TWO different high courts — Sindh and Islamabad — have concurrently given opposing judgements on similar petitions contesting the formation of the sugar inquiry commission. The latter was set up in March to investigate the sudden spike in the sweetener’s price last winter. The petitioners — the sugar mill owners — had also challenged the validity of its findings, requesting the courts to stop any action against them on the basis of the impugned report. The Sindh High Court had on Monday struck down the constitution of the commission because the government didn’t follow the procedure for its formation. It had also failed to issue a gazette notification about its constitution within the stipulated time period and the commission denied the petitioners the opportunity of being heard. The next day, the Islamabad High Court passed a different verdict, which contradicted the Sindh High Court decision although it had duly noted that the commission conducted only a fact-finding exercise with no mandate or power to impose any penalty.

This is not for the first time that two high courts have taken opposing views on the same issue and given conflicting judgements. It has happened before, requiring the Supreme Court to break the impasse. Until that happens, both judgements will continue to hold in the courts’ respective territorial jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court ruling offers some relief to the sugar producers to the extent of suspension of actions announced by the government against them on the basis of the commission’s report (unless the apex court reverses the decision). Nevertheless, the court has ordered the anti-corruption agencies and regulatory bodies to carry out fresh, independent and separate inquiries into the scam. That appears unlikely until the final decision by the apex court settles the matter one way or another. In order to delay action against them, a major producer, Jahangir Tareen, has in the meanwhile approached the Lahore High Court to prevent the FIA from taking action against his companies. In the coming days, we may witness more sugar firms seeking ‘relief’ from action against them. In the past, we have seen businessmen delay payment of taxes and fees, and ‘adverse’ government inquiries and actions against them for years. The GIDC case that lingered for nine years is just one example. The apex court should devise a mechanism to discourage multiple petitions on the same matter in different courts besides ensuring decisions on such issues are given within a stipulated time frame.

Published in Dawn, August 21st, 2020