Petition additionally contends to strike down granting members of provincial meeting entitlement to official passports
LAHORE:
In a petition elevating far-reaching constitutional questions over the separation of powers and the bounds of provincial legislative authority, the Lahore Excessive Courtroom on Thursday was requested to strike down a provision of the Provincial Meeting of the Punjab Privileges Act, 1972, that allegedly permits lawmakers to train judicial powers which might be solely reserved for the judiciary.
The respondents embrace the province of Punjab by way of its chief secretary, the regulation division, the provincial meeting of Punjab by way of its secretary, the speaker of the Punjab Meeting, and the parliamentary affairs division.
The constitutional petition contends that the Punjab Meeting can’t constitutionally set up a ‘judicial committee’ empowered to attempt alleged offenders, file proof, decide guilt, and impose punishments, arguing that such powers belong solely to the impartial judiciary underneath the Structure.
The petition additionally requested the courtroom to strike down one other provision granting members of the provincial meeting entitlement to official passports, claiming passport issuance falls throughout the unique legislative competence of parliament.
The petitioner, Sana Afzal Malik, sought the courtroom’s declaration that Part 11-C, which establishes a judicial committee of the Punjab Meeting, is unconstitutional because it allegedly empowers elected legislators to carry out features reserved solely for the judiciary.
In line with the petition, the Structure vests judicial authority solely in courts established underneath Article 175, whereas Article 10-A ensures each particular person the fitting to a good trial earlier than an impartial and neutral tribunal.
The petitioner contended that members of the provincial meeting, being elected politicians, can’t constitutionally adjudicate disputes, file proof, decide guilt, or impose punishments.
Learn: District Decision Committees stripped of judicial powers
The petition argued that merely labelling an meeting committee as “judicial” doesn’t make it a constitutional courtroom, sustaining that the substance of the powers exercised—not the title of the physique—is the figuring out constitutional check.
It additional submitted that the impugned provision undermines the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by transferring core judicial features from the courts to the legislature. The petitioner has described the laws as a case of “colourable laws,” alleging that whereas it’s framed as a regulation regulating parliamentary privilege, its true impact is to create a judicial discussion board exterior the constitutional framework.
The petition additionally challenged part 15-C of the Act, which entitles members of the provincial meeting to official passports. It argues that passport issuance falls throughout the unique legislative area of the federation underneath entry No 3 of the Federal Legislative Checklist and Article 142(a) of the Structure.
The petitioner contends that the Punjab Meeting lacks legislative competence to enact provisions regarding official passports.
The petitioner requested the courtroom to declare sections 11-C and 15-C of the Provincial Meeting of the Punjab Privileges Act, 1972, unconstitutional and strike them down. Pending last adjudication, the petition additionally seeks suspension of the operation of the impugned provisions.
