On April 27, 2018, the PML-N government — which is ending its tenure on May 31 — intends to announce its sixth budget. Critics have argued that this budget should be left for the new elected government. In response, the PML-N says that there is no constitutional bar for announcing the annual budget for the 2018-19 fiscal year (FY), though its tenure does not actually cover this period. Thus far, the issue has not been debated in the Parliament itself. This shows that our elected members are indifferent to a vital matter that needs deliberations in the light of provisions of the Constitution and laws related to financial matters vis-à-vis powers of the outgoing government. Writing on the subject, many experts have asked the government to leave this budget to the future government. Every year, the budget is presented in the first week of June as the Money Bill. However, come June 1 the incumbent government will have dissolved, and a care-taker government as per Article 224 of the Constitution will take over to hold the elections within 60 days ‘immediately following the day on which the term of the Assembly is due to expire, unless the Assembly has been sooner dissolved’. The present government of PML-N lacks electoral mandate for the period July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 for which it is going to present budget and tax proposals through Finance Bill 2018 on April 27, 2018. This exercise by the government at the very end of its five-year tenure has been questioned by Dr Waqar Masood, former Federal Secretary of Finance, in an op-ed where he writes: It is, therefore, not a question of whether the government is capable of passing the budget, but of whether it should make a budget that will not reflect the priorities and programme of the next government — the actual user. Therefore, we ask the following questions: (a) is it incumbent on the government to present a budget that it wouldn’t be making use of; (b) would there be a constitutional vacuum when an approved budget is not put in place during the period of an interim government; and (c) what is the desirable course of action for the government? The annual budget, as aptly explained by Dr Waqar, “contains estimates of receipts and expenditures (with a break-down between charged and voted expenditures); a detailed demand for grants voted for by the assembly under Article 82; and a schedule of authenticated expenditures under Article 83 that are signed by the Prime Minister and laid out in the assembly”. The National Assembly also passes the Finance Bill (Money Bill) under Article 73 that presents tax proposals. Offering of amnesties at shamelessly low rates to whiten untaxed assets and ill-gotten wealth at home and abroad through two Presidential Ordinances is also a gross violation of the Constitution. This step usurps the right of both the National Assembly and Senate All the approved expenditures would take effect from July 1, 2018 when the National Assembly will already have been dissolved. For such a situation, the framers of Constitution provided a solution in Article 86 of the Constitution that reads: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions relating to financial matters, at any time when the National Assembly stands dissolved, the Federal Government may authorise expenditure from the Federal Consolidated Fund in respect of the estimated expenditure for a period not exceeding four months in any financial year, pending completion of the procedure prescribed in Article 82 for the voting of grants and the authentication of the schedule of authorised expenditure in accordance with the provisions of Article 83 in relation to the expenditure”. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Reference No. 1 of 1988 sent by President of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution held (PLD 1989 SC 75): “Article 86 empowers Federal Government in a given situation to authorise expenditure from Federal Consolidated Fund for a period not exceeding four months. This is a Constitutional entrustment of legislative function on terms to the Federal Government and this is an exception to what is provided in Article 83(3).” In terms of Article 86 of the Constitution, the caretaker government, bound to hold elections by July 31, 2018, is empowered to authorise expenditures for 60 days. The outgoing government in terms of Article 77 of the Constitution should not prepare tax proposals for a period for which it has yet to win the approval of voters on the touchstone of well-established principle of no taxation without representation. The newly-elected National Assembly for the period 2018-2023 alone would have mandate under Article 77 of the Constitution to prepare Finance Bill 2018 and give short-term and long-term fiscal measures. The present government has no such mandate. Despite this clear constitutional perspective, Adviser to the Prime Minister on Finance, Revenue and Economic Affairs, Miftah Ismail, over the last many days, has repeatedly said that the budget “will bring relief for the masses”. Populist budgets in election years often avoid tough decisions to overcome grim economic challenges. This phenomenon is a clear violation of parliamentary norms and ought to be considered pre-poll rigging. A blatant violation of the Constitution had already been committed by the present government when it promulgated Presidential Ordinances providing reduction in income tax rates for individuals. This will come into effect from July 1, 2018. Critics have rightly questioned why such a measure was announced though a Presidential Ordinance when the same was to take effect from July 1, 2018. This is clear encroachment on the as yet unelected government’s mandate. Offering of amnesties at shamelessly low rates to whiten untaxed assets and ill-gotten wealth at home and abroad through two Presidential Ordinances is also a gross violation of the Constitution. This step usurps the right of both the National Assembly and Senate. All these actions on the part of the present government unequivocally prove that it has no respect for the Constitution and parliamentary norms. The National Assembly and Senate have also not performed their constitutional obligation to counter these Presidential Ordinances in terms of Article 89(2) (a) (ii) of the Constitution by disapproving these through a resolution. It is now well-established that our legislators — no matter which party they belong to — have no will to resist unconstitutional actions though they have taken oath to safeguard the supremacy of the Pakistani constitution and discharge all functions within strict parameters and powers laid down in the supreme law of the land. It is due to perpetual failure on this count that we lack sustainable democracy and responsible governments that can protect the rights of masses guaranteed in the Constitution. The legislature is sovereign but the supremacy of the Constitution is above everything — legislators merely exercise delegated powers given by the people within the framework of the Constitution. By violating the Constitution, our elected representatives are guilty of betraying the people of Pakistan. The writer, Advocate Supreme Court, is Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). Email: ikram@huzaimaikram.com; Twitter: @drikramulhaq Published in Daily Times, April 22nd 2018.