58.
SC office returns Imran’s ‘frivolous’ plea against PM
“There exists many a statute where the rule-making power has been reserved for the federal government. Should the judgment be taken to be correct, those rules not approved by the cabinet will be rendered ultra vires.
“This will not only create uncertainty in the country but while it is trite that all endeavors are made to uphold the law, the court has by delivering the judgment, rendered all such statutory instruments to be a nullity in the eyes of the law despite express constitutional provisions that empower parliament to permit the delegation to officers and functionaries subordinate to the federal government as per Article 98 of the constitution.”
Meanwhile, the federal government has also filed an appeal against the Sindh High Court’s verdict lifting a ban on the screening of the feature film ‘Maalik’. The appeal has been filed by the law ministry through Advocate-on-Record Faizur Rehman.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 21st, 2016.
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ