ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Friday regretted the non-implementation of an earlier Supreme Court judgment in the sacked employees case, underlining that disregarding or delaying the implementation of the latter’s verdicts by the government amounts to “challenging the very framework of the legal system”.
The observation came while hearing a set of contempt of court petitions against the Punjab government, as well as the federal government, for not implementing the Dec 17, 2021 SC judgement — a verdict which had converted the review hearings to the jurisdiction of Article 184(3) only to safeguard the fundamental right to livelihood of a number of sacked government employees.
Subsequently, review petitions were instituted against the 2021 judgement that had rendered almost 17,000 government employees jobless by holding as illegal and unconstitutional a PPP-era law, known as the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance Act 2010 (SERA), under which thousands of people were employed or promoted.
On Friday, FCC judge, Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, emphasised that the orders of the SC, as the then-apex court before the 27th Constitutional Amendment, were “not merely recommendations or advisories but they are legal mandate that must be followed”.
Justice Najafi was a member of a three-judge bench, which was headed by FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, that had taken up a set of contempt of court petitions on the non-implementation of the SC judgement.
In a ten-page order, Justice Najafi observed that the decisions of the SC were the culmination of “vigorous legal scrutiny and deliberation intended to reflect upon the values and laws of the land”.
“It is imperative to underline that in a constitution democracy the rule of law is not just a principle but the foundation upon which the legitimacy of and the good governance in any system of government rests,” Justice Najafi observed.
“The SC, being the apex court of the country, was entrusted with performing the responsibility of interpreting the law, ensuring justice and upholding the Constitution,” the judge observed.
“The orders of the Supreme Court, as the then apex court, are not merely recommendations or advisories but they are legal mandates that must be followed.
“And compliance with the judicial decision is not a matter of courtesy but a constitutional requirement, the non-compliance of which not only disturbs the delicate equilibrium between the prestige of the court and the enforcement of rights but also sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to an executive overreach,” Justice Najafi emphasised.
“Besides, the implementation of these orders is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the judicial system. If their decisions can be easily ignored or set aside by the individuals or entities, public trust in the efficacy of the judiciary and the entire government is seriously undermined,” the judge emphasised.
“Consequently, the erosion of trust in the judicial system may lead to undermining the democratic system,” the judgement held.
Reverting to the case, the FCC noted that the SC judgement required that the beneficiary employees would have to undergo relevant tests applicable to their post to be conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) within three months.
To take aptitude, scholastic, or skill tests was the responsibility of the employer, and if it was not conducted, it would not be considered a fault of the employees, who never refused to appear in the test until today, the judgement said.
Admittedly, the employees were granted employment by one government, terminated by another government, reinstated into service by a government and then the Act of 2010 reinstating such employees was declared unlawful by the SC, and in all these situations, employees had committed no fault, the judge emphasised.
If an offer to take the test is not made, the employees could not be put at any disadvantageous position so as to deny the benefit of the said order now sought to be implemented, Justice Najafi maintained.
“We therefore hold that the conditions so imposed by the SC on the beneficiary employees were waived/diluted by the respondent-department due to the afflux of time and lethargy on their part and not for any fault of the employees.
“Such conduct cannot be awarded with any sentence of appreciation by FCC,” Justice Najafi said.
“The inaction on the part of the employers was marked with caution, persuading us to show our concern to a sorry state of affairs,” he cautioned.
The post FCC says not implementing SC's verdicts amounts to 'challenging the very framework of the legal system' appeared first on Dawn – Home.
