Enactment of laws through ordinances: IHC moved for early disposal of petition against 'trend'

ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court (IHC) was moved for early disposal of a petition against the 'trend' of enacting laws through ordinances.

Barrister Mohsin Nawaz Ranjha on Saturday filed an application through advocate Umer Gilani requesting the IHC to fix a date for early hearing of the petition.

The petition has remained pending for 10 months and is now ripe for disposal.

The petitioner's case is that the constitution places strict conditions on the exercise of Ordinance-making power.

It is to be exercised only when doing so is necessary for responding to an emergency situation, such as war, famine, epidemic or rebellion.

He stated that such situation arises after the prorogation of one session of Parliament, and where waiting for the next session would cause irreparable loss to the people of Pakistan.

The Ordinance-making power is an emergency provision and is not meant for routine legislation, he added.

Umer Gilani submitted that data suggests that, unfortunately, the Ordinance-making power had been constantly abused by successive governments.

Since 1947, more than 2,500 ordinances have been promulgated by the various presidents, and this practice is continuing even today.

The petitioner stated that during the pendency of the petition, the federal government continued to promulgate ordinances, thereby sidelining the parliament.

These ordinances relate to amendments in criminal laws, tax laws and procurement law, none of which can be rightfully considered as emergency laws.

The application contends that this continuing trend of sidelining parliament is a direct result of a misunderstanding regarding the proper scope of Article 89 of the Constitution. It is the rightful duty of constitutional courts to properly interpret and declare the law so that such abuse can be stopped.

Therefore, an early hearing has been requested.

He submitted that the Constitution envisages Parliament (and the President or the Federal Government) as the principal legislative organ of the state.

He stated that comments of the principal respondents and amicus briefs from amice curiae - Abid Hassan Minto and Dr Babar Awan - were now part of the record.

On 12th March, detailed written submission on behalf of the petitioner was also submitted.

The case is therefore ripe for disposal.

Gilani said the petitioner only sought from the IHC a clarification and declaration of the constitutional law of Pakistan for the sake of posterity and nothing further.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2020