The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday rejected a petition challenging the appointment of foreign minister Ishaq Dar as deputy prime minister, terming it inadmissible. Similar petitions earlier were also turned down. Why the litigants are on a way to get this post declared unconstitutional despite this fact is beyond understanding and it also highlights a localized style of politics?
The petition against Mr. Dar’s appointment argued that that this appointment is not found in the constitution of Pakistan. Is it a justification to declare something unconstitutional if it is not found in the constitution? This a very basic question which the handlers of such petitions are unable to understand or they understand it well, but decide to keep the courts busy for political point scoring or serve political purposes. If all it has no political motives behind then of what use such petitions are for a common litigant?
In opinion of the noted legal practitioners, it cannot be said as against the constitution and that is why such petitions are rejected. Interestedly another petition against the appointment of Mr. Dar was parked in the Sindh High Court as well. Similar petition was also landed in the same high court when Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi was appointed at this post in 2012. This petition also stood dismissed, but stop the new ones.
The petitioner argued that titles such as prime minister, caretaker prime minister and federal ministers are mentioned in the Constitution and Rules of Business, but there nothing is found for the designation of deputy prime minister. Against former deputy minister Pervaiz Elahi, the petitioner referred to many judgements of the top court stating it was the duty of superior courts as preservers, protectors and defenders of the Constitution. Following such judgements, he requested the court to overturn this appointment.
The Hyderabad division bench of the SHC dismissed this request because another identical petition a division bench of the SHC in Karachi. It was said “The judgement of a division bench is binding on another division bench as per the reported verdict of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Monthly Review 1995. An honorable judge of this bench wrote in his order. The court asked from the petitioner’s counsel, satisfy the court on the maintainability of the petition. The council just replied “There is provision in the constitution for the post of deputy prime minister.” The division asked what powers were given to the deputy prime minister which constitutionally fell within the domain of the prime minister? There was no satisfying answer for the court and it dismissed that petition. How there can be a satisfying answer when there were political motives behind? I response to the queries of the learned bench a mocking reply was given in words “The prime minster is not authorized to notify a deputy prime minister.”
It is presumed that the same might have happened to the petition in LHC. Interestingly, the petitioner is not aware when filed this petition in the SHC that earlier identical petitions were rejected in the same court.
Ishaq Dar, after being appointed to this post has paid a successful official visit to China and Africa. A notification issued by the Cabinet Division said that the appointment was made by Prime Minister Shehbaz Shari with immediate effect and until further orders. The reason behind this decision is better knows to the prime minister, but apparently it looks an appoint for some political reasons. Whatever the reason is behind, it not something which is against the interest of the nation and the country. There are many countries in this world that have this post such as in China where the deputy minister met with his counterpart.
The opposition was found worried on this appointment. Possibly behind this petition was the opposition. However, if such post is essential for Pakistan, then the ruling party should bring some legislation on it.
(Senior journalist Rana Kashif has authored this piece)
