ISLAMABAD: The process has been set in motion to amend a key rule governing public petitions in the Senate, a move its sponsors say is aimed at confirming the supremacy of parliament and limiting judicial intervention in parliamentary affairs.
The Senate Standing Committee on Rules of Procedure and Privileges has approved an amendment to Rule 166(5) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Senate, despite reservations raised by the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs.
The supporters of the change argue that the amendment will remove the legal basis currently used by courts to issue stay orders against the functioning of Senate committees.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment, moved by former deputy chairman Senate Saleem Mandviwalla and backed by around three dozen senators, broadens the scope of public petitions that may be taken up by Senate committees.
This includes grievances arising from disputes where there is an element of public interest, systemic concern, regulatory oversight, or protection of rights.
Moreover, the amendment further authorises committees, after considering a petition, to issue recommendations for systemic or regulatory improvements and to provide facilitative guidance for resolving grievances, in accordance with the relevant law.
In addition, a significant addition to the rule is a proviso granting the Senate chairman wide discretionary powers.
The chairman may admit, defer, dispense with or decline to proceed with any petition if deemed necessary in the interest of parliamentary discipline, propriety, or to prevent frivolous or vexatious proceedings.
Currently, Rule 166(5) bars the presentation of public petitions that fall within the jurisdiction of courts or relate directly to matters pending before judicial or quasi-judicial forums.
The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs proposed retaining this restriction as an additional safeguard, but the committee rejected the suggestion.
However, the meeting chaired by Senator Syed Waqar Mehdi, Mr Mandviwalla expressed concern over what he described as increasing judicial interference in committee proceedings.
He maintained that courts had no authority to obstruct parliamentary functions and cited past Supreme Court observations calling for non-interference in legislative proceedings.
