SC ruling sparks debate on provincial autonomy
Section of lawyers expresses apprehensions over March 28 verdict in Industrial Relations Act case
Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
After the issuance of Supreme Court’s ruling on the upholding of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, a legal debate has started regarding the effects of the verdict on provincial autonomy.
On March 28, a three-judge SC bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar, upheld the IRA 2012.
Authoring the 54-page verdict, the CJP said the matters relating to trade unions and labour disputes – having been dealt with and protected under international conventions – were covered under Entries Nos 3 and 32 of Part-I of the FLL.
“Thus, the federal legislature has legislative competence to legislate in this regard,” it said, adding that the federation has competence to enact laws relating to the inter-provincial matters and co-ordination.
Expressing serious apprehensions over the impact of the SC’s recent verdict, one section of the lawyers said the judgment would undo the 18th constitutional amendment and provincial autonomy.
Gwadar: An unfulfilled dream
The lawyers are linking the SC judgment with prevailing situation, wherein some institutions are reportedly showing concerns over the 18th constitutional amendment.
“It has largely undone 18th constitutional amendment. Any matter stretches beyond a single province now falls within the federal legislative domain. A super federal list has been created,” said a senior lawyer, who is disappointed over the SC's ruling.
A provincial law officer, expressing doubts, said in view of the verdict, the federal government can make law to comply with international treaties. Even it can legislate on the provincial subjects like health, labour, education, etc, for the compliance of international treaties, he added.
The law officer, however, lamented that all provincial governments seemed totally ignorant about this aspect of the matter. “I personally feel that all provincial governments should file review petitions against the verdict,” he added.
It is learnt that the Punjab government will move review plea against the verdict soon. A senior law officer in Sindh, however, said he had yet to get any instruction to challenge this verdict.
SC sets deadline to provide a solution for footpath school
Talking to The Express Tribune, Attorney General for Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf Ali called it a ‘landmark judgment’ which would go a long way in making implementation of treaties easier than ever before.
“I am head of implementation cell and it was quite a difficult task for me to make the provinces legislate on the subjects and also make coordinated efforts on tackling issues relating to the rights of children, women and the minorities. The judgment will not also affect provincial autonomy,” said the AGP.
Member Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Raheel Kamran Sheikh, while supporting the SC verdict, said that international treaties and conventions were within the federal legislative domain.
“Same is the case with inter-provincial matters and inter-provincial coordination on all matters since provinces lack legislative competence to legislate beyond their respective territories,” he said.
“However, the constituent assembly, in its wisdom, reserves the executive authority over matters falling in Part II of the federal legislative list to be exercised under the supervision and control of the Council of Common Interest (CCI) having equal representation of the provinces,” he added.
Another senior lawyer said if the government agreed to a health treaty for maintaining a particular standard in Pakistan then why it could not carry out legislation.
“A case in point is measures to control AIDS as it affects the country and the world. In the US, health is a provincial subject. But the Federal Drugs Authority regulates standards and prices for the whole country. Since such drugs are sold across state boundaries, they can be regulated by commerce. States have police but the US has the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation],” he added.
The lawyer, however, admitted that these were complex constitutional issues and would be resolved over decades because the 18th constitutional amendment had not been well drafted.
After the issuance of Supreme Court’s ruling on the upholding of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, a legal debate has started regarding the effects of the verdict on provincial autonomy.
On March 28, a three-judge SC bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar, upheld the IRA 2012.
Authoring the 54-page verdict, the CJP said the matters relating to trade unions and labour disputes – having been dealt with and protected under international conventions – were covered under Entries Nos 3 and 32 of Part-I of the FLL.
“Thus, the federal legislature has legislative competence to legislate in this regard,” it said, adding that the federation has competence to enact laws relating to the inter-provincial matters and co-ordination.
Expressing serious apprehensions over the impact of the SC’s recent verdict, one section of the lawyers said the judgment would undo the 18th constitutional amendment and provincial autonomy.
Gwadar: An unfulfilled dream
The lawyers are linking the SC judgment with prevailing situation, wherein some institutions are reportedly showing concerns over the 18th constitutional amendment.
“It has largely undone 18th constitutional amendment. Any matter stretches beyond a single province now falls within the federal legislative domain. A super federal list has been created,” said a senior lawyer, who is disappointed over the SC's ruling.
A provincial law officer, expressing doubts, said in view of the verdict, the federal government can make law to comply with international treaties. Even it can legislate on the provincial subjects like health, labour, education, etc, for the compliance of international treaties, he added.
The law officer, however, lamented that all provincial governments seemed totally ignorant about this aspect of the matter. “I personally feel that all provincial governments should file review petitions against the verdict,” he added.
It is learnt that the Punjab government will move review plea against the verdict soon. A senior law officer in Sindh, however, said he had yet to get any instruction to challenge this verdict.
SC sets deadline to provide a solution for footpath school
Talking to The Express Tribune, Attorney General for Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf Ali called it a ‘landmark judgment’ which would go a long way in making implementation of treaties easier than ever before.
“I am head of implementation cell and it was quite a difficult task for me to make the provinces legislate on the subjects and also make coordinated efforts on tackling issues relating to the rights of children, women and the minorities. The judgment will not also affect provincial autonomy,” said the AGP.
Member Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Raheel Kamran Sheikh, while supporting the SC verdict, said that international treaties and conventions were within the federal legislative domain.
“Same is the case with inter-provincial matters and inter-provincial coordination on all matters since provinces lack legislative competence to legislate beyond their respective territories,” he said.
“However, the constituent assembly, in its wisdom, reserves the executive authority over matters falling in Part II of the federal legislative list to be exercised under the supervision and control of the Council of Common Interest (CCI) having equal representation of the provinces,” he added.
Another senior lawyer said if the government agreed to a health treaty for maintaining a particular standard in Pakistan then why it could not carry out legislation.
“A case in point is measures to control AIDS as it affects the country and the world. In the US, health is a provincial subject. But the Federal Drugs Authority regulates standards and prices for the whole country. Since such drugs are sold across state boundaries, they can be regulated by commerce. States have police but the US has the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation],” he added.
The lawyer, however, admitted that these were complex constitutional issues and would be resolved over decades because the 18th constitutional amendment had not been well drafted.