I am really surprised
to know that how the Art 96 and Art 88
of the Interim constitution are being
misinterpreted and how the ruling of the
court and its meaning is being distorted
by the government, the political
parties, the media and the intellectuals
regarding the presentation of the budget. The participation of constitutional experts and media in the debate is also disturbing and it suggests that they
are knee deep in the game of make believe rather than establishing the truth
and taking the side of the truth. Art 96
(A) (1) n (2) of the Interim
constitution does not vest any authority in the cabinet to bring a partial budget outside the locus of
the parliament. Like wise, Art 88 on
ordinance does not vest any authority in the President to issue even a partial budget
through an ordinance. Art 88 clearly
stipulates that except when the legislature –parliament is in session, the President
may promulgate an ordinance , on the recommendation of the cabinet if it deems
necessary , if he/ she is satisfied , and if
it is not contrary to the provisions set in the constitution. As Art 96 clearly stipulates that a partial
budget, which is merely an extended version of the budget of the previous
fiscal year, can be presented by the government in the parliament in special
circumstances, the issuance of a partial
budget through ordinance by the President would be against the letter and
spirit of the constitution and would be glaringly unconstitutional.
Use of Art 88
by the President to bring the budget would produce dangerous
results for constitutional and democratic politics as well. The act of the
President would push the country in a whirling vortex of undemocratic,
unrepresentative, unconstitutional and non transparent governance and the exit,
seemingly would not be easy. It would be so because the constitution is silent about the time
period within which the ordinance should be endorsed by a parliament. The article 88 (2) (c ) merely states that the ordinance must be endorsed within 60 days from the
commencement of the session of the parliament or cease to be effective then
after. As there is no parliament
functioning and no one is certain when would the parliament sit, the practice of bringing
budget through ordinance would continue. The cost would be unimaginable in many ways.
Thus the
political way out to avoid the crisis is activation of the legislature
parliament by government through the authority vested in Art 158 to resolve the difficulties in the implementation of the
constitution. If the cabinet would not agree to bring any such recommendation to the
President in time ,then the President, the protector of the constitution under
article 36 (a) (3), should use the
authority vested in him and write to the
speaker to commence the session of the CA and the parliament. The budget should
be presented in the Parliament only. The CA and Parliament have neither died their
natural death nor dissolved as the last notices of the speaker issued on May 26
for the commencement of the session of the CA and parliament are still hanging
around. Constitutionally, legally and practically speaking, the representative
institutions are merely not active and are in need of being activated.
Any act by
the President in this regard on the basis of the doctrine of necessity would be
the final death nail for the interim constitution.
Comments
Post a Comment