ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s registrar office on Tuesday returned a petition that questioned the appointment of an army of unelected advisers and special assistants to the prime minister with the status of federal or state ministers.

The registrar office objected that the petition raised a number of prayers but failed to point out the question of public important that needed enforcement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution so that the direct jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could be invoked.

Advocate Jehangir Khan Jadoon, who had moved the petition, said he would challenge the decision of the registrar office in the Supreme Court.

While returning the petition, the registrar office also highlighted that the petitioners did not provide any justification for directly approaching the top court without first exhausting other options available to them under the law for relief.

Filed by members of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association and Rawalpindi Bar Association, the petition argued that the special assistants and advisers were neither elected members of parliament nor were part of the cabinet as per the Constitution, yet more than one- and-a-half dozens of them were enjoying the executive authority.

The petition urged the court to declare that special assistants to the prime minister and advisers with the status of federal ministers or ministers of state were not entitled to any financial benefit, including salaries, allowances, perks and privileges.

It highlighted that since the prime minister functioned in the domain of trust under Article 5 of the Constitution, he was obliged to obey the law like other citizens of Pakistan. While exercising his executive authority, his discretion was neither brazen nor arbitrary but subject to the Constitution, as he had taken the oath to discharge his duties and perform function solely in accordance with the Constitution, the petition argued. But the executive actions by unelected advisers and special assistants, instead of people’s representatives, showed as if the democracy was at war with itself, the petition argued.

The respondents were named as Adviser on Climate Change Malik Amin Aslam Khan, Adviser to the PM on Commerce and Investment Abdul Razak Dawood, Adviser on Institutional Reforms and Austerity Dr Ishrat Hussain, Adviser on Finance and Revenue Dr Abdul Hafeez Sheikh, Adviser on Parliamentary Affairs Babar Awan, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister (SAPM) on Social Protection and Poverty Dr Sania Nishtar, SAPM on Establishment Mohammad Shahzad Arbab, SAPM on Accountability and Interior Mirza Shahzad Akbar, SAPM on Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari, SAMP on Youth Affairs Mohammad Usman Dar, SAPM on Parliamentary Coordination Nadeem Afzal Gondal, SAPM on Power and Petroleum Sardar Yar Mohammad Rind, SAPM on Information and Broadcasting Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan, SAMP on Petroleum Nadeem Babar, SAPM on National Security and Strategic Policy Planning Dr Moeed Yousaf, SAPM on Digital Pakistan Tania S. Aidrus, SAPM on Coordination of Marketing and Development of Mineral Resources Shahzad Syed Qasim, SAPM on National Health Service Regulation and Coordination Dr Zafar Mirza and SAPM on CDA Ali Nawaz Awan.

The petition requested the SC to direct the respondents to surrender all salaries and perks and privileges from the date of assuming of office till their removal since their appointments were against the Constitution and law of the land and the exercise of any executive authority by the respondents was also against the law and Constitution.

The petition, moved through Advocate Jehangir Khan Jadoon by Mohammad Arshad Khan and Ghulam Dastgeer Butt, pleaded that soon after the PTI took the reins of the government, Prime Minister Imran Khan appointed 25 federal ministers, four ministers of state, five advisers and 14 special assistants, while the appointments and reshuffles were still on.

The advisers and special assistants were accorded either the powers and status of federal minister or the minister of state, which gave rise to the key questions whether the Constitution permitted it and whether the country was heading towards a presidential form of government, according to the petition.

The petition said there were five advisers with the powers and status of federal ministers, besides 14 special assistants of whom seven were enjoying the powers of ministers of state and two the status of federal minister. It argued that the advisers and special assistants were neither members of the parliament nor were part of the federal cabinet according to the current constitutional scheme.

The Constitution in its interpretation clause of Article 260 only had an oblique reference to special assistants and it was silent on their appointment, the petition said. To supply this omission, Rule 4(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973 came in aid of the PM, but since rules could not override the constitutional provision, such appointments were illegal, the petition contended.

Published in Dawn, April 22nd, 2020