Earlier, in 2006, the Supreme Court had taken the stand that for 'independence of judiciary, the registrar is not supposed to appear before the PAC'. Now that the widely perceived serious tiff has gone up by many more notches the mortal's fears are not wholly misplaced. But we do hope that that wouldn't be the case and some kind of solutions would be in place by the time the committee meets again. The issue is essentially of technical nature, bereft of any political contention, and the PAC's position on this has bipartisan support of the parliament. On January 7, 2006, the letter seeking appearance of the Registrar was sent to the Supreme Court. In those days, the PAC was headed by the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, PML-N's Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan.
Since the issue is still in the public domain, and not sub judice, as to what has generated this perceptional mismatch merits a comment. Until about 2004-05, the Registrar of the Supreme Court would appear before the PAC like other accounting officers in various government departments. But later, a full-court order exempted him from making appearance before the committee as the apex court is part of the government - a position the court's official seems to have taken. The court's stance derives its strength from Article 81 (a) and (b), in that remuneration paid to the judges of the Supreme Court and administrative expenses and remuneration payable to officers and servants shall be charged upon the Federal Consolidated Fund, and the same are not paid out of the public accounts of the federation. How the matter would get resolved - whether the Registrar will appear before the PAC - we have no opinion. But we do think that given the rising chant for accountability of all and sundry the Registrar would do well by making himself available to parliamentarians. To claim that one's hands are clean is one thing but to be seen washing one's hands in public is the other, and undoubtedly the latter is more acceptable to the people. No wonder then the generals, who had enjoyed 'immunity' from such accountability in the past in the name of national security and state secrecy, put up their public appearances to answer hard questions.
Ultimate sovereign after the Almighty, are the people of Pakistan from whose pockets come the funds, irrespective of their nomenclature in the budget books. For that matter, the Federal Consolidated Fund is public money and there should be no problem if the people would like to know how it was spent. In an Islamic polity, every state functionary, irrespective of status and power, is answerable to the public over expenditure incurred by him or on his order/discretion. Islamic history is full of examples of public criticism or questioning in public matters. Yes, laws come after the people express their demand, making it mandatory on the part of legislative outfits to meet that differential by regular updating of laws. And this perceptional mismatch between the two state organs may be the obstacle reflected in this situation. But there is no need to look beyond the issue's textual context. Rightly then the PAC Chairman, Nadeem Afzal Gondal, has warned against interpreting the committee's notice to the Registrar of the Supreme Court as a 'confrontation between the judiciary and parliament'.