• Sharjeel says bill to allow non-PhD bureaucrats to become VCs to be presented in Sindh Assembly tomorrow for legislation
• Civil Courts Bill returned by Tessori also approved for lawmaking

KARACHI: Rejecting the governor’s objections to the Sindh Universities and Institutes Laws (Amendment) Bill that enabled non-PhD bureaucrats to be appointed as vice chancellors of universities across the province, the Sindh cabinet on Saturday once again approved the controversial bill in its original form and referred it to the provincial assembly for legislation.

Briefing journalists about the cabinet meeting, Senior Minister Sharjeel Inam Memon said that the cabinet had rejected the governor’s objections and decided to again present the bill in the provincial assembly on Monday, where it would be re-approved due to numeric majority of the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party.

Sindh Governor Kamran Tessori had refused to grant his assent to the bill and returned it to the provincial assembly for reconsideration, raising objections to the new law that expanded the eligibility criteria to the serving bureaucrats for appointment as vice chancellor in public-sector universities.

Under Section 3 of the Article 116 of the Constitution if the bill is passed again by the assembly, with or without amendments, the governor must then grant his assent, meaning thereby that if the Sindh Assembly pushes the bill through once again, Governor Tessori will be constitutionally bound to approve it.

Widely-criticised bill

Besides a strong criticism from opposition parties, including the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P), Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf-backed Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), and Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), the academic circles, education campaigners, professors’ associations and education campaigners have also voiced their concerns, warning that the decision will severely affect the quality of education in Sindh’s universities.

The senior minister said that the bill was initially proposed by the universities and boards department through the search committee and it underwent extensive deliberations before receiving the provincial cabinet’s approval on Dec 4, 2024.

He said that after further review and modifications by the standing committee, the assembly passed the bill on Jan 31, 2025.

A statement issued from CM House said that it was pointed out in the cabinet meeting that as per original bill proposed by the U&B department, candidates must hold a master’s degree, preferably a PhD, in the relevant field, along with 15 years of experience in academia, civil society, research, or leadership roles, as well as a distinguished record in research and publication.

It said that the standing committee proposed amendments to clarify these experience requirements while retaining same basic criteria which the assembly had passed. The cabinet was informed that in the original bill, it was stated that a cadre officer selected as vice chancellor must resign from civil service. The standing committee amended this to specify that the officer must either resign or seek retirement from service, depending on the individual case which the assembly also passed.

It was also pointed out in the meeting that the original bill did not specify an age limit. However, the standing committee amendment established that general candidates must be under 62 years of age, retired high court judges must be under 63, and retired Supreme Court judges must be under 67, which the assembly passed.

Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Bill

The cabinet was told that a recent amendment bill passed by the assembly had been returned by the governor with observation regarding the jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court.

The governor expressed reservations, citing Article 175(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, which states that courts can only exercise jurisdiction conferred by law.

After thorough discussion, the cabinet asserted that the proposed Bill of 2025 did not violate Article 175 of the Constitution. “The bill aligns with the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, which has been amended multiple times without prior objections.”

The cabinet further argued that the backlog of cases at the SHC is overwhelming, with only a few benches hearing civil suits. In contrast, district courts have a larger pool of judges, which could facilitate quicker resolutions. The judgment in C.P. No. 5913 of 2018 (Ghulam Asghar Pathan case) also highlighted the excessive burden on the SHC and recommended redistributing caseloads.

The cabinet approved the bill and referred it to the assembly for necessary action.

Published in Dawn, February 16th, 2025