Latest news with #RulesofBusiness
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Govt plan to curb ‘bureaucratic overreach' in cabinet meetings
1 2 Bhubaneswar: The BJP govt under chief minister Mohan Charan Majhi has moved to restore ministerial authority in cabinet proceedings by implementing stricter protocols that limit bureaucratic involvement in the decision-making process. In a significant departure from previous practices, the parliamentary affairs department has issued directives mandating that the cabinet agenda be shared with ministers at least two working days before meetings, with meeting notices to be circulated five days in advance. Under the new guidelines, circulated by Surendra Kumar, additional chief secretary of the parliamentary affairs department, ministers will lead discussions on their departmental agenda items, followed by deliberations by cabinet members. Department secretaries will no longer be permitted to sit in the cabinet room and will only participate when specifically called upon for their expertise. The secretaries will not take part in discussions except when asked for their opinion. Only the chief minister, ministers, and secretary to the cabinet (chief secretary) will be inside the cabinet room. Prior permission of the CM will be necessary to bring any agenda in the cabinet. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Memperdagangkan CFD Emas dengan salah satu spread terendah? IC Markets Mendaftar Undo The move aligns with the Odisha govt Rules of Business, Part III, which explicitly states that ministers should provide observations on their departmental matters in cabinet meetings. The new administration claims this change will correct what they term as ' bureaucratic overreach ' that had allegedly developed under the previous govt. Explaining the decision, revenue minister Suresh Pujari said on Tuesday that the govt move is meant to "restore" the system. "Under the previous BJD administration, the roles of political leadership were undermined. Ministers were not privy to many things even in their departments. The govt will only re-implement the existing rules so that everyone performs their defined roles," Pujari said. The minister said in the past, rules were violated in the cabinet. Secretaries of all departments whose agenda were to be discussed in the cabinet, sat through the entire duration. Now, officers of one department will not be part of the discussion of another. The same has already been implemented in the last cabinet meeting held on May 14. Pujari said under the previous govt, the principal secretary of a department would present the agenda and not the minister. Now, ministers are initiating the discussion. The same will be more strictly implemented, the minister added. Countering Pujari, BJD MLA Kalikesh Narayan Singh Deo said a govt's efficiency is never judged by the process but by the action on the ground. "The BJP govt should stop indulging in gimmicks and work so that the people of Odisha get the benefits," Deo said.
Express Tribune
14-05-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
DISCOs fail to slash losses
The boards of all DISCOs have been reconstituted, except for Sepco and Hesco, where the process is being finalised. The boards are structured to ensure enhanced corporate governance, strategic oversight and operational efficiency. photo: file Listen to article Pakistan's economic managers have expressed serious concerns over the newly appointed boards of power distribution companies (DISCOs), which have failed to meet loss reduction targets. The Economic Coordination Committee (ECC), in a recent meeting, voiced grave concern that the targets assigned to DISCOs regarding reduction in transmission and distribution (T&D) losses had not been met. Specifically, the ECC members noted that the losses of Lahore Electric Supply Company (Lesco) had increased over the year. They stressed the need to adopt a robust plan to reverse the trend. The members of the economic decision-making body also underlined the need to make interventions to improve operations of the public power utility and slash losses. During discussions, the ECC was informed that boards of directors of all DISCOs, except for Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (Hesco) and Sukkur Electric Power Company (Sepco), had been reconstituted. It was also noted that under the oversight of the newly reconstituted boards, the entities had shown signs of improvement. The ECC was informed that Pakistan Power Management Company (PPMC), being the technical arm of the Power Division, was regularly monitoring the performance of DISCOs. In line with the National Electricity Policy, strategic roadmaps were formulated and signed in February 2025 by the respective chairpersons of the boards and the CEOs of all DISCOs. These roadmaps outline plans for T&D/AT&C (aggregate commercial and technical) loss reduction, bill collection, theft prevention, load-shedding management, consumer services, safety compliance, Scada implementation, GIS mapping, ERP system automation, computerised energy audits up to the distribution transformer level, execution of service-level agreements (SLAs) and operation and maintenance (O&M) framework. The Power Division briefed the meeting that to accomplish those objectives, a structured action matrix has been developed by DISCOs. This covers key initiatives such as feeder rehabilitation, distribution transformer addition/ augmentation, grid station expansion, capacitor installation, HT and LT line additions, transmission line upgrades, aerial bundled cable (ABC) deployment and advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) installation. In light of the directive issued in the ECC meeting held on April 11, 2024, the status regarding the governance of all DISCOs whose boards had been reconstituted, with a view to improving governance, was submitted to the ECC in the form of a summary under Rule 18(1) read with Rule 23(4) of the Rules of Business, 1973. Eleven DISCOs operate under the administrative control of the Power Division and are governed by the provisions of the State-Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023 and the State-Owned Enterprises (Operations and Management) Policy, 2023. The matters of boards of directors are also governed under the aforementioned law and policy. The boards of Faisalabad Electric Supply Company (Fesco), Islamabad Electric Supply Company (Iesco), Lesco, Multan Electric Power Company (Mepco) and Hazara Electric Supply Company (Hazeco) were reconstituted on July 24, 2024. Moreover, the boards of Gujranwala Electric Power Company (Gepco), Peshawar Electric Supply Company (Pesco), Quetta Electric Supply Company (Qesco) and Tribal Areas Electric Supply Company (Tesco) were reconstituted on August 31, 2024. Summaries for the reconstitution of Hesco and Sepco boards, with appropriate representation of independent and ex-officio directors as per relevant provisions of the State-Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023 and State-Owned Enterprises (Operations and Management) Policy, 2023, were submitted to the Prime Minister's Office. The boards of all DISCOs have been reconstituted, except for Sepco and Hesco, where the process is in the finalisation stage. The reconstituted boards are structured to ensure enhanced corporate governance, strategic oversight and operational efficiency. PPMC has implemented a monthly performance monitoring mechanism for all DISCOs, evaluating key operational, commercial and financial parameters. This framework ensures accountability and alignment with the sector's strategic goals.
Express Tribune
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Judges expressed consent for transfer: SC judge
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, a member of the Supreme Court's constitutional bench, remarked on Wednesday that three chief justices had given their consent for the judicial transfers in question. He added that Chief Justice Yahya Afridi had provided a detailed explanation of the federal structure of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in this context. Justice Mazhar made these observations while heading a five-member bench hearing a series of petitions challenging the inter-se seniority of five sitting judges, namely Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz. The five judges have jointly petitioned the apex court, arguing that the three transferred judges should not be considered IHC judges until they take a fresh oath under Article 194 of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Schedule III. Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro, and Justice Muhammad Asif were transferred from the high courts of Lahore, Sindh and Balochistan respectively on Feb 1 through a notification issued by the president of Pakistan under Article 200(1) of the Constitution. During the hearing on Wednesday, senior lawyer Munir A Malik, representing the five judges, argued that the transfer of one judge is an executive act and therefore subject to judicial review. He contended that the summaries for the transfer were sent to the president without cabinet approval, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in the Mustafa Impex case, which emphasized constitutional requirements for executive decisions. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that the Mustafa Impex ruling nullified Section 16(2) of the Rules of Business, which, he said, was not directly related to the process of judges' transfer. Counsel Munir A Malik cited the Qazi Faez Isa presidential reference case, where the Supreme Court had emphasized the president's obligation to apply an independent mind to judicial matters. He said the judges transfer summaries reflected that the president and the prime minister gave their approval on the same day. He asserted that the judiciary was not consulted prior to issuing the transfer notifications and that the summaries were not routed through judiciary. Justice Mazhar remarked that three chief justices had expressed consent for the transfers in question. He further noted that Chief Justice Yahya Afridi had elaborately discussed the federal structure of the IHC in this regard. Munir A Malik argued that when the summary was sent there was no mention of oath-taking or seniority. He said after the approval of the summary, the notification stated that there was no need for new oath-taking. Justice Mazhar remarked that Article 200 of the Constitutionwhich governs the transfer of judgeswas referenced in the notification. He noted that consultation among judges would have taken place. He said there was no mention of oath-taking in the notification. Munir A Malik argued that the justification for the transfers mentioned proportional representation from Punjab. He pointed out that Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Babar Sattar and Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan, all having Punjab domicile, were already serving the IHC. He said the transfers were part of a pre-planned effort to dominate the IHC. Later, the hearing of the case was adjourned until May 7.
Business Recorder
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Transfer case: Counsel for judges fails to make convincing arguments?
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench did not seem to be convinced of Islamabad High Court (IHC) five judges' lawyer's arguments on executive role and cabinet approval for transfer of judges from one High Court to another. A five-member SC Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, on Wednesday, heard the petitions of IHC five judges, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, and Karachi and Lahore Bar Associations regarding the transfer and seniority of the judges in the IHC. Munir A Malik, representing the IHC judges, argued that Article 200(1) of the Constitution cannot be viewed in isolation and it must be read with Article 200 (2). He questioned the scope of the executive's authority in transferring judges, saying; 'The transfer of a judge is an executive action, but the question is how the executive exercises this authority? Are there any conditions attached?' Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed whether the executive's authority to transfer judges could be subjected to judicial review. Malik replied in the affirmative, adding that the summary for the judges' transfer was initially moved by the Law Ministry and later forwarded by the prime minister to the president— without prior cabinet approval. He stated that the three approvals accorded by the President clearly show that the entire matter was never put up to the Cabinet, and the President while exercising his power under Article 200 did not apply his independent mind. Highlighting the constitutional framework, Malik said Article 90 declared the prime minister as the chief executive of the country, who formulates policy and ensures its implementation. Justice Naeem observed that Rule 60 of Rules of Business, cited by the counsel, does not specifically relate to judicial transfers. However, Munir reiterated that Article 90 of the constitution clearly empowers the chief executive officer with relevant authority. During the proceeding, Justice Mazhar asked the IHC judges' lawyer to conclude arguments today (Wednesday) so that from Monday (May 5) the counsels of other petitioners may present their case. Justice Mazhar explained that as one of the bench members had to leave for Karachi, the case had been scheduled early at 9:30 am. As on May 1 being a public holiday, the case would not resume until after that. Meanwhile, IHC five judges submitted a written response, raising serious concerns over the federal government's conduct in the judges' transfer matter. The federation, secretary Judicial Commission of Pakistan, the registrars of the Supreme Court and the IHC, Lahore High Court, Balochistan High Court and Sindh High Court have filed concise statements and placed certain documents on record last week. The judges accused the federal government of misrepresenting facts regarding the transfers. The response states that the government falsely claimed there was a lack of provincial representation in the Islamabad High Court during consultations on the matter. The judges further argued that the chief justice was not informed that the newly appointed judges would assume office without taking the oath—a key procedural lapse. They also pointed to the timing of Justice Aamer Farooq's proposed elevation to the Supreme Court, saying that his transfer immediately afterward appeared to be 'meaningful.' 'We are not raising a personal grievance before the Supreme Court,' the response clarified. 'The real question is whether the federal government can, in bad faith, undermine a high court in such a manner.' It was an unconstitutional decision by the federation to allow the transferee judges to enter office in the IHC without taking oath thereof and grant seniority to them from the dates of their oaths in their original High Courts, they said. They submitted that the whole process was conducted in undue haste and tainted with malafides and motivated by the Federation's desire to punish the serving judges of the Islamabad High Court and effectuate a 'takeover' of a High Court. The hearing was adjourned until May 7. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Idea of 'geographical distinction' not valid
While giving his consent to the transfer of a judge from the Sindh High Court (SHC) to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), the then chief justice of the SHC had raised questions on the transfer of judges to the capital's high court on the basis of geographical distinction. The federal government and registrars of three high courts have submitted the record regarding the transfer of three judges from different high courts to the IHC to the Supreme Court whose five-member constitutional bench (CB) will resume hearing a slew of petitions filed against this transfer. The record reveals interesting facts. The Ministry for Law, while initiating the process regarding transfer of the judges on January 28, had moved a summary to the prime minister. The summary said currently no judge from rural Sindh served at the IHC while there is only one judge in the court from Punjab. "Therefore, in terms of Schedule-V-B of the Rules of Business, 1973 read with Article 48 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan may advise the President to authorize Ministry of Law and Justice to initiate the process under clause (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution to seek consent of Lahore High Court (LHC) Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, SHC Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and Balochistan High Court [Justice Muhammad Asif] to the IHC." After approval of the summary, the process was initiated by the Ministry of Law. In response to the ministry's letter, SHC Registrar Suhail Muhammad Laghari stated that he had been conveyed consent by SHC CJ Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui to the transfer. "The summary along with the letter makes reference to a geographical distinction that perhaps does not find mention in the Constitutional provision for transfer of a Judge from one High Court to another. "The concurrence herein conveyed, therefore, is in pursuance of Article 200 of the Constitution coupled with the consent conveyed by the learned Judge and irrespective of any geographical distinction," said the letter sent by the SHC to the ministry. Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi while giving consent had noted that the proposed transfer of the three judges from the high courts of different federating units to the IHC completely syncs with the spirit of federalism as enshrined in the Constitution. "It is also in conformity with section 3 of the IHC Act, 2010. The thoughtful consideration behind the proposal illustrates resolve in providing an equitable share to linguistic diversity of our country and fair chance of representation to all the federating units in the High Court of the common capital of the Federation i.e., IHC," said the letter. However, the CJP had a different view about the seniority of transferred judges. His view was not accepted by majority members of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). Meanwhile, Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) through Waqar Rana advocate submitted additional grounds against the transfer of three judges. The petition contended that CJP has the primacy in the matter of transfer of a judge from one high court to another and has also a constitutional right and obligation to move a summary for that purpose. "The Executive branch of the government could not initiate such a transfer process on its own. In the instant case, said summary was purportedly moved by the Executive with mala fides and for extraneous grounds. The subsequent Transfer Notification was thus void. "The CJP was obligated to consult with his senior judges of the Supreme Court before consultation with the Executive on the matter of transfer of judges from one High Court to another as per law laid down by this Hon'ble Court. "It is submitted that the transfer of the respondent judges could take place only after a consensus was reached amongst the senior most judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan," it added. '
