
Court restores powers to local representatives
The Peshawar High Court has nullified amendments made by the provincial government to the Local Government Ordinance that reduced the powers and funding of elected local representatives. The court accepted petitions challenging the changes and declared the provincial government's amendments unconstitutional.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Farah Jamshed presided over the case. The petitions were filed by Humayun Mayar, Zubair Ali, and others, and were argued by Advocate Babar Khan Yousafzai.
During the hearing, Yousafzai informed the court that local government elections were held in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in February 2022, after which the newly elected representatives took oath and began performing their duties. However, the provincial government soon initiated efforts to curtail their authority and, later that year, amended the Local Government Act.
Yousafzai argued that these amendments significantly rolled back the powers of elected local bodies and stripped them of their authority to allocate and utilize development funds. These powers were instead transferred to the district administration and other government departments. He pointed out that the majority of seats in the first phase of elections were won by opposition parties, prompting the government to tighten its control by changing the law.
The lawyer further contended that by shifting most powers from the Act to the Rules, the government bypassed legal safeguards. Specifically, amendments were made to Sections 23A and 25 of the Local Government Act, altering the composition of the Tehsil Local Government structure originally defined in the 2019 version of the law.
He emphasized that the 2022 amendments not only took away powers from local representatives such as Tehsil Mayors and Village Council members, but also deprived them of any developmental funds for the past three years.
This, he noted, had created a situation of uncertainty and pressure, as representatives face public expectations without any resources to meet them.
Yousafzai argued that if such amendments were deemed necessary, they should have been applied prospectively, during future elections, rather than retroactively undermining the authority of currently elected officials under the 2019 Act.
In response, the Additional Advocate General contended that the amendments were lawful and within the authority of the provincial government. He claimed the changes were presented before the provincial assembly and that the elected representatives had been granted their due rights.
After reviewing the arguments, the bench declared the provincial government's amendments invalid, restoring the original powers and funding mechanisms for local government representatives as per the 2019 Local Government Act.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Business Recorder
20 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SC limits army courts' powers under Constitution
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that under Article 175 (3) of the Constitution, the courts martial and the forum of appeal under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, have no jurisdiction to prosecute persons accused of clause (d) of the Act. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail on Friday issued his verdict on the intra-court appeals against the Supreme Court judgment on military courts. A seven-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan on May 7 by majority of 5-2 had set aside the SC judgment and restored Section 2 (1) (d) and Section 59 (4) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The majority had referred the matter to the government/ parliament for considering and making necessary amendments/ legislation in the Army Act, and allied Rules for providing an independent right of appeal in the High Court, against the conviction awarded to the persons by the court martial/military courts, within a period of 45 days. Two members of the Constitutional Bench, namely, Justice Mandokhail and Justice Naeem, disagreed with the majority judgment, and set aside the convictions and sentences awarded to civilians by the courts martial for 9th May 2023, incidents, and declared them to be without jurisdiction. Justice Mandokhail judgment said that the jurisdiction to try civilians extended to courts martial, especially, in the light of the judgment of FB Ali ceases to exist. The discretion of 'prescribed officer' assigned to him by virtue of Section 94 of the PAA relating to transfer of cases of civilians to courts martial, in respect of civil offences under clause (d), is no more available. However, the courts martial have a limited jurisdiction to the extent of prosecuting members of the Armed Forces for violation of military laws and civil offences. It said that the logic behind the separation of the judiciary from the executive, under Article 175 of the Constitution, is that criminal offences are against the State, whereas, the executive is responsible for administration of the same. A person who breaches a law, is an accused of the State, therefore, the executive having an interest into the matter, cannot itself perform as a judge to punish the accused. It is for this reason, sub-Article (3) of Article 175 of the Constitution mandates that the judiciary shall be separated from the executive, within 14 years of commencement of the Constitution. The judgment noted that upon insertion of clause (d) in subsection (1) of Section 2 and subsection (4) in Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA), the courts martial comprising serving officers of the Army are prosecuting the persons accused of offences of clause (d). It said that the purpose of adding the said clause in the PAA is that the offences mentioned therein are prejudicial to the interests of the Army. Admittedly, it is a fundamental principle of natural justice that no one ought to be a judge in his own cause or in which he has an interest. This principle is strictly observed to avoid any instance of bias, resulting into injustice. Under such circumstances, the courts martial and the forum of appeal under the PAA, manned or run by the executive, under the command, control and discipline of the Federal Government, cannot be regarded as unbiased, independent or impartial forums. They cannot protect the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens in a criminal charge or for the determination of their rights and obligations. Thus, courts martial and the forum of appeal are violative of Articles 2A, 175 (3) and 227 of the Constitution. The judgment held that the courts martial are administered judicially, not as a part of the judicature erected under Article 175 of the Constitution, but as part of the organisation of the Armed Forces itself. The jurisdiction of courts martial trying military personnel for service offences and civil offences is different from judicial power exercised by ordinary courts for the general offences against the State. The judgment said: 'We have no doubt in our minds that being a special legal framework, the PAA is primarily a disciplinary statute that applies exclusively to a specified group of people; i.e., members of the Armed Forces.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025


Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
Meeting of IATF, IPCC: IHC grants time to govt to submit reply
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Thursday, granted time to the government to submit its reply regarding the meeting of Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) and Inter-Provincial Coordination Committee on Narcotics Control and implementation of court's orders to authorities to immediately halt the couriers and food deliveries to students at educational institutions to curb narcotics. A single bench of Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, on Thursday, issued the directions during hearing of a petition filed by Lakki Foundation, a civil society organisation, highlighting the alarming rise in drug addiction among students in Islamabad and seeking the inclusion of anti-narcotics awareness in the academic curriculum of Islamabad's schools and colleges. During the hearing, the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) appeared before the court and sought more time to submit the reply in this matter as counsel for the petitioner had previously contended that the IATF and Inter-Provincial Coordination Committee on Narcotics Control, constituted under the relevant Act, is one of the most important bodies responsible for regulating and ensuring effective control of narcotics throughout the country but no such meeting of IATF held. At this, the DAG was directed to submit a report indicating when the last meeting of the Council was held and the decisions taken therein. Similarly, Shafqat Ghafar, counsel for respondent No 9, had appeared and sought time to file a comprehensive report regarding the inclusion of narcotics related information in the curriculum. On the last hearing, expressing serious concern that drugs are being delivered to students under the guise of items like pizza and snacks Justice Minhas remarked, 'Children order pizza and receive drugs along with it.' He added, 'Stop all direct deliveries to students. Any school or college that fails to comply should face legal action.' Justice Minhas directed the authorities to monitor all courier services operating in and around educational institutions and ensure a ban on direct deliveries to students. Acceding to the plea of DAG, Justice Minhas deferred hearing of the case after Eid holidays directing the authorities to submit the report. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025


Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
Implementation of JJS Act, 2018: LHC seeks replies from federal ministry, prosecution dept
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Thursday sought replies from the federal law ministry and the Punjab prosecution department on a petition by two bar members seeking implementation of the Juvenile Justice System (JJS) Act, 2018. The petitioners' counsel informed the court that both the respondents failed to furnish their replies despite a previous direction. He said the replies of both respondents were critical for the implementation of the juvenile justice law in its letter and spirit. The court issued directions to the respondents accordingly for submission of their replies by the next hearing. The petition stated that sections 4, 10 and 20 of the JJS Act provide for the establishment of juvenile designated courts, maintenance of juvenile justice committees, observation homes and rehabilitation centers for the reception of juveniles including separate centers for females. It said the government so far failed to implement the Act fully. It asked the court to order the establishment of separate jails, barracks, and rehabilitation centers for juvenile female prisoners. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025