ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday took exce­p­tion to media reports about app­­roval by Prime Minister Imran Khan of Rs500 million each as uplift grant to PTI lawmakers and fixed the matter for Feb 10 to decide whether proceed with it or end it after considering res­ponses from the federal and provincial governments.

In a four-page order, a two-judge SC bench consisting of Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Maqbool Baqar cited Article 5(2) that mandates obedience to the Constitution and law as inviolable obligation of every citizen and said Article 204(2) of the Constitution empowered the Supreme Court to take action against any person who disobeyed any order of the court. Moreover, the oath of office of the judges also requires them to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Presiding over a parliamentary party meeting on Jan 27, the prime minister had accepted a long-standing demand of the ruling PTI lawmakers for development funds and announced granting Rs500m each to members of the national and provincial assemblies under the sustainable development goals so that they could carry out development schemes in their constituencies.

The Supreme Court summoned Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan to seek his opinion and advice whether the proposed distribution of public funds is in accordance with the Constitu­tion and the 2014 SC judgement in a case relating to distribution of development funds by former prime minister Raja Pervez Ashraf.

Apex court seeks responses from federal, provincial governments

Justice Isa also asked the AGP whether the federal and provincial governments had handed over or intended to hand over the funds to the legislators or carry out development works identified by them.

The AGP said he needed time to ascertain the facts and seek instructions, but explained that he would not countenance anything against any provision of the Constitution and the cited precedent (Pervez Ashraf case).

Justice Isa observed that the court wanted answers to the questions and directed the court office to issue notices to the federal government through the cabinet secretary, principal secretary to the prime minister and secretary finance and to all provincial governments thro­ugh their respective chief secretaries and secretaries of finance departments. Notices were also issued to the AGP and advocates general for the Pun­jab, Sindh, Khyber Pakh­tun­khwa and Balochistan as well as Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT), asking them to furnish their replies.

Depending on the responses and replies, the order explained, this matter might either be concluded or if the responses were con­sidered by the court not in acc­ordance with the Constitu­t­ion and the cited precedent, the same might be required to be taken up further and the matter be referred to Chief Justice of Pak­istan Gulzar Ahmed for constitution of a bench for determination of the matter.

In the order, Justice Isa stated that it had been widely reported in national dailies, including responsible newspaper Dawn on Jan 28, 2021 under the headline “Rs500m uplift grant for each lawmaker okayed”, which quoted a minister as saying that the prime minister announced Rs500m for each MNA and MPA so that they could initiate development schemes in their constituencies.

Likewise, on Feb 1, the same newspaper wrote an editorial titled “Development funds” and questioned the “decision by the prime minister to hand out half a billion rupees in development funds to each federal and provincial lawmaker of his party for carrying out schemes in their respective constituencies”.

Apparently neither the news report nor the subsequent editorial comment were denied or contradicted by the government or by the prime minister, the SC order said.

In the Raja Pervez Ashraf case, the Supreme Court had held that the discretionary grant of the prime ministers should not be spent at the absolute discretion of the executive rather in a structure manner. Besides, the National Assembly, while giving assent to a grant to be utilised by the executive at its discretion, has to follow the procedure provided in Articles 80 to 84 as well as the Rules of Procedure 2007.

The 2014 judgement had also held that the Constitution did not permit the use or allocation of funds to the MNAs, MPAs or notables at the sole discretion of the prime minister or the chief minister. “If there is any practice of allocation of funds to the MNAs/MPAs/notables at the sole discretion of the prime minister or the chief minister, the same is illegal and unconstitutional and that the government is bound to establish procedure or criteria for governing allocation of such funds for this purpose,” it said.

The judgement had also declared that the funds could be provided for development schemes by way of supplementary grants, but for that purpose procedure provided in Articles 80 to 84 of the Constitution and the rules/instructions had to be followed.

“The funds can be allocated by way of re-appropriation but the procedure provided in the Constitution and the rules has to be followed in its true perspective,” the judgement had held, adding that no bulk grant could be made in the budget without giving detailed estimates under each grant divided into items and that every item had to be specified.

“The amounts as approved in the budget passed by the National Assembly have to be utilised for the purpose specified in the budget statement,” the verdict had held, adding that any re-appropriation of the funds or their utilisation for some other purpose, though within the permissible limits of the budget, were not justified.

In such circumstances, it added, the supplementary budget statement had to be placed before parliament following the procedure provided in Articles 80 to 84 of the Constitution and the rules of procedures.

Published in Dawn, February 4th, 2021