In every constitutional democracy, the legitimacy of legislation depends not only on the will of the majority but also on strict adherence to the Constitution, parliamentary rules, and the rule of law. No legislature, regardless of its numerical strength, is above the Constitution. When the legislative process itself is alleged to have violated constitutional and procedural requirements, the resulting law inevitably faces serious legal and moral questions.
The Punjab Government’s “The Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Act, 2026” has generated significant constitutional debate. Reports and statements attributed to the Speaker of the Punjab Assembly, Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan, suggest that the bill may have been referred to the relevant Standing Committee without his formal approval or signature. If these assertions are supported by the official parliamentary record, they raise fundamental questions regarding the legality of the legislative process.
The Speaker’s Constitutional Position
Under Article 127 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the procedural principles applicable to Parliament extend to Provincial Assemblies, while Article 67 empowers legislative bodies to regulate their proceedings through their Rules of Procedure.
Within this constitutional framework, the Speaker serves as the custodian of the House, ensuring that all legislative business is conducted in accordance with established parliamentary rules. The referral of a bill to a Standing Committee is not a mere administrative formality; it is an integral procedural step governed by those rules.
If a government bill was indeed referred to a committee without the Speaker’s authorization, the question is no longer political it becomes constitutional.
A Fundamental Principle of Administrative Law
A long-established principle of constitutional and administrative law states ;”Where the law prescribes a particular manner of doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all.”
This doctrine has consistently been recognized in common-law jurisdictions, including Pakistan. If the mandatory legislative procedure was bypassed, the procedural defect cannot simply be ignored on the ground that the bill was eventually approved by a majority vote.
Can the Entire Legislative Process Be Invalid?
Another well-established legal doctrine is “Void ab initio”, meaning that an act tainted by a fundamental legal defect may be regarded as invalid from the very beginning.
Similarly, courts have repeatedly emphasized the principle that; “You cannot build something on an illegal foundation and expect it to acquire legality later.”
Accordingly, if the initial referral of the bill was unlawful, subsequent committee deliberations and legislative approval may also become vulnerable to constitutional challenge.
The Legality of the Standing Committee Proceedings
Standing Committees derive their authority solely from the Assembly and its Rules of Procedure. Their jurisdiction exists only when matters are lawfully referred to them.
If the committee received the bill through an unauthorized or procedurally defective process, serious legal questions arise regarding:
- the validity of the committee’s proceedings;
- the legality of its recommendations; and
- the constitutional validity of the legislative process as a whole.
The doctrine that an illegality at the foundation contaminates subsequent proceedings has long been recognized in constitutional jurisprudence.
Rule of Law and Constitutional Governance
The Constitution of Pakistan places the rule of law at the heart of democratic governance. Article 4 guarantees that every citizen shall be dealt with in accordance with law, while Article 5 obliges every citizen and every state institution to remain loyal to the Constitution and the law.
These constitutional guarantees apply equally to governments. A government seeking to legislate must itself remain bound by the constitutional procedures that govern legislation.
Failure to observe mandatory parliamentary procedures undermines not only the legislation itself but also public confidence in democratic institutions.
Procedural Irregularity or Substantive Constitutional Defect?
Governments often characterize procedural violations as harmless technical irregularities. Constitutional law, however, distinguishes between minor procedural lapses and substantive constitutional defects.
Where the alleged violation concerns:
- the constitutional authority of the Speaker;
- mandatory Rules of Procedure;
- or essential stages of legislative scrutiny,
the defect may no longer be regarded as merely technical. Instead, it may go to the very legality of the legislative process.
Whether such a defect invalidates the legislation is ultimately a matter for judicial determination based on the facts and the applicable constitutional framework.
Judicial Review Under Article 199
If supported by the official parliamentary record, the legislative process could be challenged before the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
The Court may examine questions including:
- Whether the mandatory Rules of Procedure were followed;
- Whether the Speaker’s constitutional authority was bypassed;
- Whether the Standing Committee lawfully exercised jurisdiction; and
- Whether the enactment complied with constitutional requirements.
Judicial review exists precisely to ensure that constitutional limits are respected by every organ of the State.
Democracy is not merely government by majority; it is government under the Constitution.
If The Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Act, 2026 was advanced through procedures inconsistent with the Constitution or the Rules of Procedure of the Punjab Assembly, the issue extends far beyond a single piece of legislation. It becomes a test of constitutional governance, parliamentary integrity, and the rule of law.
The Constitution demands that governments obey the same legal framework they seek to impose upon citizens. Constitutional supremacy not political expediency must remain the guiding principle of every legislative process.
Ultimately, any determination regarding the legality of the Act rests with the competent courts on the basis of the official record and applicable law. That is the essence of constitutional democracy and the rule of law.
Written By : Dr. Rizwan Bhayo
