Quasi-judicial proceedings: CCP chairperson not authorised to exercise casting vote: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the Chairperson of the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) does not possess the authority to exercise a casting vote in quasi-judicial proceedings under Section 24(5) of the Competition Act, 2010.
A two-judge bench, comprising Justice Shakeel Ahmed and Justice Aamir Farooq upheld the judgment of Competition Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad dated 21.05.2025 that Chairperson’s casting vote in adjudicatory proceedings, is violative of Article 10-A of the Constitution.
It; however, set aside the portion of the Tribunal’s order directing that either the Chairperson or any other member not signatory to either of the opinions hear the appellants.
The apex court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh after affording a full right of audience to the counsel for the parties, within ninety days.
The judgment authored by Justice Shakeel said casting vote in quasi-judicial proceedings exercised by the Chairperson violates Article 10-A of the Constitution and the principle of fairness, and that the scope of Section 24(5) is confined to administrative and internal decisions of the Commission.
It stated that a decision reached by the chairperson through the exercise of a casting vote, after an equal division among members, undermines public confidence and denies the affected party a fair trial. The constitutional safeguard embodied in Article 10-A must prevail over the statutory text. Therefore, Section 24(5) of the Act is to be read down as applying only to the Commission’s administrative or internal matters and not to its adjudicatory proceedings.
“A casting vote by the Chairperson, who has already participated in the decision, inevitably creates an appearance of bias and undermines the requirement of impartiality,” the judgment added.
According to the facts, proceedings against the appellants (Pakistan Sugar Mills Association and others) were heard by an even numbered bench, i.e., a four-member bench of the Commission, comprising the Chairperson and three members.
The Chairperson, along with one member, found the appellants guilty and imposed various penalties through an order dated 06.08.2021. Conversely, the remaining two members set aside the show-cause notice and remanded the matter for a de novo inquiry, vide order dated 12.08.2021. Thereafter, the Chairperson, purporting to act under Section 24(5) of the Act, exercised a casting vote by order dated 13.08.2021, with a view to resolve the deadlock.
Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred separate appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its ruling, categorically held that the Chairperson cannot exercise a casting vote in a quasi-judicial proceeding and accordingly remanded the matter for a fresh hearing. It, however, directed that either the Chairperson or any other member who is not signatory to either of the opinions to hear the appellants and to decide these matters preferably within a period of ninety days.
The appellant dissatisfied with the impugned judgment filed petitions before the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the impugned judgment.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025