The PTI government seems to have decided its preferred mode of enacting laws is via ordinance, pretty much bypassing parliamentary scrutiny and debate. In this context, in an important recent judgment, a bench of the Supreme Court has ruled, while hearing a petition regarding taxes that had moved up from the Sindh High Court, that ordinances are not the right way to run a country and are permissible under the constitution only in very specific circumstances. Barring an emergency situation when an immediate decision is needed, and parliament is not in session, there is little need for a government to issue ordinances. When laws are passed in parliament, which is elected by the people, it is essential that they should pass through the usual stages of debate within a committee and then in the House before they are turned into law.
An ordinance bypasses all these steps and demonstrates the kind of contempt for parliament that we have seen in successive governments in the country, with the PTI government having a particularly strong tendency for such behaviour.
The question of ordinances had come up in January as well, this time in the Lahore High Court while the bench was hearing the case of the Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Authority.
Ruling against the setting up of the development scheme, the court had noted that using an ordinance to take away rights from the people was deeply problematic and stood against the basic principle of the basic law of the land.
We hope that following these judgments, this and future governments would be more cautious.
The fact that ordinances automatically lapse unless passed by the relevant representatives of the people within a stipulated period of time illustrates the primacy that the Constitution accords to the legislatures.
The apex court’s ruling throws a spanner in the works of what has become the PTI government’s well-oiled ordinance production line, which it has repeatedly used to sidestep parliament and ride roughshod over the opposition. Of course it is easier to get rules passed quickly without the usual elements of contention and objections from the opposition that occur when a bill is presented in parliament. But the government needs to be aware that this debate and discussion is not an impediment to its desire to have a certain law passed, but in fact a means of assisting that law and improving any of its contents that come up for discussion in an open forum, such as the parliament. In short, it is what democracy is supposed to look like.
Such arbitrary use of powers meant to be used judiciously in only extraordinary situations is a stepping stone towards autocracy. The Islamabad High Court was informed last year that the PTI government had promulgated at least 54 presidential ordinances in the first three years of its tenure.
However, the fact is, almost all governments have been guilty of this ‘sin of commission’. While military regimes have, unsurprisingly, issued the highest number of ordinances at over 63 per year, elected governments too have promulgated around 30 ordinances annually on average.
An ordinance bypasses all these steps and demonstrates the kind of contempt for parliament that we have seen in successive governments in the country, with the PTI government having a particularly strong tendency for such behaviour.
