ISLAMABAD: In recent proceeding before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, CJ Qazi Faez Isa has raised a pivotal question regarding the issuance and consequences of presidential ordinances in the Pakistani legal system. This discussion comes at the backdrop of the constant struggle between the judiciary and the executive branch in relation to the constitutionality and the necessity of such ordinances.
Context and Analysis of Presidential Orders
This is Chief Justice Isa’s argument that issuing presidential ordinances trespasses parliamentary sovereignty poses pertinent questions about authority relations in Pakistan’s government. He asserts that if ordinances are to be issued then parliamentary procedures should be accorded all the respect, if not disrespect in the form of suspension. This critique raises questions about the democratic tenets of election and the checks and balances system in Pakistan.
Legal Standing and Controversies
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has countered it by pointing the constitutional provisions which gives powers to the president to enact ordinances during certain conditions. This legal standpoint is especially important given recent discussions surrounding the ECP’s constitutional authority to set up election tribunals under Article 219(c). Some of the recent relations between the judiciary and the ECP can be described as conflictual, based on differing interpretations of the constitution.
Election Tribunals and Judicial Supervision
An important issue that is widely discussed at the present stage concerns the creation of election tribunals. The active participation of the ECP in approaching high courts for appointments of the tribunals has been an issue, especially in cases where judicial appointment and other procedures were an issue of controversy. Chief Justice Isa observed that the current election-related processes are riddled with conflicts and has proposed direct interaction between the high court justices and the Chief Election Commissioner to eliminate them.
The gates of the Supreme Court are essential in preserving the Constitution and the public interest. Recent judicial reviews include changes through presidential ordinance in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law which itself illustrates the judiciary as a watchdog. Issues arising from the need and timing of such ordinances relative to parliamentary supervision pull down judicial activism to defend constitutionalism.
