LAHORE: Petition against rise in number of ministers
By Our Correspondent
LAHORE, July 29: Advocate-General Syed Shabbar Raza Razvi deposed with the Lahore High Court on Thursday that replacement of ministers with bureaucrats would amount to collapse of the federal parliamentary system and make several articles of the constitution redundant.
Justice Mohammad Muzammil Khan reserved judgment on the writ petition filed by Advocate MD Tahir after the parties concluded their arguments. The petitioner had objected to the rise in the number of ministers at federal and provincial cabinets and pleaded that they were not required in the presence of secretaries of line departments, who were competent enough to run the administration on their own.
The advocate-general submitted that if the contentions were accepted, it would amount to collapse of the whole constitutional scheme of things, which included the federal system, the parliamentary form of government, the president and the central and provincial cabinets, the independence of judiciary and the Islamic character of the state.
Quoting a number of Supreme Court judgments, including the decision in the case of Syed Zafar Ali Shah in the year 2000, he submitted that the apex court had restrained the government from interfering with the fundamental constitutional policy and systems like the federal parliamentary democracy, judiciary and state's Islamic character.
Mr Razvi stated that the formation of cabinets was part of the basic constitutional framework of federal parliamentary democracy which no state institution was empowered to review.
He submitted that no court could have the power to examine an issue which related to reopening the constitutional scheme of things. He submitted that judges were appointed for the Supreme Court by the prime minister and for high courts by chief ministers.
The judiciary represented a constitutional authority exercised by the government. The creation could not annul its creator and the courts were obliged to defend and protect the constitution which created them.
As for the number of ministers, the advocate-general submitted, the constitution did not envisage an upper limit. The limit was for the appointment of advisers, and their number at the centre and in provinces was strictly in accordance with provisions of the constitution.
Referring to department secretaries, the AG submitted that they were not constitutional functionaries like ministers, state ministers and advisors. Secretaries were essentially civil servants and were appointed through statutes and were not superior to those appointed in accordance with the constitution.
Deputy Attorney General Danishwar Malik, who adopted he arguments of the advocate-general, submitted on an inquiry by the court that the federal cabinet comprised 20 ministers, seven ministers of state and four advisors.
No violation of the constitution had been committed particularly with regard to the appointment of advisors, whose number was fixed at five by basic law of the land. He submitted that Article 92 did not fix the number of ministers.
The petitioner submitted that the Punjab had 42 ministers to take care of 32 departments. He submitted that the cabinet was a burden on the exchequer. On a court inquiry that any extra-constitutional step taken in the formation of the cabinet be pointed out, the petitioner stated that the constitution had been made a joke by successive governments and its provisions were violated with impunity.
