The petition also seeks to annul the granting of members of the provincial assembly the right to official passports.
LAHORE:
In a petition raising far-reaching constitutional issues on the separation of powers and limits of provincial legislative authority, the Lahore High Court was on Thursday asked to strike down a provision of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab Privileges Act, 1972, which supposedly allows legislators to exercise judicial powers reserved exclusively for the judiciary.
The respondents include the province of Punjab through its chief secretary, the legal department, the Punjab provincial assembly through its secretary, the speaker of the Punjab Assembly and the department of parliamentary affairs.
The constitutional petition contends that the Punjab Assembly cannot constitutionally establish a “judicial committee” empowered to try alleged offenders, 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, claiming that the issuance of passports falls within the exclusive legislative competence of parliament.
The petitioner, Sana Afzal Malik, sought the court to declare that Section 11-C, which establishes a judicial committee of the Punjab Assembly, is unconstitutional as it allegedly empowers elected legislators to perform functions reserved exclusively for the judiciary.
According to the petition, the Constitution confers judicial authority only on the courts established under Article 175, while Article 10-A guarantees everyone the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial court.
The petitioner maintained that members of the provincial assembly, being elected politicians, cannot constitutionally resolve disputes, record evidence, determine guilt or impose punishments.
Read: District Resolution Committees stripped of judicial powers
The petition argued that simply labeling an assembly committee “judicial” does not make it a constitutional court, holding that the substance of the powers exercised—not the title of the body—is the determining constitutional test.
He further argued that the impugned provision undermines the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by transferring fundamental judicial functions from the courts to the legislature. The petitioner has described the legislation as a case of “colourable legislation”, arguing that although it is formulated as a law regulating parliamentary privilege, its true effect is to create a judicial forum outside the constitutional framework.
The petition also challenged section 15-C of the law, which grants members of the provincial assembly the right to official passports. He maintains that the issuance of passports is the exclusive legislative competence of the federation by virtue of entry No. 3 of the Federal Legislative List and Article 142(a) of the Constitution.
The petitioner maintains that the Punjab Assembly lacks legislative jurisdiction to enact provisions relating to 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 repeal them. Pending a final decision, the petition also seeks the suspension of the application of the challenged provisions.
