Sugar export: Can court intervene in policy matters?
The chief justice asked how the court could interfere with the government’s economic policy.
LAHORE:
Lahore High Court Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Friday adjourned the hearing of a petition against export of sugar till October 21, asking the petitioner’s counsel to argue whether the court could interfere with economic policy of the government. The petitioner Ahmed Imran Ghazi, through his counsel, told the court that the Economic Coordination Council had approved the export of 500,000 ton sugar. He said in 2009, an artificial shortage was created and price had raised to Rs50 per kg. He said sugar mafia would take advantage of the ECC decision and export the imported sugar. He said importing such a large quantity of sugar could create problems during the crushing season.He said the price of sugar had already risen by Rs2 per kg. The chief justice asked how the court could interfere with the government’s economic policy. The counsel replied that availability of basic necessities was related to Article 9 and 14 of the Constitution. The court adjourned further hearing till October 21 and directed all parties to assist the court on the point of policy.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 14th, 2013.
Lahore High Court Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Friday adjourned the hearing of a petition against export of sugar till October 21, asking the petitioner’s counsel to argue whether the court could interfere with economic policy of the government. The petitioner Ahmed Imran Ghazi, through his counsel, told the court that the Economic Coordination Council had approved the export of 500,000 ton sugar. He said in 2009, an artificial shortage was created and price had raised to Rs50 per kg. He said sugar mafia would take advantage of the ECC decision and export the imported sugar. He said importing such a large quantity of sugar could create problems during the crushing season.He said the price of sugar had already risen by Rs2 per kg. The chief justice asked how the court could interfere with the government’s economic policy. The counsel replied that availability of basic necessities was related to Article 9 and 14 of the Constitution. The court adjourned further hearing till October 21 and directed all parties to assist the court on the point of policy.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 14th, 2013.