---

July 25, 2008	Friday	Rajab 21, 1429

---

ISLAMABAD, July 24: A Senate committee has criticised the inclusion of increase in the number of Supreme Court judges and amendments to various other “irrelevant laws” in the money bill, and directed the ministries of finance and law to explain their position in its next meeting.

Members of the Senate Committee on Rules of Procedure and Privileges criticised what they termed a gross violation of the Constitution, and observed that nowhere in the world the number of judges of top courts was increased in this manner, according to a senator who attended the meeting held on Thursday.

They said the government had bypassed Senate in the process of lawmaking by including in the money bill legislative issues irrelevant to it, and had thus breached the privilege of Senate.

The committee, which met under the chairmanship of Senator S. Tahir Hussain Mashhadi, considered privilege motion about inclusion of 27 acts and ordinances in the money bill and amendments to laws which did not conform to definition of money bill under Article 73 of the Constitution.

The motion was moved by Senators Chaudhry Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, Kamil Ali Agha, Col (retd) S. Tahir Hussain Mashhadi, Agha Pari Gul, Nilofar Bakhtiar, Bibi Yasmeen Shah, Haroon Khan, Khalid Ranjha and Dr Muhammad Ali Brohi.

Law Minister Farooq H. Naek was not there because he was attending a meeting on the repeal of Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR), while Finance Minister Syed Naveed Qamar came an hour late.

Senator Mashhadi asked both the ministries to submit detailed and comprehensive replies, giving their points of view on the subject by July 31. He said special requests be made to the ministers, National Assembly secretary and all members to attend the next meeting because it was a matter of paramount importance.

Finance Minister Naveed Qamar assured the committee he would ensure his presence in the next meeting along with the law minister.

He appreciated the hard work done by the committee on finance to formulate recommendations to be incorporated in the federal budget.

He said that although the increase in the number of judges had financial implications, he would agree to a full debate on the issue when the minister for law and justice was free to devote more time.

Mr Mashhadi said it was the constitutional right of Senate to know how and why it had been done. This was a pertinent question which needed to be answered in detail.

On the issue of judges, he observed that the Constitution was very categorical as there was a clear provision that this number “shall” be increased only by an Act of the Parliament. (Had there been a “may be”, according to him, the situation might have been different).

Senator S.M. Zafar said the practice of associating apparently unconnected matters with the finance bill had been going on for quite some time and it had been repeated this year.

Senator Bhinder regretted that briefs had not been provided to members by the ministries concerned. He expressed surprise over inclusion of 27 acts and ordinances in the money bill and asked if the law division had actually vetted the bill before giving its consent. He said the upper house had been bypassed by the ministries concerned.