ISLAMABAD, July 14: The federal government said on Thursday it would go to the Supreme Court to challenge the controversial Hasba Bill passed earlier in the day by the NWFP assembly. The government has instructed Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan to file a reference before the Supreme Court, a statement issued by the attorney-general’s office said. “The reference, to be filed shortly under the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 186 of the Constitution, will seek an opinion as to the constitutionality of the Hasba Bill in general and specifically whether the bill is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution,” it said.
The statement, issued shortly after the bill sponsored by the NWFP government of the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) was passed by the ruling alliance majority in the assembly, did not specify the date when the reference would be filed.
However, political sources said the attorney-general was likely to do it on Friday, as the federal government appeared to be seeking an early legal settlement over the MMA’s move, which had drawn widespread criticism from across the country.
The constitution’s two-clause Article 186, under which the reference is to be filed, allows the president of Pakistan to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on any legal question of public importance.
It reads: (1) If, at any time, the president considers that it is desirable to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law that he considers of public importance, he may refer the question to the Supreme Court for consideration.
(2) The Supreme Court shall consider a question so referred and report its opinion on the question to the president.
Critics have denounced the Hasba Bill as a move to create a virtual theocracy in the NWFP, empower mullahs or clergymen appointed as mohtasibs at provincial, district and tehsil levels to oversee people’s public and private lives of people and to influence the coming local government elections.
However, the seven-party alliance defended the move as an implementation of the Islamic injunction of “amar bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar” (promotion of virtue and prevention of evil).
While all other major political parties, human rights organisations and other groups in the country came out strongly against the bill that was introduced in the provincial assembly on Monday, the first concrete indication of a federal intervention came on Wednesday when provincial governor Khalilur Rehman said that every step allowed under the constitution would be taken to block the enforcement of the new law.
The governor’s statement to journalists that the bill was “unconstitutional” and that “we cannot allow a state within a state” had spurred speculation even on the possibility of dissolution of the provincial assembly if the MMA refused to budge.
Political sources said the federal government was likely to request the Supreme Court for an early ruling on its reference.
The provincial governor has 30 days to give his assent to the bill so it could become law.
Other options available to him included referring the bill back to the provincial assembly for a reconsideration to which the MMA was unlikely to agree.
While under Article 122 of the Constitution, the governor is bound to dissolve the provincial assembly if advised by the chief minister. He is also empowered to do it in his discretion with the approval of the president in two cases: if no other member is likely to command majority after a no-confidence vote against the chief minister and when a situation arises “in which the government of the province cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution and an appeal to the electorate is necessary”.
In the event of dissolution in the last two cases, the governor must refer the matter within 15 days to the Supreme Court whose decision on the reference— to be given within 30 days— will be final.