PSP counsel told to satisfy SHC on maintainability of plea against local govt bill

The Sindh High Court on Monday directed the Pak Sarzameen Paty’s counsel to satisfy it with regard to the maintainability of a petition in which he challenged the recent amendments made in the Sindh Local Government Act by the provincial government.

The court inquired the PSP counsel how the petition was maintainable when the bill was not passed by the parliament. The petitioner’s counsel, Hassan Sabir, said the provincial government changed with a mala fide intention the local bodies act through amendments, which was against the spirit of Article 140-A of the constitution.

PSP Vice Chairman Arshad Vohra and anoother leader Syed Hafeezuddin submitted that the government had placed a bill for amendments in the Sindh Local Government Act 2013, which, he said, was against the spirit of the constitution, especially Article 140-A.

They said amendments were contrary to articles 7, 8, 32 and 140A of the constitution, as under the proposed amendments the Sindh government would grab all the rights of the third tier of government, which was the local government.

They submitted that in comparison with all other ordinances/ acts enacted time to time, the Sindh Local Government (amended) Bill 2021 was more prejudice to the entire province, especially for Karachi and Hyderabad and other urban areas of Sindh, as by enacting the bill the status of Karachi had been undermined and it had been brought to the level of a village.

The lawyers argued that under an amendment to Section 140-A, the government had claimed absolute rights over the province to make changes in the law unilaterally and as absolute authority. They said Schedule-II, Part-1 Sub-clause 5, 12 and 13 had been omitted from the SLGA 2013, which were related to the medical colleges, hospitals, milk supply schemes, control of land owned by the Metropolitan Corporation and removal of encroachments, and all this clearly showed the intentions of the respondents that they had committed violations of fundamental rights of the citizens of Karachi.

They said that under the amendments to Schedule-1 Part-1-A Sub-Clause 4, 5 and 14-A of SLGA 2013 had been omitted which were related to the birth certificate, death and marriage certificates/registration, infection disease, adult education, which is not the mandate of the Sindh government.

They counsel submitted that optional functions mentioned in Schedule-II, sub-clause 5(a) & (b) and sub-clause 6 & 7 had been omitted which were related to promotion of public health, primary health, hospitals and dispensaries, medical aid, relief and medical education, which was clearly apparent that the respondents had committed violations of the constitution and deprived the public of their legal rights and facilities at large.

They further contended that functions given in the Sindh Local Government Act 2013 clauses 17, 18, 57, 58 & 59 had been omitted, and that those clauses were with regard to the bylaws for articles of food and drink, milk supply, education, compulsory education and general provisions about Education. They said that all these amendments clearly indicated that the provincial government had tried to usurp the fundamental rights of the people, which had been guaranteed by the constitution.

They said that as per Schedule-III of Sindh Local Government Act 2013 clause 28 & 29 had been omitted, and that those clauses were with regard to the prevention, regulation and control of infection diseases, enforcement of vaccination, and now according to the bill, the respondents had taken everything under their control.

They said the government also made amendments in laws related to the election of mayor and deputy mayor by substituting the word “secret ballot” from “show of hands”, which was against the norms of the political system as secret ballot was always doubtful in the political system of Pakistan and in every occasion it had been observed that secret ballot had always been used for horse-trading or to change the result in favour of either one.

They said it was necessary that the selection of the mayor and deputy mayor should be made by way of showing hands in a joint session of the city council, as the reason for the amendment in this section appeared to particularly serve the purpose to gain maximum votes in a dubious manner to achieve their nefarious and notorious designs.

They submitted that the impugned amendment bill was in violation of articles 7, 8, 32 and 140-A of the constitution. The court was requested to declare the amendment bill in the SLGA void and against the people of the province and being against the dictum laid down in articles 7, 8, 32 and 140-A of the constitution, and to restrain the respondents from enactment and promulgation of the bill.