WITH the recent tweet of President of Pakistan Dr. Arif Alvi in which he proclaimed that he didn’t sign Official Secrets Amendment Bill 2023 and Pakistan Army Amendment Bill 2023, the validity of these laws is now in question. From a global perspective, the President of one country may have unlimited powers within their legal territory, whereas the President of another country may have little or no effect on the governance of his own State. President’s role in the law-making process is seen from ceremonial to effective within different constitutions of the world. In the case of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, President is considered as the head of State whereas his role in the State functions is merely ceremonial. While all the powers are delegated to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the President’s assent is mandatory for a few actions. Nevertheless, the President is bound to act on the advice of the Prime Minister with little or no power of disapproval.
In the short lifespan of 76 years, three different constitutions have been enforced in Pakistan with some intervals. However, the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan, after its implementation, didn’t remain in its original form due to numerous amendments. A single article was amended several times by every government according to its own interests. Taking Clause 1 of Article 75 of the Constitution into account, the time span of 10 days given to the President to sign the bill or send it back to Parliament, was originally 7 days. It was first increased to 45 days and then further reduced to 30 days in the Eighth Amendment, 1985 by the then ruler Gen. Zia ul Haq. Afterwards, it was further reduced to 10 days in the Eighteenth Amendment, 2010.
With the emergence of this recent issue, the essence of Article 75 of the Constitution of Pakistan is highlighted. This article illustrates that if a bill is passed by both houses of Parliament i.e., National Assembly and Senate, it would be presented to the President for his assent. Whereas, under Clause 1 of Article 75 of the Constitution, the President then has two options, one to accept and sign the bill within 10 days, the other to refuse the bill and send the bill back to Parliament with the objections he had. Then, the joint sitting of Parliament reviews the bill and sends it back to the President with or without amendment. On the second request after the joint sitting of Parliament, President is bound to sign the bill otherwise it will be deemed to be assented by the President by virtue of Clause 2 of Article 75. However, there is no provision or interpretation regarding the deeming assent of the President if he fails to act as required under Article 75(1).
In the case of India, a country with similar norms, culture and traditions as compared to Pakistan, parliamentary form of government along with the ceremonial role of the President exists just like Pakistan. Under Article 111 of the Constitution of India, when a bill is presented to the President of India, he may give his assent to the bill or return the bill to Parliament for reconsideration by mentioning his objections. However, he may withhold the assent if he considers it against the constitutional provisions, thus effectively vetoing the bill. But despite that, the power to veto the bill is not absolute and rarely practiced. However, there is no time limit specified by the Constitution of India to pressurize the President to act in response to the presented bill.
On the other hand, the superpower of the world, the United States of America, has presidential form of government giving unlimited powers to the President of the US. Thus, the powers of the President of Pakistan can’t be correlated with the President of the US. However, when the bill passed by Congress is presented to the President for consideration, he may agree with the bill and sign it which then becomes the law. If he disagrees with the provisions of the bill, he may send it back to Congress with his objections. The time span is set to 10 days, the same as Pakistan, for the President to either sign the bill or send it back. However, the concept of pocket veto exists in US which depicts the situation where the President doesn’t announce a regular veto but the bill still doesn’t become law. In other words, the President is said to “pocket veto” a bill where he takes no action on the bill during the 10-day period and where the Congress adjourns sine die before the expiry of that time.
Where Article 75(1) categorically requires that the President of Pakistan is bound to either sign the bill or send it back to Parliament, the Constitution stays silent on the fact where none of the actions mentioned in Article 75(1) is performed by the President. However, taking the current situation into account, the Supreme Court of Pakistan can have a judicial interpretation of the Article and shed light on the specific issue in order to protect the sovereignty of the Constitution. Does the oral direction by the President have an enough threshold to return the bill to Parliament?
—The writer is associated with the University of Punjab.
Email: [email protected]
