Annual Budget Statement
Annual Budget Statement legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Article 82(2) of the Constitution stipulated that so much of the Annual Budget Statement as related to ''other expenditure" shall be submitted to the National Assembly in the form of demands for grants, and the Assembly shall have power to assent to, or to refuse to assent to, any demand, or to assent to any demand subject to a reduction of the amount specified therein
Article 82(3) of the Constitution specifically mandated that "no demand for a grant shall be made except on the recommendation of the Federal Government"
Rule 183 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in National Assembly, 2007, provided as to how a demand for the grant was to be made, and stated that each demand for a grant should contain "details of estimate" and, furthermore, the demand should also show "the various items comprising the subject of the grant"
Item-wise estimate of the grant was required to be placed before the National Assembly for discussion in terms of R.186 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in National Assembly, 2007
Discussion and voting on the demands for grants in the Budget cannot take place unless the details of each grant in terms of its item-wise estimate was included in the demand.
Policy or practice adopted by Parliamentarians to place funds in the hands of the Prime Minister to be used/allocated by him at his discretion to Members of National/Provincial Assemblies or Notables, was repugnant to the Constitution
Language employed in Arts.80 to 84 of the Constitution implicitly excluded person-specific allocations of funds
No constitutional provision permitted inclusion of any scheme or expenditure at the behest of any Member of National/Provincial Assembly or Notable or any other person during the currency of a financial year, unless it was necessitated by a totally unforeseen contingency arising out of extraordinary circumstances which needed to be met on an urgent basis
However, it would be a different matter if prior to the preparation of the Annual Budget Statement a Member of National/Provincial Assembly, Non-Government Organization and/or any other person from a constituency was called upon to identify schemes or expenditure that might be required for effecting necessary development in their area of concern
Such an exercise, however, would have to be across the board, irrespective of the political party or parties that might be in power, and it should be carried out much before the preparation of the Annual Budget Statement so that if the relevant scheme or expenditure was to be included in the Annual Budget Statement, it would have passed through the process of due consideration by the Planning Commission for purposes of ascertaining its necessity and efficacy and conducting its appraisal, technical analysis, feasibility and economic cost before it was included as a demand for grant in the Annual Budget Statement.
"Annual Budget Statement", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124944544
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Annual Budget Statement"
2015 M L D 117
Engineer ZAMRAK KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary and another — Respondents
Court: BalochistanP L D 2014 Supreme Court 131
Constitutional Petition No.20 of 2013, Human Rights Case No.11504-G of 2013 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 2960, 3566, 3579, 3649, 3865, 4022, 4135, 4208 and 4498 of 2013
Court: High CourtP L D 2018 Peshawar 83
ZIAULLAH AFRIDI — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary and 4 others — Respondents
Court: High Court2023 P T D 1
Messrs WORLDCALL TELECOM LTD. through Chief Financial Officer Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 6 others
Court: Lahore High CourtP L D 2018 Peshawar 192
QUARBAN ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 2004 Lahore 38
SHAH MUQEEM PRESS CLUB — Petitioner Versus CHIEF MINISTER and others — Respondents
Court: High CourtL D 1990 Lahore 401
WASI ZAFAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SPEAKER PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY ‑‑‑ Respondent
Court: ‑‑‑ Art. 199 ‑‑‑ Proceedings in Constitutional petition ‑‑‑ Adjournment ‑‑‑ Advocate General remained present on the last date of hearing ‑‑‑ Advocate‑General seeking adjournment through a private legal practitioner instead of deputing any one out of the Additional Advocates‑General and the team of the Assistant Advocates‑General, the Law officers appointed by the Provincial Government‑‑‑ Request for adjournment was opposed by the petitioner saying that adjournment was being sought to frustrate the petition as well as the prayer for interim relief and, if the request for adjournment was allowed petition would be rendered infructuous ‑‑‑ High Court, in view of such unprecedented conduct of Advocate General, and other Law Officers and the fact that no justification was made out for adjourning the petition, decided to proceed with the same and not to adjourn it and allowed the petitioner to continue with his arguments.‑‑Advocate General ‑‑‑ Adjournment.2018 C L C 134
WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary and 5 others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar2018 P L C (C
Mian MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE and 2 others Versus SECRETARY AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MUZAFFARABAD and 2 others
Court: High Court (AJ&K)2014 P T D 2016
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Petroleum and Natural Resources and another Versus DURRANI CERAMICS and others
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan