QUETTA: The Balochistan High Court (BHC) has termed the Balochistan Local Government (Amendment) Act 2014 repugnant to the Constitution and void.

A BHC bench comprising Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Muhammad Ejaz Swati issued the verdict on a petition filed by Attaullah and two others against the promulgation of the act.

According to the judgement, the provincial local government department’s notification of Feb 4 which introduced amendments to the Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules 2013 had no legal effect because “it had been issued in excess of jurisdiction and was an ultra vires act”.

It said the act added two new categories of “professional” and “social worker” to the list of sections of society allocated reserved seats in local government bodies.

It observed that reserved seats could only be allocated for a class, a segment of society or a minority community considered to be downtrodden, impoverished, alienated or discriminated against and which had been specifically mentioned in the Constitution, like non- Muslims, women, peasants and workers.

“Social workers and professionals cannot be categorised as a tangible class and one that requires either encouragement or protection as they are not downtrodden, impoverished, alienated or discriminated (against).”

The verdict said that by taking away the reserved seats of workers and peasants and allocating them to ‘social workers’ and ‘professionals’ was discriminatory and illegal and violated Article 25 read with Article 32 of the Constitution and the protection and special status accorded to peasants and workers.

It said the amendment which allowed show of hands instead of secret ballot for the voting for the post of chairman and vice chairman of a local council could not be enacted because the government had not been granted such an authority by the act.

It observed that at the beginning of the local government election, the candidates participated in it on the basis that the chairman and vice chairman of a local council would be elected in a particular manner. But the method of their election was changed through an amendment before completion of the process of election. “As such the impugned rules are retrospective in application and it is a well-settled principle that subordinate legislation cannot be made to operate retrospectively.”

The verdict said that no cogent reason for enacting the impugned rules had been put forward and the reason presented for it was unreasonable and illogical.

It added that the Supreme Court and the Federal Shariat Court had endorsed secrecy of ballot and Article 140A read with Article 226 of the Constitution also mandated elections by secret ballot.

Published in Dawn, May 25th, 2014