PERVAIZ RASHEED vs PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION arts — 2024 SCMR 942 SUPREME-COURT

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

PERVAIZ RASHEED VS PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION arts. 184(3) & 188---Chairman and Managing Director of Pakistan Television Corporation ("PTV")---appointment, salary and allowances---Legality---Purported financial loss caused to PTV, recovery of---By way of judgment under review [which was heard and decided under article 184(3) of the Constitution) the appointment of petitioner as Chairman and Managing Director of PTV was declared illegal and directions were given to recover the purported loss to PTV from four persons, i.e., the petitioner, the then Minister for Information, Minister for Finance and Secretary to the Prime Minister---Validity---article 184(3) of the Constitution is an extraordinary power bestowed by the Constitution on the Supreme Court and it may be invoked when Fundamental Rights of the people are under attack or are being undermined---It is questionable whether the emoluments of a single individual would justify invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 184(3)---applicability of the articles 18 and 25 is also not self evident, and it has not been explained in the judgment under review, how either of these two provisions were attracted---Factual determination of the purported loss was arbitrary and also incorrect---Petitioner was paid just a little more than his predecessor, which if inflation is factored in would be justified---It was a material error to assume that petitioner's programme's air time was lost revenue; it could also be contended that his programme contributed towards PTV's earnings---It would not be fair to penalize someone on the basis of mere conjecture---There is no evidence to suggest that an amount of Rs.197,867,491 was paid to the petitioner or that he had caused such a loss to PTV---as regards the salary of one million and five hundred thousand rupees being paid to the petitioner is concerned, it was just a little over what was paid to the previous MD, which was an important fact which was overlooked and also the fact that the petitioner's increased salary a few years later could be justified on account of inflation---In these circumstances, to seek the recovery of an arbitrarily determined loss was neither legally permissible nor factually correct---Moreover, to make liable the then Minister for Information, Minister for Finance and the Secretary to the Prime Minister with regard to half the purported loss amount, and to pay it, had no legal basis, was without precedence and was not justified, and to do so when there was nothing on record to suggest that they had financially benefited from petitioner's appointment nor was there any proof of nepotism on the record---Review petitions were allowed and the judgment under review was recalled.

PERVAIZ RASHEED vs PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION arts — 2024 SCMR 942 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR