Govt continues to be called caretaker

Trackback URL

Download PDF

The High Court (HC) yesterday rejected a writ petition that sought a change in the nomenclature of the present government to call it an ‘interim government’ instead of a ‘caretaker government’, and sought permission to appoint more advisers for it for smooth functioning of the administration.

Saying that there is no mention in the country’s constitution of any interim government, an HC bench that was hearing the petition said the incumbent government will continue to be termed a ‘caretaker government’. The rejection also blocked expansion of the cabinet.

The two-member HC bench, however, said the court might hear a new petition regarding failure of the Election Commission (EC) to hold the pending general election within 90 days of dissolution of the last parliament, if the petitioner files one.

Advocate Masood R Sobhan, who filed the public interest litigation writ petition on December 13 last year, told The Daily Star last night over the phone that the court rejected his petition as ‘not pressed’.

He said he is pondering filing of a new petition challenging the EC decision to hold the election in 2008 ‘in violation of the constitution through failing to hold it within the stipulated 90 days period’.

During the hearing yesterday, Sobhan said the present government that took over office after dissolution of the eighth parliament was called a ‘caretaker government’. Article 58 of the constitution determines the formation and mandates of the caretaker government.

The constitution says a caretaker government will comprise no more than 10 advisers and a chief adviser, it will only perform routine works, and not take any policymaking decision, he added.

But since the incumbent government took over through declaration of a state of emergency, it cannot be termed a ‘caretaker government’, and it has not been determined how many advisers could be there and what would be their jurisdictions, he added saying therefore the cabinet should be allowed to be expanded.

Saying that the present government will continue to be termed as a ‘caretaker government’, the court said nowhere in the constitution does it mention how long a caretaker government may continue in office. It rather says a caretaker government will continue until a new prime minister takes over, the court added.

The court, however, said Article 123 of the constitution says the EC must hold an election within 90 days of dissolution of a parliament.

The court asked the petitioner why he does not petition to seek answers to why the election was not held within the 90 days timeframe. It also asked the petitioner whether 30 days are not enough to prepare a voter list.

When the petitioner expressed his interest in filing another writ petition regarding the failure to hold the election within the stipulated 90 days period, the court said the petition might be considered if filed.

Leave a Reply