Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed VS FOP etc.

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

W.P. No.3593/2022

Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet Division & 74 others S. No. of Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where order/ proceedings necessary.

proceedings 27-09-2022 Mr Intizar Hussain Panjutha, Mr Naeem Haider Panjutha, Advocates for petitioner.

Athar Minallah, C.J.- Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad (hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioner”) has involed the constitutional jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”) seeking a writ to declare that respondents no.4 to 75 have been appointed as Federal Ministers and Ministers of State in violation of Article 92(1) of the Constitution.

2.The petitioner had tendered his resignation but it has not been accepted by the worthy Speaker as yet. The petitioner, therefore, enjoys the status as a member of the National Assembly of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). The constituents, who are being represented

W.P. No.3593/2022

by the Petitioner, had elected the latter for a period of five years.

3.The memorandum of petition has been

carefully perused. It has been admitted in the petition that under Article 92 of the Constitution, the Prime Minister is empowered to nominate not more than fifty members of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to form the Cabinet. It has been unequivocally admitted in paragraph 8 of the petition that the present Cabinet consists of thirty four Ministers and seven Ministers of State. Likewise, it is not disputed that four Advisors have been appointed on the advice of the worthy Prime Minister. The composition of the Cabinet is definitely not in violation of the restrictions imposed by the Constitution.

4.It is noted that the Petitioner has served as a member of the Cabinet. The composition of the Cabinet was similar then. During that period, a large number of Special Assistants were appointed by the then Prime Minister. The appointments were challenged before this Court and the petitions were dismissed. It was declared that the Prime Minister was empowered under the Rules of Business, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1973”) to appoint Special Assistants. It was further

W.P. No.3593/2022

declared that Special Assistants were not members of the Cabinet and that there was no restriction regarding the number of such appointments.

5.The Petitioner is one of the longest serving parliamentarians. He has also served as member of the Cabinet. It was not expected that he would file a frivolous petition because it is obvious from his own petition that the Constitution has not been violated.

6.It is ironic that instead of settling political disputes in the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), political leaders prefer to invoke the jurisdiction of the constitutional Courts. This tendency has undermined the prestige, sanctity and effectiveness of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). Simultaneously, it unnecessarily drags the Courts into controversies of political nature. It has a profound effect on the rights of the litigants. The Majlis-e- Shoora (Parliament) represents the people of the country.

They send their representatives to the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) with the expectation that they would serve them with devotion and commitment. It is the duty of the elected representatives to strengthen the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and uphold its supremacy and sanctity by resolving the disputes within the forums that form part of

W.P. No.3593/2022

the legislative organ of the state. The tendency of bringing political disputes before the constitutional Courts is definitely not in public interest and it must be discouraged and deprecated.

7.For the above reasons, the petition is frivolous and ought to have been dismissed with imposition of exemplary costs. However, the Court exercises restraint on account of respect for the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) because the petitioner is one of the chosen representatives. The Court is not inclined to exercise its extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction and, therefore, the petition is dismissed in limine.

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

Luqman Khan/*