ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday turned down a petition challenging the vires of section 21(h) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 and seeking implementation of the recommendations of the Broadsheet Commission. 

A single bench of the IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah conducted hearing of the petition moved the Jurists Foundation through its counsel Riaz Hanif Rahi Advocate and dismissed the same after hearing the arguments.  

The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the court under Article 199 of the Constitution and challenged the vires of section 21(h) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. Simultaneously, the Foundation also sought a direction to the federal government and other agencies under its control, to register cases and recover money pursuant to recommendations made by the Commission constituted vide notification, dated 29-01-2021 referred to as the ‘Broadsheet Commission.’ The latter was notified by the federal government in exercise of powers conferred under the Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 2017. 

The IHC bench said that the Foundation challenged the vires of section 21(h) of the Ordinance of 1999 and it is also seeking a declaration despite the fact that no cause of action has arisen. It added that the appeal regarding vires of the aforementioned provision is academic in nature.  

The court said that a petitioner has to be aggrieved because of some act or omission to challenge the vires of an enacted law otherwise the adjudication would be an academic exercise. It is settled law that questions which are of academic nature are not justiciable while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. 

Justice Athar noted, “The Broadsheet Commission was constituted by the federal government in exercise of powers conferred under the Act of 2017. A plain reading of the Act of 2017 makes it obvious that a commission constituted under section 3 ibid, is a mere fact finding statutory entity. Its scope of jurisdiction is strictly confined to the terms of reference specified in the notification.” 

“It is constituted on a temporary basis because it ceases to exist after time specified by the Federal Government. It does not have an appearance of a court nor can it exercise any power to make a final determination. The proceedings are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial,” added the judge. 

He further said that recommendations of a commission are also not binding on the federal government. The latter may or may not act pursuant thereto. 

According to the judgment, the report and recommendations of the Broadsheet Commission are, therefore, not a final determination nor binding on the federal government. A third party has no locus standi to seek its implementation.  It said that the Foundation has thus no locus standi to seek a writ regarding implementation of the recommendations of the Broadsheet Commission because they are not even binding on the federal government. The latter cannot be compelled to implement the recommendations of the Broadsheet Commission.  

The verdict maintained, “The Act of 2017, definitely does not vest any right in the Foundation to seek implementation of the report and recommendations of the Broadsheet Commission. The report is neither binding nor conclusive. It is merely a fact finding report meant solely for consideration of the Federal Government. For the above reasons, the petition is meritless and, therefore, dismissed in limine.”