ISLAMABAD        -         The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Friday raised questions over jurisdiction of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in matters related to Tayyaba Gul harassment case. 

A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Aamer Farooq conducted hearing of two identical petitions filed by the former NAB chief Javed Iqbal who is also Chairman Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearance and former Director General NAB Lahore Shahzad Saleem. Iqbal moved the court against the PAC recommendations to remove him as head of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearance while Saleem approached the IHC against the summons issued by the PAC in Tayyaba Gul harassment case. During the hearing, Justice Aamer said that the court would see that whether such matters fall or not in the ambit of the PAC.

He added that while referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioners have adopted the stances that the PAC jurisdiction is limited to the financial matters. At this juncture, Additional Attorney General Munawar Duggal said that this matter could be sent back to the Parliament. The IHC Chief Justice said that whether the PAC would also hold inquiry of a murder case. He mentioned that the PAC had restored the employees of Agricultural Research Council but the then IHC Chief Justice ruled that it was not the authority of the committee.

Justice Aamer said that the question is whether harassment matter falls under the ambit of the PAC? He further said that no institution can interfere in the affairs of other institution. He continued that legislation is the job of the parliament while, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret it. The IHC CJ remarked that executive and judiciary cannot interfere in affairs of each other.

He continued the PAC could not sentence anyone even in the matters related to financial regularities and it sends the matter to the relevant forum. Hafiz S A Rehman Advocate counsel for the PAC also appeared before the court and requested the court to hear his arguments as well.

However, the IHC bench directed him to present his arguments on the next hearing and deferred the proceedings till February 24. In this matter, the petitioner challenged Minutes of the Meeting of the Public Account Committee held on 07.07.2022 and the PAC decision to approach the Prime Minister for his removal as head of Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearance. Javed Iqbal moved the petition through president Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) Shoaib Shaheen Advocate and cited Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Speaker through Secretary National Assembly, Chairman, Public Accounts Committee and additional secretary PAC as respondents. In his petition, the former chairman NAB stated that vide impugned Minutes of the Meeting of the Public Account Committee held on 07.07.2022 in para 7 sub para (iv), wherein, the followings direction inter alia have been issued which is reproduced here below for kind perusal of this court.

He quoted, “The PAC observed that a serious allegation has been leveled against the former Chairman, NAB who is also currently heading the Commission on Enforced Disappearance should not hold such office and decided to approach the PM to remove him from the post.” He adopted the stance that all these directions are beyond the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction vested in the Public Accounts Committee as envisaged in Rule 198, 201(5), 202 and 203 of the rules of the Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, framed under the provision of Article 67 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The former chairman added that moreover, directions envisaged in the impugned Minutes of Meeting are evidently in contravention to the mandate of Law and the prescribed Rules of Procedure. “These violations are beyond jurisdiction and in complete oblivion to the due process of law and the rule of Law.

They are not merely irregularities in procedure rather substantive contravention of the provision of the Constitution and applicable Law. It depicts the violation of Audi Alterum Portam in the complete obliteration of the principles of natural justice and the provision of the Constitution,” maintained the petitioner. He further said that these directions are void nonest, ultra vires to the law and the oath, illegal and of no legal consequence whatsoever.

Therefore, he prayed to the court that this court may graciously be please to accept the instant writ petition and declare all actions, directions and proceeding under taken by the PAC in consequence of the impugned direction vide Minutes of Meeting dated 07.07.2022 as void, nonest, ultra vires, illegal and in excess of the respondents’ authority and jurisdiction consequently bearing no legal effect whatsoever on the principles of equity, fair play.