Legality of NADRA Chairman's Appointment

In Ashba Kamran vs. Federation of Pakistan (2024 LHC 3733), the Lahore High Court addressed the legality of the appointment of Lieutenant General Muhammad Munir Afsar as Chairman of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA). The petitioner challenged the appointment on the grounds that it violated the legal requirements for holding public office, specifically under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, and was made without following a transparent and competitive recruitment process.

Background:

The petitioner sought the court’s intervention under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan, questioning the authority under which Lieutenant General Muhammad Munir Afsar was appointed as Chairman NADRA. The appointment was made following the insertion of Rule 7A into the NADRA (Appointment and Emoluments of Chairman and Members) Rules, 2020, which allowed the Federal Government to appoint a serving officer of BPS-21 or above on secondment or deputation.

The petitioner argued that the appointment violated the principles of merit and transparency, and that Rule 7A was inconsistent with the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, which requires a qualification-based selection for the Chairman. The Federal Government defended the appointment, claiming it was made in the national interest and was within the government's discretion under Rule 7A.

Key Issues:

Legality of Rule 7A in Light of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000: Whether Rule 7A, which allows the Federal Government to appoint a Chairman on secondment or deputation, is consistent with the qualifications and appointment procedure outlined in the NADRA Ordinance, 2000.

Competitive Recruitment Process and Transparency: Whether the appointment of the NADRA Chairman without a public advertisement or competitive process violates the constitutional principle of equality and transparency.

Scope of Quo Warranto Jurisdiction: Whether the High Court could assume jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) to inquire into the legality of the appointment and determine whether the appointment was made in accordance with the law.

Court’s Analysis:

Inconsistency Between Rule 7A and the NADRA Ordinance, 2000: The Court held that Rule 7A, which allows the Federal Government to appoint a serving officer on deputation, is inconsistent with the NADRA Ordinance, 2000. The Ordinance requires that the Chairman be an eminent professional with specific qualifications, and no authority was delegated to the Federal Government to bypass this requirement. The Court ruled that the Federal Government exceeded its authority by creating Rule 7A, which allowed for direct, unadvertised appointments in violation of the Ordinance.

Violation of Merit-Based and Competitive Recruitment Principles: The Court emphasized that appointments to public office must adhere to the principles of merit, transparency, and equal opportunity, as mandated by Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution. The Court found that the appointment of Lieutenant General Muhammad Munir Afsar, made without public advertisement or competitive recruitment, violated these constitutional principles and the legislative intent of the NADRA Ordinance.

Quo Warranto Jurisdiction: The Court asserted its jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution to determine the legality of the Chairman’s appointment. The Court found that it was within its jurisdiction to inquire whether the Federal Government’s actions were in accordance with the law and whether the appointment complied with the requirements of the NADRA Ordinance.

Court’s Conclusion: The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, declaring the appointment of Lieutenant General Muhammad Munir Afsar as Chairman NADRA unlawful and without authority of law. The Court held that the Federal Government’s decision to appoint the Chairman on the basis of Rule 7A was inconsistent with the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, and the appointment was therefore void. The Court directed the Federal Government to take necessary steps to ensure that future appointments comply with the law and constitutional principles.

Contact Us:

For expert legal advice on constitutional petitions, public sector appointments, and regulatory compliance, AUJ LAWYERS LLP offers specialized legal services. Contact us for representation in complex litigation and public law matters.

We are here to help

Talk to our lawyers today. We tailor our services around your legal needs so that we can reach the desired outcome together.