Afghan vs Pakistan administrative law
Afghan vs. Pakistan Administrative Law
1. Overview of Administrative Law in Afghanistan
Context:
Afghanistan’s administrative law is still evolving, influenced by Islamic law, customary practices, and modern state law introduced mainly after the 20th century reforms. The administrative system remains centralized with some decentralization efforts.
Sources:
Afghan Constitution (2004)
Various laws regulating civil service, administrative procedures, and public accountability
Customary and Islamic legal norms play an informal role
Administrative judiciary is developing but less institutionalized
Challenges:
Weak institutions, political instability, tribal customs influence, limited judicial review mechanisms.
2. Overview of Administrative Law in Pakistan
Context:
Pakistan’s administrative law is more developed, shaped by colonial legacy (British common law), Islamic principles, and a strong constitutional framework.
Sources:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Administrative Procedure Acts
Judicial precedents from Supreme Court and High Courts
Specialized administrative tribunals
Islamic jurisprudence incorporated through the Federal Shariat Court
Features:
Stronger judicial oversight of administrative acts, well-established principles of natural justice, and detailed procedural laws.
3. Key Differences
| Aspect | Afghanistan | Pakistan |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Framework | 2004 Constitution, weaker enforcement | 1973 Constitution, strong judiciary |
| Judicial Review | Limited and evolving | Robust and well-established |
| Administrative Tribunals | Limited and informal | Numerous and specialized |
| Influence of Customary Law | Strong influence, especially rural | Present but secondary to formal law |
| Rule of Law | Weakened by instability | Generally stronger, though challenges exist |
Detailed Case Law-Style Examples
Case 1: Afghan Supreme Court on Administrative Accountability
Facts:
A government official in Kabul was accused of abuse of power in awarding contracts. The complainant sought judicial review of the administrative decision.
Issue:
Does the Afghan judiciary have the authority to review and annul administrative decisions?
Decision:
The Afghan Supreme Court ruled that while administrative acts are subject to judicial review, procedural safeguards must be observed. The court annulled the contract award citing violation of fairness.
Significance:
Shows emerging judicial willingness to check administrative power despite limited institutional support.
Case 2: Pakistan Supreme Court on Natural Justice in Administrative Decisions
Facts:
A civil servant was dismissed without a hearing by an administrative authority.
Issue:
Was the dismissal lawful without providing a chance to be heard?
Decision:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan held the dismissal unlawful, emphasizing the principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) as a fundamental rule of natural justice.
Significance:
Highlights Pakistan’s robust judicial enforcement of procedural fairness in administrative law.
Case 3: Afghan Customary Practices vs. Formal Administrative Law
Facts:
A local dispute over land allocation was settled by tribal elders, but the formal administration sought to impose official government land registration laws.
Issue:
Which system prevails?
Decision:
The court recognized the importance of customary decisions for social stability but affirmed that formal land laws apply legally, requiring registration under state law.
Significance:
Demonstrates tension between customary and formal administrative law in Afghanistan.
Case 4: Pakistan High Court on Administrative Tribunals’ Jurisdiction
Facts:
A commercial dispute was brought before an administrative tribunal established under special legislation.
Issue:
Does the administrative tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction?
Decision:
The High Court confirmed the tribunal’s jurisdiction, noting that administrative tribunals are vital for specialized and efficient dispute resolution.
Significance:
Shows Pakistan’s reliance on administrative tribunals to handle specific sectors.
Case 5: Afghan Administrative Law on Public Service Recruitment
Facts:
A candidate challenged government recruitment procedures alleging favoritism and lack of transparency.
Issue:
Can administrative law require transparency and merit-based recruitment?
Decision:
The administrative court held that public service recruitment must be based on merit and transparent procedures, striking down arbitrary appointments.
Significance:
Reveals principles of good administration gaining ground in Afghan administrative law.
Case 6: Pakistan Supreme Court on Fundamental Rights and Administrative Action
Facts:
An administrative order suspended media outlets for alleged security reasons.
Issue:
Does the administrative action violate constitutional freedom of expression?
Decision:
The Supreme Court struck down the suspension as unconstitutional, emphasizing that administrative actions must comply with fundamental rights.
Significance:
Shows the strong constitutional safeguard against administrative overreach in Pakistan.
Summary Table
| Feature | Afghanistan | Pakistan |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Review | Limited, developing | Established and strong |
| Procedural Fairness | Emerging recognition | Firmly entrenched |
| Administrative Tribunals | Sparse and informal | Specialized and institutionalized |
| Customary Law Influence | Significant, especially in rural areas | Limited, secondary to formal law |
| Protection of Fundamental Rights | Limited enforcement | Strong constitutional protections |
| Administrative Efficiency | Hampered by instability | Relatively higher but challenged by bureaucracy |
RELATED Blog
0 comments