IHC verdict

In a highly class-based society, the elite getting all the privileges that are on offer may be an old story – in fact, one that has been unquestioningly accepted. When it comes to housing rights, for the large part, the state has failed to fulfil this primary responsibility to the people. And then if people have invested all their savings of their lifetime in a building or a flat, the law comes into action to deprive them of their assets. All this while those with clout pay to have their properties ‘regularised’. In such a context, the Islamabad High Court's recent verdict becomes all the more of a landmark, hopefully setting the tone for more pro-people judgments and steps. The IHC has noted conflict of interest and lack of transparency in plot allotments by the Federal Government Employees Housing Society (FGEHA) and has ordered that the FGEHA instead develop housing schemes for the people, while also noting that the allotment of plots on subsidised rates to top bureaucrats and judges is illegal. The IHC division bench was addressing identical petitions related to the allotment of plots by the FGEHA in sectors F-14 and F-15 of Islamabad. The verdict has also declared plot allotments in upcoming sectors F-12 and G-12 as illegal.

The IHC has highlighted that the allotment of plots on subsidised rates has cost the public exchequer around one trillion rupees in losses. Such lack of transparency appears to have become a hallmark of how governance is conducted and favours and perks handed to the lucky few that form the government and state elite in Pakistan. In this particular instance, most beneficiaries were senior bureaucrats and serving and retired judges of the superior judiciary. The court has rightly pointed out that the policy the FGEHA and the federal government formulated does not serve any public interest but is rather in violation of the fundamental rights of the people at large.

The judiciary is one of the most significant pillars of any state, and more than any other is primarily responsible for upholding public interest at its heart. It cannot and should not indulge in accepting any benefits that are contrary to its primary principles of public interest. There are constitutional provisions governing the character and roles of state machinery. Getting plots at less than 10 percent of the market value is not only unfair to the public but also incurs huge losses to the exchequer. When the country is already in a dire state economically – borrowing money from here and there – the government should not allow any misuse of its resources like this. It is hoped this judgement serves as a reminder to government functionaries that they must keep the public interest supreme rather than avail themselves of the opportunity they have been accorded just to gather even more perks and privileges. At the heart of it all is the concept of the right to housing. With a housing crisis that is likely to worsen in the coming years and decades as the population increases and the land available becomes scarce, the court is correct in noting that the government has not been to "provide shelter to the shelterless” – of which there are many. The government and the state with all its institutions need to rethink how they view the right to land and housing, and this verdict is a one big step towards that.