A recently reported constitutional decision – offers valuable insights into the balance between parliamentary privilege and judicial oversight. Nuruddin Sarki & Co. was privileged to represent Dr. Mirza in this case, which focused on the scope of judicial review over parliamentary affairs and the interpretation of key constitutional provisions (Articles 66, 69, and 199). The outcome contributes to thought leadership in constitutional law by clarifying how far courts may go in reviewing matters internal to the legislature while respecting the autonomy of Parliament.
At issue were the limits imposed by Article 66 and Article 69 of the Constitution on court intervention in legislative business, versus the High Court’s broad powers under Article 199 to enforce the law. Article 66(3) enshrines parliamentary immunity – it guarantees freedom of speech in Parliament and provides that no Member can be “liable to any proceedings in any court” for anything said or any vote cast in the house, nor can any authorized publication of parliamentary proceedings be questioned. Likewise, Article 69 fortifies this principle by barning courts from inquiring into “the validity of any proceedings in Parliament” on the ground of procedural irregularity, and by protecting any officer or member vested with powers to regulate parliamentary procedure or maintain order from judicial jurisdiction for exercising those powers. These provisions create a sphere of legislative privilege meant to preserve the independence of the democratic process inside Parliament.
However, the Constitutional interpretation in this case reaffirmed that such immunity is not absolute. The Court underscored that Pakistan’s Constitution makes parliamentary privileges “subject to the Constitution”, meaning they cannot be used as a shield for actions that defy constitutional mandates. In its reasoning, the High Court drew a line: Article 69 protects internal procedures and routine irregularities within the legislative domain, but it “does not extend to… extra-constitutional exercise of powers.” In other words, if a parliamentary act or decision goes beyond the lawful bounds of the Constitution, it loses the protection of Article 69. This interpretation ensures that courts can step in to check any blatant constitutional violations, even in matters touching the legislature. Article 199, which defines the High Courts’ judicial review jurisdiction, was central in this regard – it empowers the court to declare any act or proceeding done by a public authority (including parliamentary functionaries) to be without legal authority and of no effect if it contravenes the law or Constitution. Thus, while Parliament’s internal affairs are largely immune from outside interference, the judgment makes clear that judicial review will be available to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and rule of law when truly necessary.
For Nuruddin Sarki & Co., this case was not about winning a dispute but about contributing to an important constitutional discourse. By advancing arguments on parliamentary privilege versus judicial scrutiny, our legal team helped the Court delineate the fine line between respecting legislative independence and preventing misuse of that independence. The decision ultimately protected our client’s rights and reinforced fundamental principles of constitutional governance – a win-win for individual justice and institutional integrity. We are proud to have played a role in shaping this precedent, reflecting NSC’s commitment to professional excellence and the strengthening of Pakistan’s democratic institutions through the rule of law.
