ACTION AGAINST DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO MNAs/MPAs BY PRIME MINISTER vs O. XI

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

ACTION AGAINST DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO MNAs/MPAs BY PRIME MINISTER VS O. XI---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 184(3)--- Constitutional petition before the Supreme Court regarding distribution of development funds to Members of National and Provincial Assemblies by the Prime Minister---Re-constitution of Bench hearing a case by the Chief Justice---Propriety---His Lordship observed that present matter, which was being heard by a 2-member Bench, was fixed by the Chief Justice before a 5-member Bench, which did not include one of the Judges of the 2-Member Bench; that the 2-member Bench acted in the public interest to protect public money and ensure compliance with the Constitution and legal precedent, however, it was not permitted to proceed as the Chief Justice reconstituted the Bench; that Chief Justices may have discretion to constitute Benches but must do so for some reason; that the reconstitution of a Bench already seized with a matter (and in which a date-by-court had been given) must always be for a good, if not compelling, reason; that unstructured and arbitrary use of discretion gave rise to misgivings and undermined the peoples' confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system; that to arbitrarily reconstitute a bench for no reason when it was hearing a case was inappropriate because it raised unnecessary questions and people started speculating about why there was extraordinary interest in a particular case; that it also demoralized the members of the bench from whom the matter had been taken away. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 446 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ACTION AGAINST DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO MNAs/MPAs BY PRIME MINISTER VS O. XI---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 184(3)---Constitutional petition before the Supreme Court regarding distribution of development funds to Members of National and Provincial Assemblies by the Prime Minister---Un-biasness and impartiality of a judge---Scope---One of the Judges of the Bench hearing the present matter sought to place on record photocopies of certain documents statedly received by him from some anonymous source through a WhatsApp message indicating that funds had been provided to a member of the National Assembly---Attorney General contended that since the authenticity of said documents was questionable, the same may not be taken on record, and that in any event the Judge in question would become a complainant in the matter and in that capacity it would not be appropriate for him to hear the present matter---[Per Gulzar Ahmed, CJ; Majority view: In the circumstances it would not be proper for the Judge in question to hear the matter considering that he had already filed a petition against the Prime Minister, in his personal capacity, therefore, to uphold the principle of un-biasness and impartiality, it would be in the interest of justice that the Judge in question should not hear matters involving the Prime Minister]---[Per Qazi Faez Isa, J (Minority view): Order passed by the present Bench a day prior to current order did not state that a particular Judge should not hear cases involving the Prime Minister---More significantly, no one (on the Bench) took such an objection, including the Attorney-General, the law officers of the provincial governments and the Capital Territory or any government servant, therefore, there was no basis, let alone a factual basis, for a purported bias or lack of impartiality, as unilaterally attributed later to a Judge of the Supreme Court by the Chief Justice---Documents received on WhatsApp and the Prime Minister's statement (to provide money out of public funds to legislators), made in the backdrop of the upcoming (Senate) elections, merited scrutiny---In the interest of complete transparency and accountability and in conformity of the oath, the same were disclosed---Same were brought to the notice of the Judges, the concerned governments, their law officers and it was done in open Court and it was disclosed how the documents were received---Federal Government and the Provincial Government ought to have responded to the genuineness or otherwise of the documents---If the documents were not genuine the matter would have ended, but if the documents were genuine then it would need to be explained why such distribution of development funds was not in contravention of the Constitution and the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court---However, rather than verifying the documents, the Attorney General felt the need to transmute a Judge into a complainant---Chief Justice agreed with the Attorney General immediately and, promptly and unilaterally, without consulting his colleagues on the Bench, 'ordered' that a Judge (who he himself included on the Bench) 'should not hear matters involving the Prime Minister'---Such order was contrary to judicial propriety, decorum, restraint and courtesy. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 446 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ACTION AGAINST DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO MNAs/MPAs BY PRIME MINISTER VS arts. 120, 121, 122, 123, 124 & 184(3)---Constitutional petition before the Supreme Court regarding distribution of development funds to Members of National and Provincial assemblies by the Prime Minister---Report submitted on behalf of the Federal Government amply demonstrated that none of the development funds shall be handed over to any of the Federal Ministers, Parliamentarians or any other person under the existing budget and that whatever budgetary provisions had been made in the annual budget, the same would be utilized in the manner, as was provided in the Constitution and other applicable laws and regulations---Similarly reports submitted by the Provincial Governments, in specific terms, stated that no development fund was going to be given to any of the MPas/Ministers/notables of their respective Provinces and that the development funds shall be used and spent as per the constitutional mandate and the applicable rules framed by the respective Governments for utilization of the development funds provided in the annual budget---Supreme Court observed that queries raised by it in one of its previous orders had been addressed by all the respective Governments and thus, there was no reason to further proceed with the matter---application was disposed of accordingly. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 446 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ACTION AGAINST DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO MNAs/MPAs BY PRIME MINISTER VS O. XI---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 184(3) & 189---Constitutional petition before the Supreme Court regarding distribution of development funds to Members of National and Provincial Assemblies by the Prime Minister---Un-biasness and impartiality of a judge---Scope---Chief Justice, who was a Member of the Bench hearing the present matter, observed and ordered that one of the Judges on the Bench had filed a petition against the Prime Minister in his personal capacity, therefore, to uphold the principle of un-biasness and impartiality, it would be in the interest of justice that the Judge in question should not hear matters involving the Prime Minister---[Per Qazi Faez Isa, J (Minority view)] Such an order was unconstitutional, illegal and contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court---Order in question did not meet the stipulated criteria to constitute a legal order or a decision in terms of Art. 189 of the Constitution, was contrary to the rules of natural justice, the Constitution, impartiality and fair play and undermined the Supreme Court---Detailed reasons highlighting the illegalities and improprieties in the order stated.

ACTION AGAINST DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO MNAs/MPAs BY PRIME MINISTER vs O. XI — 2021 PLD 446 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PLD