The federal government and all PM’s appointed advisors and special assistants have been made respondents in the case.
According to the draft petition quoted by a local media outlet, it argues that the appointments were against the constitution and that rule 4(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973 was against the constitution.
“The federal government has no authority to appoint any unelected person as advisers and SAPMs [special advisers to the prime minister] with the status of Federal Minister and Minister of State,” the petition maintains.
The petitioners call for the apex court to declare that respondents No 6-24 were not entitled to any financial benefits, including salaries, allowances, perks, and privileges.
“The Respondents No 6-24 may kindly be directed to surrender all the salaries and other perks and privileges obtained from the date of assuming of office till their removal,” the petition further maintains.
It also contends that under Article 1 of the constitution, affairs of the state are to be run in accordance with the provision of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
The petition cites Article 90, which states that “the cabinet under Article 91 consisting of PM as its head and the Federal Minister and Ministers of State under Article 92 helped by the advisers under Article 93 having the Advice of Attorney General Under Article 100 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the exercise of the Executive Authority of the Federation under the Rules of Business 1973, made under Article 99 thereof and any other post or office or office unless provided under the Constitution or law etc is illegal, void ab initio, ultra vires the Constitution and corm non-judice.”
