Rs24 bn allocation for MPs’ uplift schemes ‘illegal’

ISLAMABAD: The diversion of Rs24 billion from the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and other initiatives to the development schemes recommended by the lawmakers is a violation of a Supreme Court judgment, a reading of the ruling says. Before coming to power, Prime Minister Imran Khan had repeatedly spoken against allotment of taxpayers’ money to the development projects proposed by the federal and provincial legislators.

“As an amount of Rs24 billion, earmarked for different projects in the beginning of the financial year, was going to lapse and thus become non-consumable at the end of the fiscal, it has been allocated for social sector schemes,” Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Sadaqat Abbasi explained to The News when approached for comments. “There is no cut in the funds for the CPEC projects.”

He said the allotment of funds for development projects suggested by the lawmakers will remain within the parameters of the apex court verdict. He said in the absence of local government system, several small projects have to be undertaken in any case.

Abbasi said not a single penny of these funds will be at the discretionary disposal of any legislator. Lawmakers will only recommend schemes pertaining to sanitation, water supply projects etc., costing Rs50,000 to Rs50 million and the district administration will execute them through this funding.

The diversion of the funds earmarked for the CPEC and other initiatives is confirmed by a letter F No 4(1-D)PIP/PC/2018-19 dated January 16 of the Ministry of Planning, Development and Reforms.

In another letter dated February 19, 2019, the planning ministry wrote to the Accountant General, Pakistan Revenues, that the president has sanctioned the surrender of Rs24b to the SDG Achievement Programme from the CPEC and other initiatives.

The Supreme Court ruling had adjudicated upon the allocation of Rs47 billion by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government and held it illegal.

A three-judge bench had ruled on December 5, 2013 that any re-appropriation of funds or their utilisation for some other purpose, though within the permissible limits of the budget, are not justified. In such circumstances, the supplementary budget statement has to be placed before Parliament following the procedure provided in Articles 80 to 84 of the Constitution and the rules. The amounts as approved in the budget passed by the National Assembly have to be utilised for the purpose specified in the budget statement.

It further held that the National Assembly, while giving assent to a grant which is to be utilised by the executive at its discretion, has to follow the procedure provided in Articles 80 to 84 as well as the rules. However, such discretionary grant cannot be spent at the absolute discretion of the executive and the discretion has to be exercised in a structured manner. The Constitution does not permit the use/allocation of funds to central and provincial lawmakers and notables at the sole discretion of the prime minister or the chief minister. If there is any practice of allocation of funds to them at such sole discretion, it is illegal and unconstitutional. The government is bound to establish procedure/criteria for governing allocation of such funds for this purpose.

The judgment said though funds can be provided for development schemes by way of supplementary grant but for that purpose procedure provided in Articles 80 to 84 and the rules has to be followed strictly. Funds can be allocated by way of re-appropriation but the procedure provided in the Constitution and the rules has to be followed in its true perspective. No bulk grant can be made in the budget without giving detailed estimates under each grant divided into items and that every item has to be specified.

According to the verdict, as regards the question whether any such discretionary funds can be placed at the disposal of the prime minister/chief ministers for use of/allocation to the lawmakers and notables, neither the Constitution provides for the same nor the Rules of Procedure indicate that such a course for demanding a grant from the National Assembly is open to the prime minister. In fact, if any discretionary funds are allowed to be placed at the disposal of the prime minister by the National Assembly in the annual budget statement, it shall be ultra virus the Constitution in the same manner as in the case of legislators and notables.

The ruling said the very propose of preparing the annual budget statement is to know and apprise the National Assembly beforehand as to what expenditure is to be incurred during the ensuing financial year and the precise purpose/schemes insofar as development fund is concerned to which such expenditure relates. For that matter, to leave or earmark any amount of money to be used/allocated at some subsequent stage during the financial year at the discretion of the prime minister/chief ministers is also repugnant to the very concept and connotation of the annual budget statement.

In fact, expenditure envisaged to be incurred under the Constitution is not “person specific”, rather it is “grant specific”, that is to say, the Constitution envisages provisions of funds for expenditure to be specified in the annual budget statement vis-à-vis ‘Schemes for Development’ and not for placing these funds in the hands of any person (be the prime minister or lawmaker/notable or any other) for purpose of expending as per his whims and wishes.

In this regard it is to be noted that a policy or practice may have been adopted by the MPs to place funds in the hands of the prime minister to be used/allocated at his discretion to legislators/notables. However, if any such policy/practice is in existence, it too is repugnant to the Constitution. It is, however, another matter if prior to the preparation of the annual budget statement the legislators/NGOs and/or any other person from the constituencies throughout the country are called upon to identify schemes or expenditure that may be required for effecting necessary development in their area of concern. Such an exercise, however, will have to be across the board, irrespective of the political party or parties (when there is coalition) that may be in power. Moreover, it will be carried out much before the preparation of the annual budget statement so that if the relevant scheme or expenditure is to be included in it, it would have passed through the process of due consideration by the Planning Commission for purposes of ascertaining its necessity and efficacy and conducting its appraisal, technical analysis, feasibility and economic cost before it is included as a demand for grant in the annual statement. However, there is no constitutional provision which permits inclusion of any such scheme or expenditure at the behest or any legislators/notable/any other person during the currency of a financial year, unless it is necessitated by a totally unforeseen contingency arising out of extraordinary circumstances which needs to be met on urgent basis.

The verdict said so far as the discretionary powers, if any, of the prime minister are concerned, even if they be presumed to exist, they cannot be exercised for personal or for parochial benefit, rather they are to be exercised in the light of his constitutional oath, which mandates the state to promote social and economic well-being of all the people/citizens of Pakistan and not just any segment or community.