PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Wednesday sought a response from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government on a writ petition challenging the reduction in funds allocated for judicial system reforms in the provincial budget.
During the hearing, PHC Chief Justice SM Attique Shah observed that the government had allocated Rs6.04 billion for the judiciary in the budget, a move he said was commendable. However, he questioned why only Rs5.53 billion had been released and what had happened to the remaining amount.
“The funds that were released have been utilised. Why was the remaining amount withheld?” the chief justice remarked and added: “This country and this province belong to all of us. People come to the courts with their grievances because they face difficulties. Steps should be taken to address the problems of the poor and resolve their issues.”
The case was heard by a two-member bench comprising Chief Justice SM Attique Shah and Justice Muhammad Faheem Wali. Petitioner Raza Khan Safi was represented by Shumail Ahmad Butt advocate, while Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel appeared on behalf of the provincial government.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the provincial government had slashed funding earmarked for judicial reforms and had also withheld part of the funds allocated in the previous budget. He maintained that under the Constitution, the judiciary was independent of the executive and referred to Supreme Court rulings supporting this principle.
He contended that an officer in the Finance Department had effectively decided not to release certain funds, creating a situation in which the government could exercise control over the judiciary by selectively releasing or withholding financial resources.
Responding to the arguments, the chief justice noted that the province still lacked a forensic laboratory and that forensic examinations must be sent to Lahore, costing approximately Rs1 million per test.
Advocate Butt prayed the court to ensure that funds allocated for the law and justice system were not reduced.The AG pleaded that the petitioner was not an aggrieved party in the matter and that budgetary allocations fall within the government’s policy domain. He stated that the government allocated resources to departments according to budgetary priorities.
The chief justice, however, reiterated that Rs6.4 billion had been allocated for the judiciary in the 2025-26 budget and questioned why the unreleased portion had been withheld despite the utilisation of the released funds.
In response, the AG informed the court that debate on the budget was still underway in the provincial assembly and that the budget had not yet been formally approved. He assured the court that a detailed reply would be submitted and said he would personally discuss the matter with the relevant authorities.
He added that had the petitioner approached the government directly, the dispute might not have reached the court.The chief justice responded by saying that the court’s doors remain open to everyone at all times. He further observed that a larger bench had delivered a judgment in January 2026, but implementation had yet to take place, calling it a failure on the part of the provincial government.
The AG informed the court that an implementation committee had been established to ensure compliance with judicial orders. He also argued that financial constraints were linked to funds allegedly withheld by the federal government and referred to an ongoing case before the court concerning National Finance Commission (NFC) allocations.
According to the AG, the provincial government would have greater financial capacity once its share of federal funds was released. He requested that related cases also be heard alongside the present petition.
The chief justice stated that those matters would also be considered and that the court would issue appropriate directions to the federal government if necessary.After hearing arguments from both sides, the bench issued notice to the provincial government and sought its response to the petition.
