Malik MUNSIF AWAN, ADVOCATE, CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN JUSTICE PARTY, LAHORE vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secret

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Malik MUNSIF AWAN, ADVOCATE, CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN JUSTICE PARTY, LAHORE VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and Justice, Islamabad arts. 184(3) & 185(3)---Rules of Business, 1973, Sched. Va---appointments made by the Prime Minister in his discretion---Powers of the Supreme Court to set-aside such appointments---Scope---Unless specific grounds were asserted and established justifying interference in exercise of discretion by the Prime Minister in making appointments against positions which had been left to the discretion of the Prime Minister by the Constitution, the Supreme Court would be slow in interfering in such appointments unless the exercise of discretionary powers by the Prime Minister was blatantly arbitrary, fanciful, unlawful or ex facie violative of the settled principles of exercise of discretion. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 379 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Malik MUNSIF AWAN, ADVOCATE, CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN JUSTICE PARTY, LAHORE VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and Justice, Islamabad R. 4(6)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 62, 63(1)(c) & 260---Special Assistant to the Prime Minister (SAPM), appointment of---Qualifications and disqualifications---Scope---Discretion of Prime Minister---Scope---Dual nationals appointed as Special Assistants to the Prime Minister---Constitutionality---Person having dual nationality was neither ineligible nor barred from appointment as a Special Assistant to the Prime Minister (SAPM)---Counsel for petitioner conceded that disqualifications mentioned in Arts. 62 & 63 of the Constitution were not attracted to the case of SAPMs---Special Assistants to the Prime Minister (SAPMs) were neither members of the Cabinet nor Parliamentarians or persons in the 'Service of Pakistan'---Person did not have to be a Parliamentarians in order to be appointed as SAPM---Post of SAPM was neither the creation of the Constitution nor could it be termed as a constitutional post---In view of the fact that the qualifications and antecedents for appointment of a SAPM were neither mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Rules of Business, 1973 it appeared to have been left at the discretion of the Prime Minister on the basis of his subjective assessment about the ability of a person to perform the functions that the Prime Minister required him to perform for such appointment---Further in view of absence of a settled criteria, standards or benchmarks, it was not possible to test the qualifications, antecedents and experience of incumbent SAPMs against such standards, therefore, it was appropriate to defer to the judgment and discretion of the Prime Minister in the hope that such discretion had been and shall in future be exercised in a fair, transparent and unbiased manner in the interest of better and more efficient functioning of the affairs of the Government---Supreme Court, however, observed that the Parliament may at an appropriate time consider laying down some criteria, minimum standards, educational qualifications, fields of expertise and levels of experience for appointment as Special Assistants to the Prime Minister in order to ensure that the exercise of discretion by the Prime Minister in such regard was properly structured, streamlined, circumscribed and systemized---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 379 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Malik MUNSIF AWAN, ADVOCATE, CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN JUSTICE PARTY, LAHORE VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and Justice, Islamabad R. 4(6)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 184(3) & 185(3)---Special Assistants to the Prime Minister, appointment of---Discretion of Prime Minister---Scope---On the basis of doctrine of trichotomy of powers certain discretionary powers had been vested in the Prime Minister in order to facilitate him in the performance of his functions and conducting business of the State---Unless it was specifically shown that the appointment of any Special Assistant to the Prime Minister suffered from any blot or blemish on their names or reputation for having been convicted for an offence of any nature or were under a cloud for having committed an illegality for which they had been convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the discretion by the Prime Minister was not justiciable and the flexibility provided by the Constitution to the Prime Minister was best left unfettered---Even otherwise, such appointments fell within the domain of discretionary powers available to the Prime Minister under the Constitution and the law---Unless abuse, excessive exercise, mala fides or blatant arbitrariness was clearly demonstrated, casual and frequent judicial interference in such matters would be violative of the concept of trichotomy of powers enshrined in the Constitution, and it would needlessly interfere with, hamper and obstruct the Prime Minister in the effective and efficient discharge and performance of his constitutional functions and obligations---Therefore, judicial restraint in such matters should be the norm and interference only an exception. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 379 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Malik MUNSIF AWAN, ADVOCATE, CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN JUSTICE PARTY, LAHORE VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and Justice, Islamabad R. 4(6) & Sched. Va, Sr. No. 1a---Special assistant to the Prime Minister (SaPM)---Conferring status of Minister of State on a SaPM---Legality---In terms of R. 4(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973 read with Sr.No.1a of Sched.-Va of the said Rules, the Prime Minister had the power and authority to appoint a Special assistant and determine his status---Petitioner was unable to point to any restriction or bar on the power of the Prime Minister against conferring of the status of Minister of State on the SaPMs---Merely by reason of being granted the status of a Minister of State a SaPM did not become a Minister of State---as such, there was no illegality in conferring on them the status of a Minister of State---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 379 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Malik MUNSIF AWAN, ADVOCATE, CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN JUSTICE PARTY, LAHORE VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and Justice, Islamabad arts. 184(3) & 185(3)---Writ of quo warranto---Scope---Where it was found that any person holding any position in or related to the Government or performing functions directly, indirectly or incidentally in connection with affairs of the Federal or any of the Provincial Governments or any local authority had been appointed on the basis only of political affiliation (as a political favour) and represented an exercise to reward cronies at the expense of public money, the Supreme Court could extend its outreach to undo such appointments. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 379 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Malik MUNSIF AWAN, ADVOCATE, CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN JUSTICE PARTY, LAHORE VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and Justice, Islamabad arts. 184(3) & 185(3)---State functionaries/holders of public office, discretion of---Powers of the Supreme Court to scrutinize executive actions where discretion was exercised---Scope---Constitution did not envisage unstructured, uncontrolled and arbitrary discretion being conferred on any State functionary or holder of a public office---Even if discretion had been conferred, the same had to be exercised honestly, fairly and transparently---Further, it had to meet the benchmark of being structured in the interest of uniformity, evenhandedness, probity and fairness---Only if the exercise of discretion met the said criteria the Supreme Court would refrain from interfering and scrutinizing executive actions on the principle of trichotomy of powers---No fetter could be placed on the power of the Supreme Court to examine and scrutinize executive actions to determine their legality and adherence to the Constitution. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 379 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Malik MUNSIF AWAN, ADVOCATE, CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN JUSTICE PARTY, LAHORE VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and Justice, Islamabad R. 4(6)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 90 & 99(3)---Power of the Prime Minister to appoint Special Assistants to the Prime Minister---Rule 4(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973, vires of---Rule 4(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973 had been framed validly in exercise of powers granted to the Federal Government under Arts. 90 & 99(3) of the Constitution---Nothing was available on record to suggest that said Rule was in conflict with any provision of the Constitution or the law---Rule 4(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973 was not ultra vires the Constitution.

Malik MUNSIF AWAN, ADVOCATE, CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN JUSTICE PARTY, LAHORE vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and Justice, Islamabad arts — 2021 PLD 379 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PLD