Important Cases Decided by the Supreme Court

MIR MUHAMMAD IDRIS AND OTHERS VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRTY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS

 (P L D 2011 SUPREME COURT 213)

In the instant Constitution Petition, the petitioners had challenged the validity of the reappointment of one Syed Ali Raza, respondent No 3, as President of the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) for the fifth time. The petitioners alleged that Respondent No.3 was initially appointed as President for a period of three years w.e.f 1-7-2000. Thereafter, he was reappointed w.e.f 1-7-2003, for yet another period of three years w.e.f. 1-7-2006; and for a further period of one year w.e.f. 1-7-2009; following which he was again appointed for another year w.e-f. 1-7-2010 vide notification dated 10-4-2010. The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 3 was holding the said lucrative post illegally and unlawfully.

The pivotal question falling for determination by the Supreme Court was whether section 11(3)(d) of the Banks (Nationalization) Act 1974, as amended by the Banks (Nationalization), (Amendment) Act, 1997, relating to the appointment of Chairman, President and members of the NBP Board, could have been amended by the Finance Act, 2007 [Money Bill] passed in terms of Articles 73 and 75 of the Constitution.

In the judgment authored by the Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan, it was observed that as per Article 73(2) of the Constitution a Bill or anendment was to be deemed a Money Bill if it contained provisions dealing with all or any of the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Paragraph 2 of the said Article. That the subject matter of amendment of section 11(3)(d) of the Act of 1974 was not covered by the term ‘Money Bill’. Therefore, the reappointment of Chairman, the President and other members of the Board of NBP did not fall within the ambit of clauses (a) to (g) of Art 73(2). That the amendment in question could not have been introduced in clause (d) of subsection (3) of section 11 of the Act of 1974 by way of Finance Act, 2007, as it did not fulfil the requirement envisaged by Article 70 of the Constitution, i.e. of approval by two houses of parliament.

The Supreme Court relied upon the case of Sindh High Court Bar Association versus Federation of Pakistan(PLD 2009 SC 879), wherein it was held that the amendment in the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1997, effected by the Finance Act, 2008, was unconstitutional and illegal. Resultantly, certain Judges of the Supreme Court were made to relinquish office. Based on the same analogy, the Supreme Court observed that if the appointments of Judges were effected on account of a similar defect in legislation, the appointment of Respondent No.3, who, too, was appointed under an unconstitutional and illegal amendment could be protected. Therefore, the amendment made in section 11(3)(d) of the Act of 1974 by the Finance Act, 2007, was declared unconstitutional and illegal, and Respondent No.3 was directed to relinquish his office as President NBP with immediate effect.