ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that the massive expenses incurred on the palatial President House, Prime Minister’s House or the various Governor’s houses, as well as the extravagant lifestyles of their occupants and the perks enjoyed by government functionaries at public expense were a matter of government policy, involving political questions.

This is a domain where the Supreme Court does not ordinarily rush into, said a judgement authored by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed. Dismissing an appeal moved by the Pakistan Lawyers Forum, challenging the rejection of a similar plea by the Lahore High Court on Nov 27, 2002, the verdict held that no matter how appealing the arguments of the petitioner appeared to be, the court could not allow itself to be seduced by them and must exercise judicial restraint.

The short order, which was passed by a three-judge bench also consisting of Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and Justice Mushir Alam on March 31, 2015, had dismissed the plea on the grounds that the petition had no merit.

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, A.K. Dogar had sought a declaration from the Supreme Court that the provision of luxury vehicles, spacious accommodation and other prerequisites provided to public functionaries to maintain a lavish lifestyle at the public expense was not only un-Islamic and un-constitutional, but also a violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of Pakistan.

Court rules it cannot ‘rush into’ something which is a govt domain

Mr Dogar had contended that all the assets, funds and properties of the state of Pakistan were vested with the people of Pakistan and not public functionaries, who are only entrusted with them so they could be used for the benefit of the people.

In a country burdened by foreign debt, where a substantial percentage of the populous lived under the poverty line with a lack of access to basic healthcare and education, such extravagant expenditure was not only against the traditions of simplicity of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), but also violates the fundamental rights of the citizens and, particularly, is in violation of Articles 2A, 3, 4, 9, 14, 25, 37 and 38 of the Constitution.

During the proceedings, the counsel proposed that the funds spent catering to public functionaries, and the accommodations provided to them, should be used for the benefit of the public at large.

The acute dissimilarities between the lifestyles of the common people and the extravagant lifestyles of public functionaries maintained at public expense were not only discriminatory, but also denuded the ordinary citizens of their basic dignity.

Now, in a six-page detailed judgement, the Supreme Court admitted that there is no escaping the fact that public property is a public trust in the hands of public functionaries.

But the counsel, the court held, had cast his net much too wide since the question of emoluments, accommodation and other perks to be provided to public functionaries was essentially a matter of government policy, involving political questions, a domain in which the court ordinarily does not intervene.

Published in Dawn, June 28th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play