Daily Times

There are probably not many Pakistanis who are familiar with the district of Sanghar in interior Sindh. Fewer still would be aware of the existence of Tando Adam, one of the talukas (administrative divisions) of the district. This is all the more unfortunate because Tando Adam, Sanghar, is the birthplace of a revolution, a revolution not brought about by dharnas (sit-ins) or, to borrow from Bismarck, by iron and blood, but one brought about through the law. What is even more unfortunate is that this revolution has passed unnoticed by the people of Pakistan.
When the name Iftikhar Chaudhry is taken in circles of the Pakistani intelligentsia, it is now often met with inexplicable revile. Whatever the reasons for this, the increasingly popular anti-Chaudhry brigade (which has only gained more steam after his retirement) fails to take into account the unprecedented efforts to enforce the constitution on the part of what is now known as the Chaudhry court. The story of the Sanghar case is one such effort that has its genesis in the twilight of the Chaudhry court.
The story begins on April 10, 2013, when Chief Justice (CJ) Chaudhry was invited as the chief guest to the swearing-in ceremony of the Tando Adam Taluka Bar Association. The ceremony was concluded with a speech delivered by Mr Abdul Hakeem Khoso, the newly elected president of the Tando Adam Bar. In his speech, Mr Khoso mentioned that a number of local and multinational petroleum exploration and production (EP) companies had been working in Sanghar for the past many years, yet none of them had ever paid the government the social welfare funds that they were contractually mandated to under the petroleum concessions agreements the companies sign with the government! These are funds that the EP companies are obligated to spend on building roads, schools, hospitals, dispensaries and the like in exchange for engaging in their activities in various districts. This was a particularly stark revelation in the context of the poverty of interior Sindh, the reality of which we see on a daily basis in the plight of the people of Thar.
Had CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry been an ordinary judge, not one to hold archaic, antiquated and out-of-place notions of the separation of powers close to his chest, he would have hummed and hawed and that would have been the end of it. However, CJ Chaudhry was far from ordinary and so was his response. He converted the speech of Mr Khoso into a constitutional petition before the Supreme Court (SC) under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution, effectively using the suo motu power he made so famous to find out why social welfare funds were not being paid.
In the style that became the hallmark of the Chaudhry court, the relevant government functionaries, most importantly the director general petroleum concessions and members of the provincial energy boards, were summoned to the court to explain the reasons for the social welfare funds not being paid. It transpired that in addition to social welfare, funds due under three other heads — royalties, production bonuses and marine research fees — were also never paid to the government by the EP companies. The total amount of unpaid money was found to be over Rs 600 billion.
The Sanghar case, as it came to be known in the SC, turned out to be a massive endeavour. The funds were unpaid not only in Sanghar but all over the country. The inquisitorial proceedings that took place in the case would stretch after all other cases had been heard, much after regular court hours, with one hearing going on until 11 pm. The reach of the case was so wide that it outlasted CJ Chaudhry’s tenure; the judgment was reserved and authored by a bench headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja on December 27, 2013, weeks after CJ Chaudhry’s retirement. The judgment provides that the SC will continue to monitor the progress made on implementing the payment of all four types of funds, including the introduction of a management information system in Urdu so that people all over the country can access and be made aware of how the funds are being utilised. Numerous other applicants joined Mr Khoso, most prominent of which was Mr Nasir Khattak, a PTI MNA from the district of Karak, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, who showed a shocking picture of deprivation where livestock were being kept in the DHQ Hospital despite the fact that his district was rich in natural resources and should have been receiving funds for uplift from the EP companies.
One common feature stuck out during the proceedings: each functionary who was called before the court was bewildered to find out the magnitude of unpaid funds. The Sanghar case may have pulled off an unprecedented feat in terms of the law and Constitution of Pakistan, so why has the story of this case received such little traction? Over a year has passed since the judgment was announced yet barely any lawyers, let alone laymen, know about the case. There has been no critique, neither positive nor negative. Reporting on the case in the press has been scant at best and television talk shows seem to gather that ranting politicians and retired army officers/bureaucrats are more lucrative in terms of ratings. This lack of discourse on the case among academia and policymaking circles has only made it more difficult to implement the payment of the Rs 600 billion worth of due funds. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that it seems the fashionable (and unfounded) course of disparaging Iftikhar Chaudhry has cast a curtain over discussing and advancing the numerous good works of the Chaudhry court.

The writer is a lawyer and former law clerk to the CJ of Pakistan. He is currently pursuing a Masters of Laws at Harvard Law School and can be contacted at zhashmi@llm16.law.harvard.edu