requires its institutions to remain in their defined boundaries, but when a particular organ tramples upon the rights of others it must be corrected by a check.
The concept of judicial review was chalked out in Marbury vs Madison case by judge Marshal to provide a check on the executive and legislature. In case of the executive it was supposed to knock out any act, order, ordinance or presidential order if it is of monarchic nature. To elaborate it, when any executive acts, mostly that are exercised by the president, in case of America and the cabinet in parliamentary systems, would be clamped down and would be labeled illegal if they are passed without any legal backing. In modern countries, having constitutional supremacy, the constitution provides the check to the entire polity of the state, so the executive
must act in accordance with its provisions and the prescribed limits.
Secondly, the judicial review is concerned with the democratic recklessness, wherever any act of the legislative body is passed beyond the provided limitations, the court is empowered to declare that null and void. But, unfortunately, in Pakistan, the concept of judicial review is the flawed amalgamation of both the US and the UK system in which it has powers to review the laws but provides no other remedies for the public, except what has been provided under article 183 and 199 of the constitution. sadly, the concept is flawed due to two main reasons: firstly, the court can only enforce fundamental rights through filing of civil petition- the writs, and this does not extend to constitutional matters but constitutional rights. secondly, it doesn't serve the main aim for which this was articulated- protection of constitution and democracy.
Although the constitutional debates in Pakistan have been a prevailing issue in its 75 years of history, the recent legal development over the Reqodik agreement through which the powers regarding the projects are transferred to the federal government is regarded to be an attack on the essence of the constitution’s separation of power. In the parliament, representatives from Balochistan are too low in numbers to counter any act from being passed.
So, here, either the judiciary should intervene and declare such an act intrusion against the rights of the people of
Balochistan or the parliament should endow the smaller provinces and their representatives with minority vetoes by virtue of which any bill, concerning the community, for attaining legality must be backed by two third majority from that particular group as well. The parliament rather than taking confidence building measures to resolve the long standing issues of Balochistan has further scratched the wounds of the people by clipping the wings of the provincial government.
Sardar Akhtar Mengal, in a series of tweets has expressed his anger over the PDM led government about an unwarranted bill passed by it. He has called for the executive central committees' meeting to decide whether to remain with the government or not. This is not adequate solution to this problem, unless undemocratic moves by the larger political parties and provinces are stopped as a policy and the rights of smaller provinces are not recognised such undesirable developments would always threaten the fate of smaller provinces.
Actually, this frustration from a Baloch leader shows how unfortunate and unsafe are the rights of the people of Balochistan in the hands of fellow parliamentarians who are treating it like a colony. Now, it is up to the political parties who claim to be the voices of the suppressed: ANP, NDM, BNP, NP and PKMAP to oppose such an act and call for back out from this act. On the other hand, the judiciary should intervene and knock the bill out as it is a daylight robbery over the rights of Balochistan. This unfortunate development is the failure of both the judiciary and parliament to safeguard the rights of the citizens.