Ministers can’t resign on mere charges: SC

The Supreme Court has said that no minister can be asked to resign on the basis of mere charges.

A two-member bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, on Friday heard a petition seeking resignation of Khusro Bakhtiar from the federal minister’s post.

At the outset of the proceedings, Justice Bandial said that the main question in the case is whether Bakhtiar should resign from his post.

“The petitioner says that the minister has got his own sugar mills.”

Petitioner Ahsan Abid said that the Federal Investigation Agency’s report has to be seen in the first inquiry.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that the petitioner says that Bakhtiar is the federal minister and also the owner of sugar mills.

Read More: PM should resign to secure a respectable exit, says Iqbal

“According to the request, a NAB inquiry is under way against the sugar mills. Which law says that if an inquiry is started against a federal minister, he should resign?

“Prove with reference to NAB law or Constitution that a federal minister must resign in case of inquiry.”

The petitioner said that the Representation of People Act states that a public office holder should be trustworthy.

Justice Bandial said, “There is no strength in your case so far. You have given the example that in other countries, ministers resign over railway accidents.

“It is a matter of moral values that differ in a democracy.

“Tell the court how many ministers in our country have resigned till date when the inquiry started?”

Justice Mansoor asked if the prime minister should resign if the Election Commission is investigating the foreign funding case.

Justice Bandial said that democratic countries have certain values.

Justice Mansoor asked whether the court could ask a federal minister to resign only on the basis of allegations.

Justice Bandial said that the court could not ask any such person to resign.

Justice Mansoor said, “You have to prepare the case or else you will have to pay a heavy price in case of wasting public time.”

The court granted respite to the petitioner and adjourned further hearing indefinitely.