Islamabad. Senator Kamran Murtaza, regarded as a leading legal expert of the JUI-F, has expressed serious concern over the failure to table his private member’s bill, the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2025, without prior consent from the federal government.
The senator has approached the Senate secretary through a letter, expressing concern over the Interior Ministry’s stance that prior approval from the federal government is mandatory before the introduction of the said bill in the Senate.
Last year, Senator Kamran Murtaza sought to table a private member’s bill aimed at introducing amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2025. Following the move, the Senate Secretariat sought input from the relevant ministries on the proposed legislation.
In its response, the Ministry of Interior stated that it had examined the proposed bill and was of the view that the amendment sought in Section 11EEEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, may complicate the preventive detention process during inquiries and add to the administrative and judicial burden in matters relating to such detentions.
“The passage of the amendments proposed vide this bill will necessitate establishment of additional Anti-Terrorism Courts and appointments of Special Judges to preside these courts. All expenditure to this end will require additional spending from the Federal Consolidated Fund,” says interior ministry in it’s response to senate secretariat.
The ministry further states that “in terms of Article 74 of constitution any legislative proposal that involves spending from the Federal Consolidated Fund shall not be introduced or moved in the Parliament except with the consent of the federal Government. Introducing or moving the subject Bill will, therefore, require prior consent of the Federal Government”.
However senator Kamran Murtaza disagreed with ministry’s view. “Article 70(1) of the Constitution expressly provides that “A Bill with respect to any matter in the Federal Legislative List may originate in either house.
“The constitutional scheme, therefore, recognizes the right of Members of Parliament to initiate legislation on matters falling within the legislative competence of Parliament, subject only to the limitations expressly provided in the Constitution.
“The only specific constitutional exception relates to Money Bills, which, under Article 73 of the Constitution, are required to originate exclusively in the National Assembly.”
The letter states that the procedure for introduction of a private member’s Bill in the Senate is specifically provided under Chapter XII, particularly Rule 94, of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Senate, 2012.
“The said Rule prescribes the manner in which a member may seek leave of the Senate to introduce a Bill. Neither Article 70 of the Constitution nor Rule 94 of the Senate Rules requires a member to obtain prior approval, consent, or concurrence of the Federal Government before seeking leave of the Senate to introduce a Private Member’s Bill, except where the Constitution expressly provides otherwise.”
It is further submitted that the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (Private Members’ Bill), does not attract the provisions of Article 74 of the constitution. The said Article applies where a Bill or amendment makes provision involving expenditure from the Federal Consolidated Fund.
“The subject Bill neither provides for such expenditure nor creates any financial liability upon the Federal Government. Therefore, the requirement of obtaining prior consent of the Government under Article 74 does not arise.”
“Even otherwise, assuming, without conceding, that the interpretation advanced by the Ministry of Interior is accepted and Article 74 is attracted, the conclusion drawn by the Ministry does not follow from the constitutional scheme.
“If a Bill falls within a category of legislation for which the Constitution requires Government consent, such legislation cannot originate in the Senate and would be governed by the constitutional provisions relating to the appropriate originating House. In such circumstances, the issue would be one of legislative competence rather than prior executive approval before introduction in the Senate”, says Senator Kamran Murtaza.
Therefore, treating the Bill as capable of originating in the Senate while simultaneously requiring prior government consent creates a procedural inconsistency that finds no support in the Constitution.
“The approach appears to have resulted from an incorrect appreciation of the distinction between a constitutional limitation on the competence of a House to originate certain legislation and an administrative requirement of prior executive approval, which cannot be inferred in the absence of an express constitutional provision.”
It is also stated that Rule 39 of the Rules of Business, 1973 does not confer upon the executive any authority to determine the admissibility of a private member’s bill, adjudicate upon its legislative competence, or prevent its placement before the House for consideration in accordance with the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure”.
“The views of the concerned Ministry may undoubtedly assist Parliament during the legislative process; however, such views cannot operate as a substitute for the decision of the Senate or be converted into a mechanism through which the Executive may prevent consideration of a Private Member’s Bill.
“The constitutional scheme draws a clear distinction between the role of the Executive and that of Parliament. The Government may place its objections or reservations before the House at the appropriate stage, namely, when the motion for leave to introduce the Bill is taken up by the Senate. At that stage, the mover may explain the object and scope of the proposed legislation, and the Senate may determine the matter in accordance with the Constitution and the Rules.”
It is also stated that the role of the Senate Secretariat is to facilitate the legislative business of the house in accordance with the constitution and the rules of procedure. It is submitted that the Secretariat is not vested with the authority to withhold or defer a Private Member’s Bill merely on the basis of an opinion expressed by a ministry regarding its policy implications, legislative merits, or constitutional interpretation. Such an approach would effectively prevent the Senate from exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the constitution.
Senator Kamran Murtaza requested that the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (Private Members’ Bill), may be processed in accordance with Article 70(1) of the Constitution and Rule 94 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Senate, 2012, and placed in the orders of the day for the next available sitting of the Senate to enable the mover to seek leave of the House to introduce the Bill.
“If the Federal Government considers that any constitutional objection, including an objection under Article 74, arises in relation to the Bill, the same may appropriately be raised before the Senate at the relevant stage for consideration and decision by the House in accordance with the Constitution and the Rules.”
