The petition also aims to cancel the granting of the right to official passports to members of the provincial assembly
LAHORE:
In a petition raising far-reaching constitutional questions over separation of powers and limits of provincial legislative authority, the Lahore High Court was on Thursday asked to strike down a Provincial Assembly provision of the Punjab Privileges Act, 1972, which would allow lawmakers to exercise judicial powers exclusively reserved for the judiciary.
The respondents include Punjab Province through its Chief Secretary, Law Department, Punjab Provincial Assembly through its Secretary, Speaker Punjab Assembly and Parliamentary Affairs Department.
The constitutional petition contends that the Punjab Assembly cannot constitutionally establish a “judicial committee” with powers to try alleged perpetrators, record evidence, determine guilt and impose punishment, arguing that such powers belong exclusively to the independent judiciary under the Constitution.
The petition also asked the court to strike down another provision granting members of the provincial assembly the right to official passports, saying the issuance of passports was within the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament.
The petitioner, Sana Afzal Malik, asked the court to declare that Article 11-C, which establishes a judicial committee of the Punjab Assembly, is unconstitutional as it would allow elected legislators to exercise functions reserved exclusively for the judiciary.
According to the petition, the Constitution vests judicial authority only in courts established under Article 175, while Article 10-A guarantees every individual the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal.
The petitioner argued that members of the provincial assembly, as elected politicians, cannot constitutionally adjudicate disputes, record evidence, determine guilt or impose sanctions.
Read: District Resolution Committees deprived of judicial powers
The petition argues that simply calling an Assembly committee “judicial” does not make it a constitutional court, asserting that the substance of the powers exercised – not the title of the body – is the determining constitutional test.
She further contends that the challenged provision undermines the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by transferring essential judicial functions from the courts to the legislature. The petitioner described the law as a case of “disguised law”, alleging that although it is intended as a law regulating parliamentary privilege, its real effect is to create a judicial forum outside the constitutional framework.
The petition also challenged Section 15-C of the Act, which allows members of the provincial assembly to obtain an official passport. It argues that the issuance of passports falls within the exclusive legislative domain of the federation under Entry No. 3 of the Federal Legislative List and Article 142(a) of the Constitution.
The petitioner claims that the Punjab Assembly does not have the legislative competence to make provisions regarding official passports.
The petitioner requested the court to declare Sections 11-C and 15-C of the Punjab Provincial Assembly Privileges Act, 1972 unconstitutional and set aside the same. Pending a final decision, the petition also requests the suspension of the application of the contested provisions.
