Supreme Court's December ruling curtailed the govt's discretionary powers, which are often used in May and June. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
In the December 2013 ruling, the SC had banned the transfer of funds from an account approved by the parliament to another as technical supplementary grant. This ruling curtailed the government's discretionary powers, which are often used in May and June.
The three-judge bench, headed by CJP himself and comprising Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed will hear the case on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, The Express Tribune has learnt that the federal government is in a quandary these days because of the Supreme Court’s ban.
“The major problem is on the development side where the government used the powers to transfer funds from low priority projects to schemes initiated under political consideration,” sources have said.
The sources also revealed that in view of the difficulties of the federal government, the office of the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) has been active for the early hearing of the government’s review petition against the court’s judgment, which bars even the prime minister from exercising his discretionary powers in the matter of supplementary and excess grants.
Former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had authored the 38-page judgment in the suo motu case regarding the doling out of billions of rupees in the form of development funds by former prime minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf during the last 10 days of his tenure.
Review petition
The finance ministry, in its review petition, has requested that the court enable the government to continue to work on the basis of a system of fiscal management that has been practiced since the creation of Pakistan. The ministry argues that it is not only consistent with constitutional provisions but has also proven its utility and worth.
The government has also expressed apprehensions in the review petition, saying that if the judgment is implemented it would cause serious governance problems.
The review petition questioned whether the court misinterprets Article 84 read with Article 90 of the Constitution to hold that the prime minister cannot authorise expenditure on account of supplementary grants from the Federal Consolidated Fund.
The government also contended that though no provisions are made explicitly mandating the use or allocation of elected representatives and notables, some development schemes identified and recommended by the parliamentarians are funded through the budget after completing all procedural and financial formalities by the competent authority.
“The prime minister is the chief executive of the federation and the chief minister is the chief executive of the province. As such, the federal government and provincial governments act through respectively their prime ministers and chief ministers,” it read.
Raising objections over paragraph 32 of the judgment, the petition contended that the federal government acts through the prime minister and the actions of the prime minister in performance of functions under the Constitution shall be considered as actions of the federal government.
“Even the rules of business 1973 of the federal government empower the PM to dispose of matters of business as he may consider appropriate without reference to the cabinet. The prime minister is also empowered to permit relaxation of the rules of business he considers appropriate,” it said.
Objecting to paragraph 39 of the judgment, in which prior approval of the National Assembly will be required for decisions on supplementary expenditure, the government submitted that there is no requirement in Article 84 that the supplementary or excess budget statement be placed before the NA in the same or next financial year.
Raising questions over para 52 (4) of the judgment, the government submitted that the constitution does not provide any specific provision to regulate the re-appropriation of funds and that this part of the judgment is liable to be reviewed.
“Budgetary allocations for the next fiscal year are prepared largely on the basis of previous expenditure trends and are only estimates,” it further said.
“Therefore, it is almost impossible to forecast needs/exact requirements of funds under numerous heads of accounts for the forthcoming financial year. Therefore, funds are re-appropriated within the same demand of ministries/divisions/ departments organisations in order to meet shortfall under certain heads from the savings from other heads of same demand with the approval of principal accounting officers and finance division for the efficient and effective functioning of the government,” it added.
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
The only reason low priority projects have liquidity for the govt. to play with is the fact that no progress has been made on them by their relevant authorities. Instead of getting excited about the money untouched, the government is advised to show cause notice those authorities who have caused undue losses to the public by their apathy and lack of intiative for the money they were allocated. We are not a rich country and so donot have the luxury to leave cash untouched with no productivity coming out of it for so long. The only places where such moneys should be diverted to is the health and education sector of the country. Otherwise i see no reason why the govt. shall have a problem with this ruling. Unless they intend to use the power to appease their well wishers and siphon of more of the public money into their own greedy and corrupt pockets.