Court expenditures: PAC summons notice to SC registrar suspended
Apex court says watchdog does not have authority to scrutinise its funds.
Apex court says watchdog does not have authority to scrutinise its funds. ILLUSTRATION: JAMAL KHURSHID
ISLAMABAD:
Citing its autonomy from other state institutions, the Supreme Court on Tuesday suspended a summons sent by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to its registrar, Dr Faqir Hussain, calling for him to appear before the watchdog to scrutinise the administrative expenditure of the apex court. The court termed the notice an intervention against the independence of the judiciary.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal and comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Azmat Saeed heard the constitutional petitions filed against the notice issued to the SC registrar. The bench also issued notice to the Attorney General of Pakistan, Irfan Qadir, and suspended all the proceedings before the PAC on the matter.
The court, in its order, said: “The summons issued to SC registrar is without jurisdiction and lawful authority. Since the apex court’s independence is linked with its intrinsic fundamental rights. The founding fathers of Pakistan and the framers of the Constitution wanted the independence of judiciary from other organs of the state, therefore any scrutiny of the expenditures made by the PAC would affect its independence, which is in consonance of the scheme of the Constitution”.
The bench contended that the PAC could only look into funds that come from the assembly. He added that both the Supreme Court’s expenses and judges’ salaries were paid from a federal consolidated fund which the PAC cannot scrutinise.
“The PAC has no jurisdiction to scrutinise the funds of the Supreme Court as it is an autonomous institution,” said Justice Ijaz Afzal.
He added that summoning the registrar before the PAC undermines the Supreme Court’s authority, which is against the Constitution. According to Article 68 of the Constitution: “No discussion shall take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties.” During the proceedings, Munir A Malik, counsel for advocate Rasheed A Rizvi, argued that the judiciary and the executive branch had been kept detached in order to enable the judiciary’s independence as well as to ensure the efficient dispensation of justice.
The PAC had issued a final notice to the SC registrar on December 15, 2012 to appear before it in order to scrutinise the SC’s appropriation accounts, which have been pending since 2006.
Due to the apex court’s refusal to send its registrar to the parliamentary committee on December 19, the watchdog had referred the matter to the National Assembly with a request to either convene a joint session of parliament or a special session of the lower house to take a decision on how to proceed.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 2nd, 2013.
Citing its autonomy from other state institutions, the Supreme Court on Tuesday suspended a summons sent by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to its registrar, Dr Faqir Hussain, calling for him to appear before the watchdog to scrutinise the administrative expenditure of the apex court. The court termed the notice an intervention against the independence of the judiciary.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal and comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Azmat Saeed heard the constitutional petitions filed against the notice issued to the SC registrar. The bench also issued notice to the Attorney General of Pakistan, Irfan Qadir, and suspended all the proceedings before the PAC on the matter.
The court, in its order, said: “The summons issued to SC registrar is without jurisdiction and lawful authority. Since the apex court’s independence is linked with its intrinsic fundamental rights. The founding fathers of Pakistan and the framers of the Constitution wanted the independence of judiciary from other organs of the state, therefore any scrutiny of the expenditures made by the PAC would affect its independence, which is in consonance of the scheme of the Constitution”.
The bench contended that the PAC could only look into funds that come from the assembly. He added that both the Supreme Court’s expenses and judges’ salaries were paid from a federal consolidated fund which the PAC cannot scrutinise.
“The PAC has no jurisdiction to scrutinise the funds of the Supreme Court as it is an autonomous institution,” said Justice Ijaz Afzal.
He added that summoning the registrar before the PAC undermines the Supreme Court’s authority, which is against the Constitution. According to Article 68 of the Constitution: “No discussion shall take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties.” During the proceedings, Munir A Malik, counsel for advocate Rasheed A Rizvi, argued that the judiciary and the executive branch had been kept detached in order to enable the judiciary’s independence as well as to ensure the efficient dispensation of justice.
The PAC had issued a final notice to the SC registrar on December 15, 2012 to appear before it in order to scrutinise the SC’s appropriation accounts, which have been pending since 2006.
Due to the apex court’s refusal to send its registrar to the parliamentary committee on December 19, the watchdog had referred the matter to the National Assembly with a request to either convene a joint session of parliament or a special session of the lower house to take a decision on how to proceed.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 2nd, 2013.