Punjab privileges law challenged in LHC over granting judicial powers to lawmakers
In a petition raising far-reaching constitutional questions over the separation of powers and the limits of provincial legislative authority, the Lahore High Court on Thursday was requested to strike down a provision of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab Privileges Act, 1972, that allegedly allows lawmakers to exercise judicial powers that are exclusively reserved for the judiciary.
The respondents include the province of Punjab through its chief secretary, the law department, the provincial assembly of Punjab through its secretary, the speaker of the Punjab Assembly, and the parliamentary affairs department.
The constitutional petition contends that the Punjab Assembly cannot constitutionally establish a ‘judicial committee’ empowered to try alleged offenders, record evidence, determine guilt, and impose punishments, arguing that such powers belong exclusively to the independent judiciary under the Constitution.
The petition also requested the court to strike down another provision granting members of the provincial assembly entitlement to official passports, claiming passport issuance falls within the exclusive legislative competence of parliament.
The petitioner, Sana Afzal Malik, sought the court’s declaration that Section 11-C, which establishes a judicial committee of the Punjab Assembly, is unconstitutional as it allegedly empowers elected legislators to perform functions reserved exclusively for the judiciary.
According to the petition, the Constitution vests judicial authority solely in courts established under Article 175, while Article 10-A guarantees every individual the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal.
The petitioner contended that members of the provincial assembly, being elected politicians, cannot constitutionally adjudicate disputes, record evidence, determine guilt, or impose punishments.
Read: District Resolution Committees stripped of judicial powers
The petition argued that merely labelling an assembly committee as “judicial” does not make it a constitutional court, maintaining that the substance of the powers exercised—not the title of the body—is the determining constitutional test.
It further submitted that the impugned provision undermines the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by transferring core judicial functions from the courts to the legislature. The petitioner has described the legislation as a case of “colourable legislation,” alleging that while it is framed as a law regulating parliamentary privilege, its true effect is to create a judicial forum outside the constitutional framework.
The petition also challenged section 15-C of the Act, which entitles members of the provincial assembly to official passports. It argues that passport issuance falls within the exclusive legislative domain of the federation under entry No 3 of the Federal Legislative List and Article 142(a) of the Constitution.
The petitioner contends that the Punjab Assembly lacks legislative competence to enact provisions concerning official passports.
The petitioner requested the court to declare sections 11-C and 15-C of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab Privileges Act, 1972, unconstitutional and strike them down. Pending final adjudication, the petition also seeks suspension of the operation of the impugned provisions.Read More
