Calls for parliamentary debate on SC’s verdict about appointments in FST; says SC’s verdict in clear violation of the constitution
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Senator Farhatullah Babar has called for a larger parliamentary debate on the Supreme Court (SC)’s verdict regarding consulting the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) in the appointment of the chairman and members of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) as well as a debate on the August 5 judgment in the 18th constitutional amendment case so as to raise a respectful but powerful voice to protect the domain of the parliament which he said was fast eroding.
Speaking on his motion on the appointments in FST, a body set up through legislation under Article 212 of the 1973 Constitution, Babar said that neither the constitution nor the 1973 FST Act provided for consultation with the CJP in the appointments of its chairman and members.
He said that by the same logic it may be asked that appointments of federal and provincial ombudsmen, and other ombudsmen such as for tax, banking, women and insurance should also be made in consultation with the CJP even though neither constitution nor the law requires such consultation.
Directions to amend the law to make consultation with the CJP mandatory even if the constitution did not require it appeared beyond comprehension, he said.
The PPP Senator was of the view that legislation is the prerogative of the parliament and not of any other state organ.
“That the Supreme Court can review legislation on the touchstone of the constitution is a settled practice but to ask the parliament to make a law for which there is no provision in the constitution is another matter,” Babar broke it down.
The senator said that the August 5 verdict of the SC in the 18th Constitutional Amendment case, in which the SC had held by a majority of 13 to 4 that it can strike down or review a constitutional amendment, as the powers of the parliament to amend are limited, had a direct bearing on the issue and also needed to be discussed.
He referred to Article 239(5) and (6) that state “no amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever”, and even more categorically, “for the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatever on the power of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution.”
He said that a larger parliamentary debate was necessary to examine issues of parliamentary sovereignty and to appropriately raise voice for the protection of the parliament’s constitutional duties and domain.
