PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has directed the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government to release outstanding amount of Rs1.088 billion of the current Annual Development Programme (ADP) allocated for law and justice sector and also restrained it from reducing allocation for the sector in the budget for next fiscal year.

A bench consisting of PHC Chief Justice SM Attique Shah and Justice Mohammad Faheem Wali directed the KP advocate general, Shah Faisal Uthmankhel, to personally appear in the matter on next date of hearing along with all relevant stakeholders including KP chief secretary, principal secretary to chief minister, additional chief secretary of planning and development department and secretaries of finance and law departments.

The bench also directed the AG to submit comments within a week on behalf of all the respondents in the petition.

The petitioner has requested the court to restrain the respondents from reduction/diversion, re-appropriation or lapsing of funds allocated to law and justice and to the projects of courts and district judiciary of KP beyond the figures reflected in the 2025-26 budget. Next date of hearing will be fixed later.

PHC also orders release of over Rs1 billion outstanding amount

The petition has been filed by a lawyer, Raza Khan Safi, who has sought directions of court for the respondents to place on record complete budget document disclosing the law and justice sector ADP allocation for 2026-27, the ordinal demands submitted by the high court and planning and development department, finance department’s observations thereon, and the final decision of provincial cabinet.

He has sought directives of court for the respondents including the chief secretary to continue releases in respect of all ongoing law and justice sector schemes currently under execution including judicial infrastructure projects, court automation, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) centres, case flow management information system (CFMIS), e-filing infrastructure, Merged Districts Accelerated Implementation Programme (AIP) schemes and women facilitation initiatives, in accordance with approved project execution schedules.

“In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to forthwith release the outstanding amount of Rs1,088 million pertaining to law and justice sector for the financial year 2025-26,” the bench ordered.

“The respondents are further restrained from reducing, curtailing, diverting, re-appropriating, withholding, or otherwise lessening, in any manner whatsoever, the funds proposed by administrative departments, under law and justice sector, for the budget/ADP for the financial year 2026-27,” the bench directed in its five-page order.

The bench also directed its registrar to appear in person on the next date to submit his separate comments.

Senior counsel Shumail Ahmad Butt appeared for the petitioner and stated that the plea was a public interest constitutional petition, challenging arbitrary reduction in allocations made for law and justice sector (LJS) in the budget for 2026-27.

He submitted that during the current financial year 2025-26, against a total allocation of Rs6.4 billion, only Rs5.3 billion was released and utilised, whereas an amount of Rs1.088 billion, forming part of the approved allocation, had yet to be released.

He contended that under the ADP 2026-27, a substantial reduction had been imposed on the allocation for LJS, which was in violation of different provisions of the Constitution including articles 2-A, 9, 14, 25, 37(d), 121, 122 and 175(3). He said that it would adversely impact the financial autonomy and institutional independence of justice sector.

He submitted that, despite an increase in the number of schemes from 42 to 45, the sectoral allocation had been reduced to approximately Rs6.005 billion, and its share in the overall ADP had declined from 2 per cent to about 1.6 per cent.

The counsel claimed that allocations for ongoing schemes had been curtailed by approximately Rs1,182 million, thereby jeopardising the completion of existing projects and increasing throw-forward liabilities.

Mr Butt stated that various judicial infrastructure projects, including judicial complexes, residences, judicial academy projects, lawyer chambers and district court facilities were currently under execution and were dependent upon adequate and timely budgetary support.

He contended that PHC had presently been implementing its five-year strategic plan (2025-2030), while several initiatives of National Judicial Policy Making Committee, including e-filing, ADR mechanisms, mediation centres, solarisation, and digitisation projects were under way and required uninterrupted financial support.

Mr Butt contended that similar infrastructure initiatives were also in progress in merged districts under Accelerated Implementation Programme (AIP). He claimed that further reductions might have been effected by the provincial cabinet beyond those reflected in the published ADP documents.

He sought disclosure of the complete decision making process relating to the impugned allocations.

He contended that respondent authorities were under a constitutional obligation to consult PHC prior to any curtailment of allocations necessary for the discharge of its constitutional functions, however, no such consultation was undertaken.

AG Shah Faisal Utmankhel raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant writ petition.

He contended that, firstly, that court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matters falling within the domain of policy decisions and secondly, the petitioner was not an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of the Constitution.

He said that the petition was premature and liable to be rejected without further proceedings.

Published in Dawn, June 26th, 2026