No-show: Apex court snubs PAC again

ISLAMABAD:

It may have seemed close, but getting access to the Supreme Court’s accounts seems to be a distant dream for the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

Despite reports of positive progress over the last few weeks on the matter, the apex court quashed all speculation on Thursday by saying that its registrar would not show up before the committee – yet again adding that the PAC was not ‘competent’ to scrutinise an independent judiciary.

A press release, issued by the court just hours before the SC Registrar was meant to appear before the PAC, revealed that the committee “has been duly informed on December 11 that in view of the decisions taken by the Full Court meetings, based on provisions of the Constitution and law, the Registrar, Supreme Court is not required to appear before the PAC meeting.”



While observing that no department or institution was exempt from an audit, the PAC had issued a notice to SC registrar to appear before it today (December 14) to examine the appropriation of accounts/audit reports of the Supreme Court for the audit years of 2004-2005 and 2006-2007.

The committee’s demands intensified after Nadeem Afzal Chan from the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party replaced Opposition leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan as chairman of the committee. The issue was also taken to the floor of the National Assembly.

However, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that while it viewed the PAC in the “highest esteem”, the committee is not “competent to scrutinise the accounts of the Supreme Court; hence, the Registrar is not required to appear before it.”



In order to substantiate its explanation, the court referred to the preamble of the Constitution: “…it is the will of the people of Pakistan to establish an order; wherein the independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured.” It added that, to materialise this objective, the Constitution ordains a separation of judiciary from the executive.

It also referred to a speech of PPP founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to the constituent assembly on April 10, 1973, wherein he stated: “In a parliamentary system, the legislature has to be supreme, but the supremacy of the legislature is not unfettered. The supremacy of the legislature has been restricted by the incorporation to the fundamental rights. And these fundamental rights have been protected by a provision for the independence of judiciary”.

To fortify the principle, Article 68 puts a restriction on discussion in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any judge of the superior courts, the court added.

The release further added that since the Constitution places a complete ban on any discussion in Parliament in regards to “the conduct of any Judge … in the discharge of duties,” the PAC, being a committee of Parliament, is not authorised to do so.

At the same time, it said that an internal system was in place and senior judges of the court accord sanction of money for procurement and payments.

The statement also explained, while quoting the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, that the PAC has the mandate only in respect of the public accounts of the Federation.

The expenditure on remuneration payable to the judges of the Supreme Court and the administrative expenses of the Supreme Court, including the remuneration payable to its officers and servants, are not paid from the public accounts of the Federation, the press note further said.

It stated that, as per Article 81 of the Constitution, such salaries and administrative expenses are charged upon the Federal Consolidated Fund. Since the Federal Consolidated Fund is separate from and falls outside the domain of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, it cannot raise any questions relating to the expenditures of the Supreme Court, it added.

The Supreme Court, on its own initiative, has put in place a pre-audit system in association with the office of the Auditor General. Disbursements from the budget of the Supreme Court are audited before and after disbursement and as such are fully and transparently reflected in the annual report of the Auditor General, the court added in the statement.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 14^th, 2012.