ISLAMABAD: The detailed judgement of Islamabad High Court (IHC) on the reinstatement of Higher Education Commission (HEC) Chairman Tariq Javed Banuri stated that his unceremonious removal was the result of his insistence on getting audited the Rs40 billion funds disbursed to entities related to the chairman of the prime minister’s task force, Dr Attaur Rehman.

The detailed judgement by a division bench, comprising IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Aamer Farooq, was issued on Tuesday.

“Perusal of the record shows that the Court cannot turn a blind eye regarding a crucial fact which is definitely relevant in order to adjudicate upon the questions raised before us. The role of the chairman PM’s Task Force was significant in the entire process. It has become obvious from the record that he appears to have been affected by the policies of the HEC and the resistance is affirmed from the correspondence,” observed the bench.

It added: “The factor of conflict of interest should have been taken into consideration by the policy making executive authorities.”

The judgement noted that “the HEC had formulated a policy regarding audit and scrutiny relating to performance evaluation of those institutions which had received public funds. Amongst the institutions that had received major funding included those of which the chairman PM’s Task Force was a patron e.g. the International Centre for Chemical and Biological Sciences.”

The judgement pointed out that the “record placed before us [the court] shows that substantial funding from the exchequer, almost Rs40 billion, was received by the entities wherein the chairman of the PM’s Task Force had an interest. It also appears from the record that the latter and the defunct chairperson were at loggerheads over the stated policy. The performance evaluation and audit by the HEC of the institutions of which the chairman PM’s Task Force was a patron was being resisted.”

The record refers to correspondence received by the HEC from the office of the designated “controlling authority” under the HEC ordinance suggesting that the institutions be exempted from scrutiny and evaluation audit, it added.

The court noted that rather than offering the institutions to be evaluated and audited by the exclusive regulatory authority — the HEC — the chairman PM’s Task Force attempted to defend and justify the performance of the institutions in which he had an interest through publishing articles in daily newspapers authored by him.”

The record manifests his pivotal role in the deliberations and proposals which had ultimately led to the issuance of the impugned notifications and removal of the defunct chairperson, the court order stated, adding the question of conflict of interest, thus, was crucial for adjudication of the petition.

Discussing the ouster of Dr Banuri, the court observed that before the amendment to the HEC ordinance, the chairperson and members, once appointed, had a fixed statutory term of four years to hold their respective offices.

The petitioners asserted that the legislature could not have intended to make a law having the effect of compromising public interest and violating the fundamental rights of the public at large guaranteed under the constitution.

Setting aside the termination of Dr Banuri, the bench asserted: “We cannot turn a blind eye to the factor of conflict of interest of the chairman, PM’s Task Force, as is evident from the material placed before us. We expect that the controlling authority i.e. the worthy prime minister will ensure that the HEC undertakes an independent, transparent and fair audit and evaluation of the institutes/centres wherein the chairman PM’s Task Force has an interest and which have received substantial funding from the public exchequer.”

“It is important for the controlling authority i.e. the worthy Prime Minister, to demonstrably dispel any perception to the effect that the impugned notifications may have been issued to avoid implementation of the policy of the HEC to conduct a transparent and independent audit and evaluation, particularly in case of the entities in which the chairman PM’s Task Force had or continued to have a direct or indirect interest. We further expect that the controlling authority will restrain the chairman PM’s Task Force from interfering or in any other manner whatsoever dealing with the affairs of the HEC,” said the judgement.

Published in Dawn, March 16th, 2022