Former Information Minister Pervaiz Rasheed has prayed to the apex court to review its judgement regarding payment of 20% of Rs 197.8 million in two months in the chairman PTV appointment case.
The Supreme Court on November 8, 2019 had delivered a judgement directing former Chairman Pakistan Television Atta-ul-Haq Qasmi to pay 50%, ex-Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, 20%, ex-Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid, 20%, and former secretary to the PM Fawad Hasan Fawad, 10%, of Rs 197,867,491 in two months, as a huge loss was caused to PTV in Qasmi's appointment as chairman.
The judgement said that Pervaiz Rashid did not have power or authority to decide and propose on his own the name of Qasmi for the post. The former information minister on Saturday filed a review petition and contended that the impugned judgement deserves to be reviewed. It said that the impugned judgement is beyond the limited scope of Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
The penalties have been imposed without any fair and proper trial, giving. The apportionment of the liability has been determined arbitrarily and without following the basic principles of natural justice and without framing an issue on these recoveries. He contended that question of law framed in the judgement was not shared with the petitioner before announcing the judgement.
The recoveries have been imposed arbitrarily and selectively, based on pick-and-choose policy, on some officials and persons involved in the appointment of Qasmi that violates Articles 4, 9, 10, 10 A, 14, 18, 23, 24, 25 and 248 of the Constitution; The impugned judgement is against the letter and spirit of the Article 248 of the Constitution that provides protection to the actions performed by the petitioner as a federal minister.
Since Atta-ul-Haq Qasmi had already ceased to hold office before the court took cognisance of the matter; therefore, a writ in nature of certiorari or quo warranto under Article 199 read with Artilce184(3) could not be issued to invalidate the appointment of Atta-ul-Haq Qasmi and subsequent penalties ordered to be paid by the petitioner.
The exercise of jurisdiction under the Article 184 (3) of Constitution, if at all exercised, shall not be exercised having consequences for the past; rather the judgement shall have future effects; in other words, declaration of appointment as illegal and payment of penalties/recoveries is not judicious exercise of jurisdiction under this extraordinary jurisdiction.
The impugned judgment is contrary to principles declared in innumerable such judgements when an appointment is declared null and void ab initio but no recoveries are ordered. In recent past, appointment of more than 100 judges of the high courts was declared illegal and void but no orders were passed for the recoveries of their salaries and consequential losses occurred due to their orders; rather, illegally paid pensions to some of them were protected.
For the first time, this principle has been laid down that recommender (information minister) is liable for all the actions done by the appointee (chairman PTV). With due respect it is submitted that this ratio will have far-reaching consequences unknown to modern jurisprudence; the question arises will a chief justice (recommender) be liable for all the consequences of illegal actions of the appointed judges?
Comments
Comments are closed.