Detailed IHC judgement issued: Advisers, special assistants cannot participate in cabinet proceedings

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has ruled that the advisors and special assistants to prime minister to the prime minister were not members of the cabinet, and could not participate in its proceedings.

A division of the IHC comprising Aamer Farooq and Ghulam Azam Qambrani on Tuesday released its detailed judgment on the appointment of the advisors and the special assistants to the prime minister.

The judgment authored by Justice Aamer Farooq stated, "Conferring the status of federal minister on the advisor to the prime minister is only for the purposes of perks and privileges and does not make the advisor a federal minister as such."

"An advisor to the prime minister is not member of the cabinet and cannot participate in the proceedings; hence he can also not be a member or even chair the committee of the cabinet. He can address the parliament but cannot participate in the voting process."

The court noted that the Rule 4(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973, which provides for appointment of special assistant to the prime minister, is not in violation of any provision of the Constitution.

"The special assistant to the prime minister is not a minister of state or a federal minister but only enjoys the status for the purposes of perks and privileges. He cannot address the parliament nor has any executive authority vested in him. He also is not a member of the Cabinet and cannot take part in the proceedings of it," it added.

The judgment noted that Rule 17 of the Rules of Business, 1973 provides for conducting business of the Cabinet and Sub Rule 2 of it regarding the formation of the subcommittees. Under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 17, the prime minister may appoint any member of the cabinet as member of committee of the cabinet.

The IHC disagreed with the argument of the deputy attorney general (DAG) that any member means any person can be appointed as a member of the committee.

"We are unable to agree with this argument of the DAG as it seems to be in violation of the Constitution and the law inasmuch as if it was to be inferred or held that though a non-elected person cannot be a member of the cabinet yet he can be a member of the committee of the cabinet and even can chair the same, it would be in negation of the 1973 Constitution."

The judgment said that undoubtedly, on special requests, persons could be called in by the Committee but no person could be the chairman or a member of the committee of the cabinet, who was not a member of the cabinet.

The conferment of status of federal minister to an advisor is again only for the purpose of perks and privileges and the conferment does not make a person/advisor as a federal minister.

The judgment said the affairs of federal government were conducted by the prime minister and the ministers collectively as provided in Article 92 of the Constitution.

A person is eligible to be appointed as a federal minister or minister of state, if he is either a member of National Assembly or Senate (subject to restriction of members as provided in proviso to Article 92 of the Constitution) and where he is not a member of National Assembly for six consecutive months, he ceases to be a federal minister (Article 91(9) of the Constitution.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2020