SC suspends SHC verdict quashing Sugar Commission report

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday suspended the operation of the judgment delivered by the Sindh High Court (SHC) quashing the Fact Finding Report of the Sugar Commission as well the notification for its constitution, which was made under the Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act 2017.

A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed admitted for regular hearing, the appeal of the federal government against the order of Sindh High Court dated August 17, quashing the report compiled by the Sugar Commission.

The court suspended the operation of the SHC judgment and issued notices to the respondents including 19 sugar mills and others in the instant matter and adjourned the matter for one month.

A SHC division bench comprising Justice KK Agha and Justice Omar Sial on August 17, 2020 quashed the fact finding report of the Sugar Commission as well as the notification for duly constituting the Commission of Inquiry under the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 2017 on pure technical grounds that the summary for the Commission was initiated by the Interior Ministry rather than the Cabinet Divisions.

The court had ordered the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to launch a fresh investigation into the matter.

The federation through Secretary Cabinet Division and Secretary Ministry of Interior had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the SHC order dated August 17, 2020.

It had prayed the apex court to grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 17-08-2020 and suspension of the said impugned judgment.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Khalid Javed submitted before the court that the summary for appointing all seven members of the Commission was duly approved by the Federal Cabinet and none of the sugar manufacturers including the respondents ever did or could claim lack of knowledge of the proceedings of the Commission, which also fully interacted with the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association of which the respondent manufacturers are members nor could they show any prejudice whatsoever owing to the fact that the summary was initiated by Interior Division, which in any case merged in the final approval of the Cabinet nor due to any delay in publication of notification in the gazette.

He further submitted that the manufacturers of sugar raised the grounds of initiation of summary by Interior Division rather than Cabinet Division and the issue of belated publication of notifications in Gazette for the first time.

The AG contended that the initiation of summary by the Interior Division as against Cabinet Division for appointment of the Commission of Inquiry and belated publication of the notifications dated 16-3-2020 and 26-3-2020 in the official gazette was due to innocent mistake but otherwise it caused no harm or prejudice to the respondents or any other party.

He submitted that the notifications dated 16-3-2020 and 25-3-2020 were issued in accordance with Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act 2017 and subsequent publication in official gazette on 6-7-2020 does not affect its validity nor result in quashment or nullification thereof.

Khalid Javed submitted that the notifications dated 16-3-2020 and 25-3-2020 fulfill requirements of Section 3 of Commission of Inquiry Act 2017, adding that the said notification issued by Interior Division instead of Cabinet Division did not make it invalid, as it was a purely procedural matter and, therefore, only directory.

“As it was done mistakenly, it was a mere irregularity which neither affected nor caused prejudice to any party including the respondents”, the AG contended adding that indeed no prejudice was even claimed or asserted by the manufacturers before the High Court.

Attorney General further submitted that mere irregularity in issuance of notifications dated 16-3-2020 and 25-3-2020 and its publication in official gazette on 6-7-2020 is eclipsed by substantial compliance of law and the Rules and the great public harm that this whole exercise sought to address and would follow if the impugned judgment is sustained.

Similarly, he contended that subsequent addition of a member in the Commission after approval by the Cabinet vide notification dated 25-3-2020 did not violate the provisions the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, 2017 and does not make the report of the Commission illegal.

Khalid Javed while citing judgments of the apex court contended that mistakes in procedural matters could be avoided if there is an issue of public interest.

The AG contended that the Commission was not legally required to individually hear all parties/respondents under the Commission of Inquiry Act 2017.

Even, otherwise, Commission had the mandate to regulate its own procedure under the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 2017”, the AG contended adding that the federal government or its functionaries are under obligation to act in public interest and probe all cases and to promptly follow up the proceedings before departments, authorities or bodies as it directly affects the fundamental rights of the people at large.

It is pertinent to mention here that in order to probe the increase in sugar prices, the federal government had formed the Inquiry Committee, which had collected information from the federal and provincial governments as well as Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PSMA) and other stakeholders.

The Commission on April 5 while submitting its report claimed that sugar mills belonging to the country’s top politicians including PML-N’s Shahbaz Sharif, PTI’s Jahangir Tareen and Khusro Bakhtyar and PML-Q’s Moonis Elahi were among the beneficiaries of the crisis.