Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 2316
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Ch. Muhammad Iqbal)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Ch. Muhammad Iqbal), officially reported as 2026 LHC 2316. In this matter between the Petitioner and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Ch. Muhammad Iqbal) DECISION DATE: 13-04-2026 TAGLINE: Framing of rules and policy: Under Article 90 read with Article 99 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Government is fully authorized to frame Rules and Policies. So under the above provisions, the "Policy for Local NGOs/NPOs Receiving Foreign Contributions-2022" was framed whereas High Court ordinarily restrain itself from interfering in the policy matters of the Government in its writ jurisdiction. Further, Article 18 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 deals with freedom of trade, business or profession but subject to qualification as prescribed by law. CASE DETAILS: Misc. Writ 59781/24 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38 JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT JUDGMENT I.C.A. No.59781/2024
Federation of Pakistan through the Federal Secretary, Ministry of Economic Affairs
VS.
M/s. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and another
Ch. Muhammad Iqbal , J: - Through this single judgment, we intend to decide the titled appeal [I.C.A. No.59781/2024] alongwith I.C.A. No.59796/2024 and I.C.A. No.59818/2024 as all these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment dated 06.09.2024 of the Hon’ble Single Judge in Chamber. 2. Through these intra court appeals, the appellant ha s challenged the validity of judgment dated 06.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.15453/2024 [ cited as Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s case1] whereby the Hon’ble Single Judge in Chamber allowed the writ petition and declared the “Policy for Local NGOs/NPOs Receiving Foreign Contributions- 2022” issued by the appellant after approval of Federal Cabinet vide Case No.559/Rule -19/2022 dated 11.11.2022 as unlawful, invalid and of no legal effect. 3. Brief facts of these cases are that the respondent s through their respective Writ Petition s challenged the “Policy for Local
1 Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Islamabad and another (PLD 2025 Lahore 7) Date of hearing 03.03.2026 Appellant by Mirza Nasar Ahmad, Additional Attorney General Mr. Asad Ali Bajwa, Deputy Attorney General Respondent No.1 by Muhammad Saqib Jillani, Advocate I.C.A. No.59781/2024
2 NGOs/NPOs Receiving Foreign Contributions-2022” [hereinafter referred as “ Policy”] with the inter -alia contentions that respondent No.1 is a civil society organization registered in 1987 under Societies Registration Act, 1860. That it is an independent nonpolitical human rights body and committed to bonafidely endeavour for wellbeing of humanity, its civil, political, economic, social, cultural rights for all citizens. That the respondent No.1 works in range of areas including civil, political, cultural and environmental rights. That the respondent No.1 is conducting operation in accordance with the pro visions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as well as all the local and Federal laws. That the financial accounts of the respondent No.1 are also audited by the renowned chartered accountants and each and every penny received by the respondent is accounted for. The respondent is registered with Pakistan Center for Philanthropy which is the designated certificat ion agency of Federal Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan. That in the year 2013, the Federal Government introduced “Policy for Regulation of Organizations receiving Foreign Contributions ”. That the said Policy was challenged through filing a Constitutional Petition before the learned Sindh High Court who annulled the said policy-2013 through Marie Stopes Society’s case2. The respondent now challenged the Policy on the ground that this Policy has also been issued by the Federal Government without any authority of law as such as per the Marie Stopes Society’s case, this Policy may also be declared null and void. Th at the Policy is violative of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 [hereinafter referred as “Constitution”]. The appellant filed reply of the writ petitions by raising therein all the legal and factual pleas . The Hon’ble Single Judge in Chamber through the judgment dated 06.09.2024 allowed the writ petition s and declared the “Policy for Local NGOs/NPOs
2 Marie Stopes Society Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary and 4 others (2022 CLC 880) I.C.A. No.59781/2024
3 Receiving Foreign Contributions-2022” issued by the appellant after approval of Federal Cabinet vide Case No.559/Rule - 19/2022 da ted 11.11.2022 as unlawful, invalid and of no legal effect. Hence, these Intra Court Appeals. 4. Arguments heard. Record perused. 5. The controversy involved in this case can be summarized into two questions: i. Whether the Federal Government is competent to make policy for regularization NGOs/NPOs who receive foreign contributions? ii. Whether interference can be made in the policy matters in Writ jurisdiction? Coming to the first question, it is appropriate to say that our democratic and public system is regulated by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 wherein under the trichotomy of power jurisdictional domain of the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary has elaborately been described therein. Here the rule making power as well as the policy decision of the Executive are looked into on the touchstone of the constitutionality, law and fundamental rights of the public. As per the scheme of the Constitution, under Article 90 read with Article 99 of the Constitution, the Federa l Government is authorize to make rules for allocation and transaction of its business. For ready reference, aforesaid Articles are reproduced as under: “90. The Federal Government.__ (1) Subject to the Constitution, the executive authority of the Federation shall be exercised in the name of the President by the Federal Government, consisting of the Prime Minister and the Federal Ministers, which shall act through the Prime Minister, wh o shall be the chief executive of the Federation. (2) In the performance of his functions under the Constitution, the Prime Minister may act either directly or through the Federal Ministers. ….. I.C.A. No.59781/2024
4 99. Conduct of business of Federal Government.__ (1) All executive actions of the Federal Government shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President. (2) The Federal Government shall by rules specify the manner in which orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the President shall be authenticated, and the validity of any order or instrument so authenticated shall not be questioned in any court on the ground that it was not made or executed by the President. (3) The Federal Government shall also make rules for the allocation and transaction of its business.” The Federal Government framed Rules of Business 1973 under the aforementioned Articles of the Constitution which provide a comprehensive mechanism for the allocation of Governmental business among Divisions, the procedure for inter Division consultation, the hierarchy of decision making from Secretary through the Minister to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Any policy decision taken and notified by the Federal Government must be legally valid and procedurally in a complete conformity with the relevant provision s of these rules. Further, the rules are supplemented by several schedules. Schedule I lists all Ministries and their constituent Divisions. Schedule II distributes Governmental business among the Divisions. Schedule III identifies attached Departments. Schedules V -A and V -B enumerate cases requiring the orders of the Prime Minister and the President respectively. These schedules have the same force and authority as the Rules themselves, and compliance with them is mandatory for all Divisions. The Rules of Business have been made under Article 90 read with Article 99 of the Constitution and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Tariq Aziz-ud-din’s case3 has declared that due weight is required to be given to the Rules of Business which ha ve got constitutional sanction and has held as under: “22…. In the cases of Zahid Alchtar v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1995 SC 530, Federation of Pakistan
3 Tariq Aziz-ud-din and others (2010 SCMR 1301) I.C.A. No.59781/2024
5 through Secretary, Planning and Development Division, Islamabad v. Mu Akram and others 1995 SCMR 1647 and Aman Ullah Khan and others v. the Federal Government of Pakistan t hrough Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others PLD 1990 SC 1092, it has been held that due weight is required to be given to the Rules of Business which have got constitutional sanction…” It was not just an observation and in order to arrive a t this conclusion, the Hon’ble Apex Court placed reliance on earlier judgments rendered in this regard in Aman Ullah Khan and other4. 6. Furthermore, this Court in Amin Jan’s case5 declared that the Rules are to be placed on public policy and designed to safeguard effectively the State interests and t o act in cons onance with these rules is a clear duty cast on all the Divisions/Ministries of the Federal Government. For ready reference, the relevant portion of judgment (supra) is reproduced as under: “6. I feel that the various Departments of the Federal Government involved in this case, i. e. the Ministry of Establishment, the Ministry of Communication and the Director-General T & T are acting in oblivion of the mandatory requirements of rul e 14 of the Rules of Business framed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as kept in force through the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. This rule reads as under:- "14. Consultation with the Law Division. ---(1) The Law Division shall be consulted--- a) on all legal questions arising out of any case; b) on the interpretation of any law; c) before the issue of or authorization of the issue of an order, rule, regulation, by -law, notification, etc. in exercise of statutory powers; d) deleted vide Cabinet Division No. 104/10/76 -Min, dated 26-3-1976. e) before instituting criminal or civil proceedings in a Court of law in which the Government is involved; f) whenever criminal or civil proceedings are instituted against the Government at the earliest possible stage; and
4 Aman Ullah Khan and others Vs. The Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others (PLD 1990 SC 1092 ), Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Planning & Development Division, Islamabad Vs. Muhammad Akram and others (1995 SCMR 1647 ) and Zahid Akhtar Vs. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1995 SC 530) 5 Amin Jan Vs. Director-General, T & T and others (PLD 1985 Lahore 81) I.C.A. No.59781/2024
6 g) before the appointment of a legal adviser in any Division or any office or corporation under its administrative control and the Law Division will make its recommendations after consultation with the Attorney General. (2) (3) (4) (5) 7. From a plain reading of the above provisions, it is crystal clear that it is a self-contained code. For the purposes of the present case, it should suffice to observe that the policy of law, inter alia, appears to be to achieve harmonio us functioning of various Divisions and Ministries of the Federal Government and further to ensure that they seek and act on competent expert advice in respect of (i) all legal questions arising out of any case; (ii) on the interpretation of any law; and ( iii) at the earliest possible stage whenever any civil or criminal proceedings are instituted against the Federal Government. These Rules of Business are thus based on public policy and designed to safeguard effectively the State interests. To act in consonance with these rules is a clear duty cast on all the Divisions/Ministries of the Federal Government. This can be clearly spelt out from the use of the word "stall" in the opening part of rule 14 of the Rules of Business. Reference may, in particular, be made to sub -clauses (a) , (b) and (f) to sub-rule (1) of rule 14, as they are relevant for the purposes of this case. I am, therefore, constrained to observe that Law, Rules and Regulations of obligatory character are meant to be obeyed and honoured by thei r observance and not through breaches. Any departure from the aforesaid provisions is bound to lead to anomalous results and prove injurious to smooth transaction of the business of the Federal Government by its various Divisions and Ministries. The letter and spirit of the law, when observed, will also have the wholesome effect of avoidance of frivolous litigation and waste of public time and expense. Non-observance of these rules, on the other hand, is fraught with the danger of giving rise to unnecessary litigation and bound to impede the speedy dispensation of justice. It is against public policy and public interest to burden the Courts with matters which ought to be settled at the depart - mental level.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Messrs Mus tafa Impex’s case6 has held that Article 99 of the Constitution
6 Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others Vs. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others (PLD 2016 SC 808) I.C.A. No.59781/2024
7 empowers the Federal Government to make rules for the allocation and transaction of its business and held as under: “42. We are now in a position to examine the contents of the Rules of Business themselves. The present formulation of the Rules of Business dates back to 1973. A quick synoptic overview of the relevant Rules would not be out of place at this point of time. Rule 2, clause (iii) defines "business" as meaning all work done by the Federal Government. Then follows Rule 3 which relates to the allocation of business and clause (3) thereof provides that the business of Government shall be distributed among the vari ous Divisions (i.e. the administrative units) in the manner indicated in Schedule -II. Rule 4 deals with the organization of Divisions and Rule 5 bears the heading "Transaction of Business". It prescribes that no important policy decision is to be taken exc ept with the approval of the Prime Minister. The responsibility of a Minister, as head of a Division, is to assist the Prime Minister in relation to the formulation of policy and also to keep him informed of any important cases disposed of by him. Subject to the above, a Minister is responsible for the policies of his Division. Clause (8) further clarifies that the business of a Division shall ordinarily be disposed of by, and under the authority of, the Minister in charge and Clause (9) lays down the respo nsibilities of the Secretary. Clauses (8) and (9) of Rule 5 insofar as relevant are reproduced below:-
"(8) The business of the Division shall ordinarily be disposed of by, or under the authority of the Minister - in-Charge. (9) The Secretary shall - (a) assist the Minister -in-Charge in the formulation of policy; (b) duly execute the sanctioned policy; (c) submit all proposals for legislation to the Cabinet with the approval of the Minister; (d) Keep the Minis ter-in-Charge generally informed of the working of the Division and of any important case disposed of without reference to the Minister; (e) be the principal accounting officer of his Division, its Attached Departments and Subordinate Offices, a nd ensure that the funds controlled by him are spent in accordance with the rules laid down by the Finance Division; (f) Subject to the provisions of these rules and with the approval of the Minister -in-Charge issue standing orders laying down t he manner of disposal of cases in I.C.A. No.59781/2024
8 the Division, including the distribution of work amongst the officers of his Division and such orders may specify the cases or class of cases which may be disposed of by an officer subordinate to him; and (g) be responsible for the careful observance of these rules and, where he considers that there has been any material departure from them, either in his own or any other division, he shall bring the matter to the notice of the Minister-in-Charge and, if necessary , to the notice of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet." 43. Rule 6 reflects the constitutional concept of individual and collective responsibility and reads as under:- "6. Individual and collective responsibility. - The Cabinet shall collec tively be responsible for the advice tendered to, or the executive orders issued in the name of the President whether by an individual Minister or as a result of decision by the Cabinet; but the Minister shall assume primary responsibility for the disposal of business pertaining to his portfolio." Rule 7 provides that, subject to Article 173, all executive actions of the Government shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President. Rule 12 renders consultation with the Finance Division mandatory in relation to matters which may involve the relinquishment, remission or assignment of revenue or expenditure for which no provi sion exists in the Budget. Rule 14 bears the heading "Consultation with the Law, Justice and Human Rights Division" and Clause (1) is material and is reproduced below insofar as relevant:- "14. Consultation with the Law, Justice and Human Rights Divis ion.---(1) The Law, Justice and Human Rights Division shall be consulted-- (a) on all legal questions arising out of any case; (b) on the interpretation of any law; (c) before the issue of or authorization of the issue of an orde r, rule, regulation, by -law, notification, etc. in exercise of statutory powers;" Rule 15 makes it mandatory to obtain the approval of the Prime Minister in relation to important policy matters. 44. Rule 16 is an important rule and, inso far as material, is reproduced below:- "16. Cases to be brought before Cabinet. ---(1) The following cases shall be brought before the Cabinet:-- (a) proposals for legislation, official or non -official, including money bills; (b) promulgation and revocation of Ordinances; I.C.A. No.59781/2024
9 (c) the budgetary position and proposals before the presentation of the Annual Budget Statement and a Supplementary Budget Statement or an Excess Budget Statement under Articles 80 and 84. (d) Proposals for levy, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax and floatation of loans; (e) to (m) (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub -rule (1), the Prime Minister may in any case give directions as to the manner of it s disposal without prior reference to the Cabinet." It will be noted, and this is relevant for purposes of the present matter, that it is mandatory to bring any proposal for the levy, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax t o the Cabinet. Whilst it is no doubt true that the Prime Minister has been given discretionary power in the matter it is clear that the exercise thereof is circumscribed by the following conditions: (i) There must be a conscious application of mind by the Prime Minister to the existing circumstances justifying the need for this departure through passing of a reasoned and formal order prior to the action taken, and (ii) More critically, and definitively, a determination whether the consti tutional provisions justify such a departure? This is a matter which we will examine infra. We note that, ex facie, this Rule has been violated by the Finance Division in issuing the impugned notification merely on the basis of the approval of the Secretary and the Advisor. This is a matter we will further discuss at a later stage in this judgment, when we will also consider the question of the constitutionality of Rule 16(2). 45. Rule 17 deals with the method of disposal of cabinet cases and is reproduced below: "17. Method of disposal of Cabinet cases. - (1) Cases referred to the Cabinet shall be disposed of - (a) by discussion at a meeting of the Cabinet; or (b) by circulation amongst Ministers; or (c) by discussion at a meeting of a committee of the Cabinet. Provided that the decisions of the Committee shall be ratified by the Cabinet unless the Cabinet has authorized otherwise." I.C.A. No.59781/2024
10 The procedure for the submission of mat ters for decision making by the Cabinet is set out in Rule 18 and again is important. The relevant provisions thereof are reproduced below:- "18. Manner of submissions of Cabinet cases. (1) In respect of all cases to be submitted to the Cabinet, the Secretary of the Division concerned shall transmit to the Cabinet Secretary a concise, lucid and printed memorandum of the case (hereinafter referred to as the "summary"), giving the background and relevant facts, the points for decision and the recomm endations of the Minister-in-Charge. In the event of the views of the Division being different from the views of the Minister both the views shall be included in the summary. Provided that the Executive Director, Higher Education Commission, sha ll be the ex -officio Federal Secretary and may submit summaries, or cases to cabinet directly with the approval of Chairman, Higher Education Commission, having the status of a Federal Minister. (note:- this proviso, however, has been deleted vide SRO 226(I)/2010 dated 2.4.2010) (2) In the case of a proposed legislation to which approval is sought in principle, the summary shall bring out clearly the main issues to be legislated upon. (3) The summary shall be self -contained as far as possible, not exceeding two printed pages and may include as appendices only such relevant papers as are necessary for the proper appreciation of the case. The number of copies of the summary and the form in which it is to be drawn up shall be prescribed by t he Cabinet Secretary. (4) Where a case concerns more than one Division, the summary shall not be submitted to the Cabinet unless it has been considered by all the Divisions concerned. In the event of a difference of opinion between them, the points of difference shall be clearly stated in the summary, a copy of which shall be sent by the sponsoring Division to the other Division concerned simultaneously with the transmission of the summary to the Cabinet Division. (5) All draft Bills, Ordinances or Orders shall be submitted to the Cabinet after they have been scrutinized by the Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, and no changes shall be made therein except in consultation with that Division. (6) No case for inclusion in t he agenda of a meeting of the Cabinet shall be accepted unless it reaches the Cabinet Secretary at least several clear days in advance of the meeting: I.C.A. No.59781/2024
11 Provided that, if a case is urgent and is required to be taken up at short notice, the Secreta ry concerned will obtain approval of the Prime Minister for its inclusion in the agenda before it is transmitted to the Cabinet Secretary. (7) It shall be the duty of the Cabinet Secretary to satisfy himself that the papers submitted by a Secret ary are complete and in appropriate form. He may return the case until the requirements of the rules have been complied with. If the Cabinet Secretary is satisfied that the case does not merit consideration of the Cabinet he may advise the matter to be pla ced before an appropriate forum or require it to be submitted to the Prime Minister." 46. The procedure to be followed in Cabinet meetings is set out in Rule 20 which prescribes that they are normally to be held once a week (we note, in passing, that it appears that presently this Rule is being honoured more in the breach than in the observance thereof. The political implications of this do not concern us here, but we will revert to the question of the constitutional implications flowing from decision making lacking the prior sanction of the Cabinet). It may be noted that it is not man datory for the Prime Minister to preside at all meetings of the Cabinet. In this connection, reference may be made to Clauses (3) and (4) which are reproduced below:- "20. Procedure regarding Cabinet Meetings. (3) The Prime Minister may authorize the holding of Cabinet meetings during his absence. (4) The Prime Minister shall preside at all Cabinet meetings. In the absence of the Prime Minister a Minister nominated by the Prime Minister shall preside. The decisions taken in the Prime Min ister's absence shall be subject to the approval of the Prime Minister, unless the Cabinet feels that a particular case is so urgent that immediate action may be taken in anticipation of the Prime Minister's approval." Rule 20, clause (6) is a n important provision and provides that no case shall be discussed in Cabinet, nor any issue raised, without a summary relating to it first being circulated. There is a proviso, in terms whereof this requirement may be dispensed with but for that…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.