ISLAMABAD: The Ministry of Law and Justice has submitted an opi­nion to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in the case concerning the appointment of the Press Cou­ncil of Pakistan (PCP) chairman, questioning the president’s discretion in the matter.

The opinion was sought by IHC Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir following a petition filed by Arshad Khan Jadoon, who challenged President Dr Arif Alvi’s “biased discretion” to reject the prime minister’s advice and discard the selection process for the PCP chairman “on a mere whim”.

The case revolves around the app­ointment initially made by the previous Pakistan Democratic Mov­e­ment government, where former prime minister Shehbaz Sharif, with the federal cabinet’s approval, had recommended Mr Jadoon for the post.

However, President Alvi disregarded this advice and instead appointed another candidate, Dr G.M. Chaudhry.

Tells IHC process for appointing Press Council of Pakistan chairman can be re-initiated by information ministry

According to the Presidency, President Alvi had received the prime minister’s advice for Mr Jadoon’s appointment, even though the law made it clear that president was the appointing authority.

In its reply submitted to the IHC, the Presidency referred to Section 6(1) of the PCP Ordinance 2002, which says: “The Council shall consist of 19 members including the Chairman. The Chairman shall be appointed by the President of Pakistan in his person qualified to be judge of the Supreme Court.”

It said this legal provision “explicitly states that the chairman shall be appointed by the president in his discretion and not on the advice of the prime minister”.

It said the president conducted interviews of three candidates, including petitioner Mr Jadoon, on Aug 8 and appointed Dr G.M. Chaudhry as PCP chairman, finding him as the “most suitable candidate and the decision was conveyed to the prime minister”.

However, the law ministry opined that “the legal question of the manner in which the President exercises authority under a law when he has been appointed as persona designate was adjudicated in the judgement of the Islamabad High Court”.

The verdict reported in the PLD 2020 states that if a power, duty, or function is conferred under a statute on the president, and it is not in the nature of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power, then the president is mandated to act on the prime minister’s advice.

The ministry said that “keeping in view of settled principle in the judgement supra, in terms of Article 48(1) of the Constitution, the President in instant case, in performance of its functions, is bound to act on and in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister”.

It said that “the exercise of discretion under Section 6(1) of the Press Council of Pakistan Ordinance, 2002, is beyond the scope of the presidential power under Article 48(2) of the Constitution which provides that “the President shall act in his discretion in respect of any matter in respect of which he is empowered by the Constitution to do so”.

According to the law ministry, even though President Alvi was empowered to exercise discretion for appointing the PCP chairman, the relevant section was “in conflict” with Article 48(2) of the Constitution.

As a result, the law ministry invalidated Dr Chaudhry’s appointment by the president, asserting that it was not in accordance with the prime minister’s advice. The Ministry suggested that the prime minister could advise the president again, who would then be bound to act accordingly within 10 days.

The law ministry also mentioned that the Ministry of Information could re-initiate the appointment process.

The vacancy for the PCP chairman arose in July 2019, and despite efforts by both the PTI and PDM governments, the appointment process remained inconclusive. The selection board’s assessment had originally scored Mr Jadoon highest among the three shortlisted candidates, leading to the current legal contention.

Published in Dawn, December 31st, 2023