The Court cannot interfere in Government Policy Matters unless it Violates Fundamental Rights or Constitutional Provisions --- Lahore High Court, Lahore
Islamabad 14-09-2024: The Lahore High Court has dismissed two writ petitions challenging the federal government’s decision to wind up the Utility Stores Corporation (USC), a state-owned enterprise responsible for providing subsidized essential commodities to the public. Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran ruled that the Court cannot interfere in government policy matters unless they violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions.
The petitions, [W.P. No. 50232 of 2024] and [W.P. No. 51306 of 2024], were filed by Muzammal Rafiq and others, who sought to challenge the government’s letters dated 07.08.2024 and 19.08.2024 directing the restructuring or winding up of Utility Stores Corporation. The petitioners argued that USC is a profitable entity that has provided essential commodities to the public since 1971 and employs around 12,000 people. They claimed that the government’s decision violated the rights of USC employees and did not follow the procedure outlined in section 293 of the Companies Act, 2017.
The government’s decision to wind up USC came after a high-powered committee was constituted on 14.06.2024 to analyze the reduction of state-owned enterprises as part of a broader economic plan. The Prime Minister directed the winding up of USC on 16.08.2024, exploring alternative mechanisms for providing subsidies, including cash transfers to the public.
The petitioners contended that USC is self-sustaining and has not received government funding for its operations, arguing that the decision to close the entity was arbitrary and illegal. They further maintained that the closure would harm the employees, many of whom are on daily wages or contract-based employment.
The Court, however, ruled that the decision to wind up USC was a policy matter involving complex economic considerations and did not fall under the Court’s jurisdiction for judicial review. Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran emphasized that Courts are not appellate authorities to review government policies unless those policies infringe upon fundamental rights or violate legal provisions.
In support of this principle, the Court cited several notable judgments, including:
- Dr. Akhtar Hussain Khan and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan (2012 SCMR 455)
- Watan Party Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 697)
- BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India (AIR 2002 Supreme Court 350)
Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran stated, “The Courts cannot interfere with policy decisions on the grounds that they may be erroneous or that a better alternative exists. The role of the Court is to determine the legality of the decision, not its wisdom.”
The Court noted that no adverse action had been taken against USC employees so far, rendering the petitions premature. However, the Court acknowledged that future actions based on the government’s decision might impact employees’ rights, and they could seek remedies in accordance with the law at that time.
Moreover, the Court suggested that if the petitioners sought further information on the government’s decision-making process, they could exercise their right under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.
In conclusion, the petitions were dismissed for lack of merit, and the Court reaffirmed the principle that government policy decisions, especially those involving economic reforms, are not justiciable unless they violate fundamental rights or legal procedures.
The Lahore High Court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review concerning government policy matters.
The Court emphasized that government decisions, even those affecting state-owned enterprises like USC, are within the executive’s domain unless they infringe on constitutional or legal rights.
USC employees affected by the decision may still seek legal remedies in the future, but no current rights have been violated, according to the Court.
Powered by Froala Editor
