Region 
 

Islamabad

Article 75 Controversy

At the heart of the controversy lie the Official Secrets Act and Pakistan Army Act Amendment Bills, which President Dr Arif Alvi declined to give assent to.

By Shahrukh Mehboob | October 2023

Pakistan, a nation born out of constitutional struggle, is no stranger to political and legal controversies. Recently, a new debate has emerged, centred on Article 75 of the Constitution, which outlines the procedure for the President’s assent to bills passed by the Parliament. At the heart of this controversy lie the Official Secrets Act and Pakistan Army Act Amendment Bills, which President Dr Arif Alvi declined to give assent to, thrusting the nation into uncharted territory and sparking a heated constitutional debate.

Article 75 of the Constitution of Pakistan delineates a fundamental aspect of the country’s democratic process. It outlines the mechanism through which bills passed by the Parliament become law. According to this article, once both houses of the Parliament have approved a bill, it is presented to the President for assent. The President is required to provide his assent within ten days, failing which, the bill automatically becomes law without his approval. The President also has the option to return the bill to the Parliament for reconsideration. However, if it is passed again by both houses, he is obligated to give his assent.

Article 75 of the Constitution of Pakistan plays a crucial role in the legislative process, particularly concerning the President’s authority to provide assent to bills passed by the Parliament. This article ensures that legislation is subject to scrutiny and due consideration before becoming law. However, a recent controversy has shed light on the interpretation of this article, leading to debates about the President’s role and the constitutionally mandated procedures. Article 75 grants the President the power to return a bill to the Parliament for reconsideration. While he may propose specific amendments, this is not a mandatory requirement.

It’s important to note that Article 75 does not stipulate an automatic assent if the President doesn’t act within ten days. Instead, the President’s decision is expected to be deliberate and well-considered. The crux of the controversy arises from the President’s assertion that he directed the return of the bills for reconsideration. In response, statements by the Law and Information Ministers clarified that the President did not sign either of the bills. This dichotomy raises questions about whether the bills should be deemed to have received the President’s assent, as the government seems to argue. However, this interpretation contradicts Article 75(1), which explicitly requires a positive assent from the President.


The government’s stance appears to read deemed assent into Article 75(1). A more plausible interpretation would be to read a deemed return into the Article. If the Parliament does not receive a bill within the specified time frame, it should be considered returned by default. In such a scenario, Parliament would then have the opportunity to convene a joint session to reconsider the bill. Article 75(3) would come into play if passed during this reconsideration, deeming the bill to have received the President’s assent.

To begin, the concept of “assent” can take various forms in the legal context, including a clear written expression such as a signature. Additionally, legal practice recognizes the notion of “constructive assent” or “implied assent.” However, it’s worth noting that the caretaker Law Minister has invoked none of these concepts.

Moreover, extending the application of such forms of assent to Article 75(1)(a) would be equivalent to reading something into the provision that isn’t there. Moving on, it’s important to understand that deeming provisions within a constitution or legal framework are considered exceptional and are subject to a restrictive interpretation. The term “deemed” implies a legal fiction, where something is treated in a certain way by law, even if the factual reality doesn’t align with it. The interpretation of such provisions is always cautious and guarded, consistent with jurisprudence across various legal systems. We assert that the deeming provisions in Article 75 should be limited in scope, as explicitly outlined in Article 75(2), to the context of Parliament reconsidering the President’s message sent under Article 75(1)(b).

A fundamental principle in constitutional interpretation is that one cannot introduce interpretations or fictions into the Constitution that are not explicitly stated. If the intention were to include a deemed fiction in Article 75(1)(a), the Constitution would have explicitly articulated this, as it did in Article 75(2). The well-established principle in our legal system, especially articulated by the Supreme Court and superior judiciary, emphasizes that statutory fiction should be confined to its intended scope. These fictions should not be extended beyond the language of the section that creates them, nor should additional fictions be introduced. Consequently, in seeking a solution, it has been observed that the “principle of harmonization” should be applied. Ultimately, it has been held that the “impact of a deeming clause can be limited if it leads to an absurd or unjust result.”

The Article 75 controversy in Pakistan, revolving around the Official Secrets Act and Pakistan Army Act Amendment Bills, has raised complex constitutional questions and ignited fierce debates.
The controversy surrounding Article 75 boils down to interpreting the article’s provisions. The government’s argument hinges on a perceived assent. In contrast, others contend that a more logical reading involves deeming the return of the bill if the Parliament does not receive it back.

This debate highlights the intricacies of constitutional interpretation and underscores the importance of unambiguous constitutional language to avoid such controversies in the future. It underscores the need for a robust constitutional framework that clarifies the President’s role, prevents conflicts of interest, and ensures the smooth functioning of democracy. Resolving this controversy is pivotal for upholding democratic principles, the rule of law, and effective governance in Pakistan. This nation continues its journey through the intricate maze of democracy and constitutionalism.

Read More