he change of government by a vote would be the first; yet, the last parliamentary tenure will be remembered also for extensive legislation when the government was literally packing up. Some of the bills passed in haste during the last 18 days, without adequate debate and, mostly, in disregard of standard parliamentary practices, will likely entail litigation, controversy and future amendments.

Several actors contributed to this chaotic situation as was evident from the narrow self-interest exemplified in the legislation over the new universities. The government allowed the chaos to persist as an institutional dysfunction served the interests of key leaders.

In this episode, the Senate performed relatively better than the National Assembly. It saved the nation some embarrassment by not allowing two bills. First, the Prevention of Violent Extremism Bill 2023, which a number of senators, across parties, found restrictive of civil liberties and opposed.

Although the National Assembly had passed it, the Senate dropped from its agenda the bill on the National Commission for Minorities, 2023 (NCM) as well. Some Senators moved amendments to the bill that forced the government to refrain from tabling the bill on the agenda on August 9 – the last working day of the National Assembly. The bill will apparently have to be resubmitted in the next parliamentary tenure, hopefully with suitable amendments.

The bill borrowed some of its content from similar legislation, for instance, the National Commission for Human Rights Act, 2012. Yet, some flaws reduced its viability in relation to the UN Paris Principles.

The preamble of the bill referred to a resolution passed by the provincial assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa under Article 144 of the constitution, urging the federal government to create an NCM. Presumably, the drafters thought it was a good justification for introducing the bill. However, it was unnecessary given that the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of an NCM in June 2014. It was also problematic that the absence of similar resolutions by other provincial legislatures leaves it open to legal controversy about the applicability of the NCM. It has been argued that a federal legislation is equally applicable only if either all or none of the federating units have passed a resolution asking for it. “An example exists in the law for the National Disaster Management Authority. It is not applicable in Sindh,” says constitutional expert Zafarullah Khan. A mention of the 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan would have sufficed.

As a result of the proceedings at the Supreme Court, a good draft had been prepared in 2021 with the help of the One-Man Commission set up by the court, which the Ministry of Religious Affairs agreed to but later chose to ignore.

Some civil society organisations, especially the Peoples Commission for Minorities Rights, had pointed out certain flaws soon after the NCM bill was tabled in the National Assembly in February 2023. Communications were sent to the Standing Committee on Religious Affairs, National Assembly’s speaker and relevant ministries, urging them to consider sensible amendments. Those were ignored.

Primarily, the NCM bill was criticised for establishing a ‘religious body’ rather than an ‘autonomous human rights body’ as it provided representation on religious and denominational basis (Section 3(3)). This would compromise its independence and credentials as a human rights institution. It also provided for two Muslims members besides seven representing different minorities. Moreover, representation of the Council of Islamic Ideology and the Evacuee Trust Property Board on the NCM (Sec 3(4)) was unprecedented for any human rights body in the country.

The proposed composition of the NCM also ignored the representation of the Ahmadi community despite their enforced status as a minority.

Section 2 of the bill dropped “local government” from the definition of “government”. The definition for human rights lacked the mention of international treaties, acknowledged in the National Commission for Human Rights Act, 2012.

The bill also assigned to the proposed NCM the job of looking after the minorities’ places of worship (Section 10(h)). This confuses the role of the proposed body. It meant duplication and a potential clash with the orgnaisations already managing the places of worship.

Deviating from the constituting legislation on existing human rights bodies, the bill failed to build an intersection between the proposed NCM, and National Commission for Human Rights, National Commission on the Status of Women and National Commission for Rights of the Child.

Section 5 made one-third female membership mandatory among the non-official representatives. However, the same standard was not applied for government representatives.

This situation calls for serious introspection with regard to the bill. The MoRA, the mover of the bill, could have avoided a further delay and the resultant embarrassment by adopting a more participatory process.

The situation merits asking why the MoRA preferred the current version. Would the Ministry for Human Rights be a better entity to work on the NCM?

Besides the MoRA, the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Religious Affairs, the Ministry of Law and the federal cabinet should share the blame for failing to study the bill and invite recommendations on it.

The NCM has been a case of continuous failure and a source of embarrassment. Some of the decision makers involved have made the situation difficult. Had the current version been passed, it would have failed the purpose of having an NCM. Meanwhile, the delay in legislation on the NCM will prolong the remedy on longstanding human rights issues.

The Senate can help by making a few common sense amendments to the bill backed by the civil society. The Supreme Court bench hearing the compliance on June 2014 judgment can also provide guidance by reiterating the purpose and manner of the NCM. The One-Man Commission can facilitate the consultation process through coordination with the stakeholders. The long awaited commission is meant to remedy the injustices in the policies on account of religious identity. The cost of such injustice has been enormous and the resolution overdue. A course correction can start well with a result-oriented NCM.

The writer is a human rights activist, researcher and policy analyst working with the Centre for Social Justice. He tweets @PeterJacobCSJ and can be reached at jacobpete@gmail.com