Governor blocks bill over legal concerns

PESHAWAR:
Once again locking horns with the provincial government, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Governor Faisal Karim Kundi has declined to sign the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Employees Removal from Service Bill 2025 into law and has sent it back to the Assembly with objections.
The K-P Assembly had passed the bill and forwarded it to the Governor, aiming to remove more than 10,000 employees who were recruited during the caretaker government.
The Governor has raised several objections to the bill, stating that upon reviewing it under Article 115(5) and Article 116 of the Constitution of Pakistan, certain flaws have been identified that could not only undermine its objectives but also negatively impact the rights of citizens.
He pointed out that the bill includes recruitments made through the notification dated January 22, 2023, which were conducted under the instructions of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The Governor noted that while the ECP had relaxed the ban on recruitment in certain cases, the appointments made during the caretaker government are considered legal if they were transparent and based on merit, as established in the 2008 PLD 446 judgment of the Supreme Court.
To avoid unjustified dismissals, he recommended that the bill include clarification in this regard.
The Governor also objected to sub-clause (4) of Section 1, which makes the bill effective in the future, while sub-clause (2) allows it to be enforced retroactively. Citing the 2024 SCMR 1168 judgment, he argued that a law nullifying past statutory recruitments is unconstitutional and would violate fundamental rights. Similarly, referencing the 2014 PLC (CS) 304 ruling by the Sindh High Court, he noted that withdrawing legally acquired benefits without reasonable justification is a breach of constitutional rights.
Furthermore, the Governor criticized Section 4 of the bill, which deprives dismissed employees of their right to appeal. He asserted that this violates Article 10A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair and transparent hearing. He recommended that employees should be given the opportunity for legal defense to ensure justice.
Additionally, the Governor suggested taking action against the officers responsible for illegal recruitments to prevent such irregularities in the future. He emphasized that it would be unjust to penalize only the employees while allowing the officials who made the unlawful appointments to go unpunished.
Considering these objections, the Governor recommended that the government review the bill and amend it in accordance with constitutional requirements to protect employees' rights and ensure transparency. He warned that if the government disregards these recommendations, the bill could face legal challenges in court.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Recorder

19 minutes ago

• Business Recorder

Acting governor be given full access to Governor's House: SHC

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the Principal Secretary of the Governor of Sindh to grant full access to the Acting Governor, Syed Awais Qadir Shah, to all official rooms, offices, and chambers within the Governor House. In a constitutional petition, Syed Awais Qadir Shah, who is also the Speaker of the Sindh Assembly, pleaded that despite Governor Sindh Kamran Tessori being abroad, and as per Article 104 of the Constitution, which mandates the Speaker to perform the Governor's functions, he was being denied access to the Governor House and its associated offices. The petitioner's counsels, Barrister Azain Memon and Zubair Ali Butt, argued that the Principal Secretary had repeatedly refused the petitioner and his staff access to the Governor House, despite formal requests; this denial hindered the Acting Governor's ability to perform his official duties. The court was informed that the denial of access was not an isolated incident but had occurred multiple times, including on the day of the hearing. The petitioner sought immediate and unobstructed access to the Governor House and its resources to discharge his duties as Acting Governor. The Advocate General Sindh, Jawad Dero, stated that the Acting Governor was legally entitled to use the Governor House for official business. The court, after interpreting Article 104, concluded that the petitioner could not be denied access to the Governor House to carry out his official duties. The court directed the Principal Secretary to provide immediate access to the Acting Governor to all rooms, offices, and chambers in the Governor House, except the residential portion, to enable him to perform his official duties. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Express Tribune

2 hours ago

• Express Tribune

CB mulls SC powers for 'complete justice'

Some members of a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court raised a number of questions with regard to the SC's powers to ensure "complete justice". They also asked how non allocations of reserved seats to the PTI could be called a violation of fundamental rights. PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab's counsel Salman Akram Raja on Friday resumed his arguments in support of the SC's July 12 majority order in the reserved seats case before the 11-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan that is hearing review petitions against the verdict. Raja, in his arguments, stated that it is the responsibility of this court to protect fundamental rights and this responsibility is assigned to it by the Constitution. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how Article 187 applies in this case. Article 187(1) gives the Supreme Court the power to issue any order or direction necessary for doing complete justice in any case pending before it while Article 187(2) gives it the powers as a civil court to enforce its decisions, including issuing orders to any person or authority. Raja replied that he would explain this in detail later. He said the Supreme Court has broader authority and can use Article 187 together with Article 184 to deliver complete justice. Justice Mandokhail asked whether Article 184(3) is used in public interest cases. Salman Akram Raja responded in the affirmative. He said the SC can use Article 184(3) for public interest and fundamental rights. "When there is destruction or crisis, one does not ask which article applies—then the Supreme Court must step forward and do what is necessary." Justice Mandokhail asked whether, if a constitutional violation occurs but no specific article applies, the SC should still take action. The lawyer said in such a situation, the SC should do whatever is necessary. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that Article 199 cannot be read together with Article 187. He remarked that under Article 199, the high court has powers that even the Supreme Court does not possess. Article 199 of the Constitution outlines the writ jurisdiction of the high courts. It empowers high courts to issue various writs (orders) to enforce fundamental rights and ensure lawful conduct by authorities. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar asked what, in his view, are the limits of the Supreme Court's powers. Justice Jamal Mandokhail said, "My brother judge suggests that there must be some limit to the powers. Does the Supreme Court have unlimited powers in every case?" He then asked whether any constitutional or legal violation occurred in the majority decision of the reserved seats case. Salman Akram Raja said, "There was no overreach in the Supreme Court's decision." Justice Mandokhail remarked that the Constitution itself gives parties the right to join within three days. Justice Aminuddin Khan interjected.

Express Tribune

a day ago

• Express Tribune

CB upholds transfer of judges to IHC

In a majority verdict, a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the transfer of three provincial high court judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), noting that these transfers could not be declared new appointments. However, the majority judges partially remanded the matter to the President of Pakistan to determine the seniority of the transferred judges after examining and vetting their service record "as soon as possible, including the question of whether the transfer is on a permanent or temporary basis". Two of the judges — Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shakeel Ahmed — however, declared the notification for transfer of the judges "null, void and of no legal effect" in their minority order. On February 1, the Ministry of Law issued a notification for the transfer of Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and Justice Muhammad Asif — respectively from the Lahore High Court, the Sindh High Court and the Balochistan High Court — to the IHC. Following this transfer, endorsed by the president, the IHC issued a new seniority list, ranking Justice Dogar as the senior puisne judge. Five IHC judges filed representations against this seniority list. However, the then IHC chief justice, Aamer Farooq rejected these representations. After elevation of Justice Farooq to the Supreme Court, Justice Dogar was also elevated as the IHC acting chief justice. The IHC judges and some other petitioners including Imran Khan challenged the ministry's notification as well the new seniority list in the Supreme Court, whose five-member CB heard the matter. On Thursday, three members of the CB—Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar— issued their short order, disposing of the petitions. The order noted that the powers of the president under Sub-article (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution for the transfer of a judge and the provisions contained under Article 175A for appointment of judges by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) are two distinct provisions dealing with different situations. "Neither do they overlap nor override each other. The transfer of a judge by the President of Pakistan by means of Article 200 of the Constitution (permanently or temporarily) cannot be construed as a fresh appointment. "Furthermore, the powers of transfer conferred to the President by none other than the framers of the Constitution cannot be questioned on the anvil or ground that if the posts were vacant in the IHC, then why they were not filled up by JCP through fresh appointments. "One more important facet that cannot be lost sight of is that the transfer from one high court to another can only be made within the sanctioned strength, which can only be regarded as a mere transfer and does not amount to raising the sanctioned strength of a particular high court," it said. It noted that if it is presumed that all posts should be filled by the JCP alone through fresh appointments, then such interpretation or state of mind would not only go against the manifest intention of the framers of the Constitution but will also amount to negating or making redundant the substratum and existence of Article 200 of the Constitution. "The article is absolutely not dependent, concomitant, or at the mercy of Article 175A of the Constitution, but is an independent and standalone provision dealing with the transfer of judges of a High Court (permanently or temporarily) and not the appointment of judges, which assignment has been incontrovertibly conferred to the JCP autonomously in terms of Article 175A of the Constitution." The majority judges, however, partially remanded the matter to the president, without upsetting the notification of transfer, to determine the seniority after examining/vetting the service record of the transferred judges, including the question of whether the transfer is on a permanent or temporary basis. "Till such time that the seniority and nature of transfer (permanent or temporary) of the transferee judges is determined by the President of Pakistan by means of notification/order, Mr Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, already holding the office of Acting Chief Justice of the IHC, will continue to perform as the acting chief CJ," they added. The dissenting note Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shakeel Ahmed disagreed with the majority order and declared the notification for transfer of the judge null and void. They stated that Clause (2) of Article 200 of the Constitution is subservient to Clause (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution and both are interconnected. "According to the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, while interpreting Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 200, both the clauses have to be harmonized and, being consistent with each other, have to be read in conjunction with each other for giving effect to both without creating conflict or absurdity" "When Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 200 are read in conjunction with each other, it provides that when, in exercise of his discretion, the president transfers a judge from one high court to another, during the period for which he serves as a judge of the high court to which he is transferred, the judge so transferred is entitled to such allowances and privileges, in addition to his salary, as determined by the President." The order said the Attorney General for Pakistan conceded and categorically conveyed to the court on behalf of the Federation of Pakistan that the three Judges have been transferred on permanent basis. It said Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 200, read in conjunction with each other, do not provide for permanent transfer of a judge from one high court to another and it provides for transfer of a judge a period — on temporary basis. It said the permanent transfer of three judges to the IHC has been made in the wrong exercise of discretion under Clause (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution and has offended Article 175A of the Constitution, making it redundant. "The process for permanent transfer of three judges to the IHC is suffering from concealment of relevant and material facts from the transferee Judges, from the chief justices of the IHC, LHC, SHC, BHC and from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) "The process for permanent transfer of three judges to the IHC is also lacking meaningful, purposive and consensus oriented consultation with the chief justices of the IHC, LHC, SHC, BHC and Hon'ble CJP on all the relevant issues," it added. The minority order noted the intelligence agencies, including the ISI, have no role under the Constitution for appointment or transfer of Judges. "Being subordinate to the executive, the intelligence agencies, including the ISI, cannot override the executive, the judiciary, the constitutional bodies and the constitutional office holders," it added.