Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, Pakistan B.tech Honors Engineers Association, impugns the corrigendum dated 28.08.2019 issued by the National Assembly Secretariat to the National University of Technology Act, 2018 ("the 2018 Act"), which was enacted on 22.02.2018, and published in the official Gazette on 26.02.2018. Through the said corrigendum issued eighteenth months after the enactment of the said Act, the word "engineering" in the 27th line on page 62 of the Gazette has been substituted with "engineering,". For the purposes of clarity, it may be mentioned that the word engineering was substituted by the word engineering followed by a comma.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the National University of Technology ("NUTECH") was established under the provisions of the 2018 Act; that 'the purpose behind the enactment of the said Act was to establish a university for the dissemination of higher education in the realm' of engineering technologies, other technologies and management sciences; that the NUTECH is the first university in Pakistan imparting higher education in engineering technologies; that the said university was not established for the purpose of being an engineering university or to award degrees in the subject of engineering; that after the establishment of the said university, it imparted higher education only in the field of engineering and it was after the filing of the instant writ petition that the first batch of students for engineering technology were inducted; that a legislative enactment cannot be amended through a corrigendum without having been submitted through a legislative process; and that the comma inserted after the word engineering, in Section 4(1) of the 2018 Act was not as a result of any legislative measure but through a corrigendum issued by the National Assembly Secretariat. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought therein.
3. On behalf of the National Assembly Secretariat, Muhammad Ghias, Deputy Secretary (Legislation) appeared along with Muhammad Waqar Ch., DPS (Litigation) and submitted that the impugned corrigendum had been issued in exercise of the powers under Rule 261 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007. They confirmed that Section 4(1) of the Bill tabled in the National Assembly for the setting up of the NUTECH was exactly in the same form as Section 4(1) of the 2018 Act in that the word "engineering" appearing in Section 4(1) of the 2018 Act as well as the Bill was not followed by a comma.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4/ NUTECH submitted that the instant petition was not maintainable as the petitioner could not be termed as an aggrieved person for seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution. He further submitted that Muhammad Khursheed Shinwari, who has signed the petition on behalf of the petitioner, appears to have a personal grievance with the impugned corrigendum since he had annexed with this petition his own degree of Bachelor of Technology (Honors) in Civil Technology along with his letter of appointment issued by the Pakistan Public Works Department. Furthermore, it was submitted that the resolution dated 02.09.2020 annexed with the instant petition is also not in the form as required by law.
5. He drew the attention of the Court to the decision dated 21.07.2023 taken by the Cabinet Committee for Disposal of Legislative Cases that an amendment in the 2018 Act was not required as the National Assembly Secretariat after due process had already issued a corrigendum to rectify the typographical errors in the said Act.
6. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
7. The controversy in the instant petition with respect to Section 4(1) of the 2018 Act which reads thus: "4. Purpose, powers and functions of the University.--(1) The purposes of the University shall be the promotion and dissemination of higher education in the realm of engineering technologies, other technologies and management sciences to prepare trained manpower capable of adopting, adapting, developing and upgrading thereby helping in implementation of relevant technologies of required highest standards, with particular emphasis to the national needs of knowledge based economy to provide for policy formulation, instructions, training, research and development, award of certificates, diplomas and degrees, demonstration and service in such branches of technical field as the Board may deem necessary and appropriate."
8. The Deputy Secretary (Legislation), National Assembly Secretariat produced a copy of the Bill tabled in the National Assembly for the setting up of the NUTECH. Section 4(1) of the said Bill is exactly in the same form as Section 4(1) of the 2018 Act in that there is no comma appearing between the words "engineering" and "technologies" in Section 4(1) of the Bill as well the 2018 Act.
The Ministry of Law and Justice, in its report submitted to this Court, has taken a clear position that the NUTECH Bill forwarded by the said Ministry to the Parliament did not contain a comma after the word "engineering". This was so even after the 2018 Act was enacted until the issuance of the impugned corrigendum dated 28.08.2019.
9. More than a year and a half after the 2018 Act was enacted on 22.02.2018, the NUTECH, vide letter dated 26.08.2019 to the Ministry of Science and Technology, pointed out "typography errors" in the said Act. Through the said letter, the said Ministry was requested to ask the National Assembly Secretariat to publish a corrigendum showing a comma after the word "engineering" in certain Sections of the said Act. On the very same day, the Ministry of Science and Technology requested the National Assembly Secretariat to issue such corrigendum. On 28.08.2019, the National Assembly Secretariat required the Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press to publish the corrigendum in the official Gazette which has been impugned by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
10. The petitioner's case was that the 2018 Act was enacted for the purpose of setting up a university of technology and not a university for awarding degrees in the subject of engineering. For this purpose, he referred to the preamble to the 2018 Act which reads thus:- "WHEREAS, in view of unprecedented increase in requirement of technical and skilled manpower in all sectors of the economy particularly in industrial and defence sectors and prospects thereof in the twenty-first century, it is expedient to establish a university of technology along with research facilities at the national level for promoting applied research, development and training of a large segment of the youth in the relevant fields and qualifications needed by the economy to ensure knowledge and technology based productivity driven rapid and sustainable economic development."
11. The petitioner's case is that the insertion of a comma between the words "engineering" and "technologies" appearing in Section 4(1) of the 2018 Act through the impugned corrigendum, which was not issued as a result of any legislative process, would result in empowering the NUTECH to award degrees in engineering. If Section 4(1) of the 2018 Act is to be read such that the word "engineering" is followed by a comma, it would, in my view, not make grammatical sense. I say so because with such insertion the said provision would read as the purpose of the NUTECH to be "the promotion and dissemination of higher education in the realm of engineering, technologies, other technologies and management sciences..." In order to address this absurdity, reference indeed could be made to the preamble of the 2018 Act as an aid to statutory interpretation. Although the preamble is not a substantive part of the Statute, the general rule is that the express provision of an enactment, if clear and unambiguous, cannot be curtailed or extended with the aid of the preamble. But when the object or meaning of a certain provision is not clear then it is perfectly legitimate to have recourse to the preamble to explain it. Reference in this regard may be made to the law laid down in the cases of Muhammad Rafique vs. Muhammad Ismail (PLD 2008 Karachi 260) and Khan Gul Khan vs. Daraz Khan (2010 SCMR 539). The preamble to the 2018 Act, in my view, is consistent and in harmony with Section 4(1) (without taking into consideration the impugned corrigendum). Since the purpose behind the enactment of the 2018 Act was to establish a university of technology which could impart education in the realm of engineering technologies, other technologies and management sciences, an amendment in the said enactment was required in order to enable the NUTECH to award degrees in engineering.
12. An amendment in the Act no matter how small has to go through the same legislative process as the Act itself. In other words, the procedure for the enactment of a Statute by Parliament is provided in Articles 70 to 77 of the Constitution under the caption of "Legislative Procedure." Article 70(1) provides that a Bill with respect to any matter in the Federal Legislative List may originate in either House and shall, if it is passed by the House in which it originated, be transmitted to the other House; and, if the bill is passed without amendment by the other House also, it shall be presented to the President for assent. It is an admitted position that the legislative process of tabling a bill in either the Upper House (Senate) or the Lower House (National Assembly) to amend the 2018 Act by inserting a comma between the words "engineering" and "technology" in Section 4(1) of the said Act, was not adopted before the issuance of the impugned corrigendum.
13. As regards Rule 261 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007 on which reliance was placed by the respondents for justifying the issuance of the impugned corrigendum, the same can be invoked only to give effect to amendments in a Bill accepted by the House and not otherwise. For the purposes of clarity, the said Rule reads thus: "261. Correction of patent errors. Where a Bill or a resolution is passed by the House, the Speaker shall have power to correct patent errors and make such other changes in the Bill or a resolution as are incidental or consequential upon the amendments accepted by the House."
14. The said Rule most definitely cannot be invoked to bring about changes in an Act of Parliament without going, through the procedure for bringing about such amendment in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Constitution. In the case of Commissioner Inland Revenue vs. Muhammad Mustafa Gigi (PLD 2022 SC 420), it has been held inter alia that the legislative procedure set out in the Constitution must be abided by. The said Rule only speaks of changes in a Bill or a resolution which are incidental or consequential upon "amendments accepted by the House." In the case at hand, the so called amendment brought about in Section 4(1) of the 2018 Act by the insertion of a comma between the words "engineering" and "technologies" had at no material stage been subjected to a legislative process or accepted by the Parliament. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the impugned corrigendum dated 28.08.2019 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The instant petition stands partly allowed in the above terms.
15. The question regarding amendments in a Statute no matter how insignificant, made through a process other than the legislative process prescribed in the Constitution is a matter of public importance and can be judicially reviewed at the instance of a public interest litigant. It is the fundamental right of every citizen to ensure that legislation is carried out strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Constitution. In the case at hand, the petitioner may well not be personally aggrieved by the impugned corrigendum dated 28.08.2019, but when subjected to a challenge and given the fact that it was issued in order to amend Section 4(1) of the 2018 Act without resort to the legislative process envisaged by the Constitution, this Court was left with no option but to declare it as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.