The Lahore High Court’s Rawalpindi bench on Thursday rejected a pro bono petition challenging the ongoing privatisation of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited (PIACL), stating that the Privatisation Commission has followed statutory procedures under the Privatisation Commission Ordinance, 2000.
According to media reports, the petition, filed by Advocate Sardar Amber Maqsood, alleged that the commission failed to issue proper notices under Section 23 and did not conduct a lawful valuation of PIACL assets under Section 24. The petitioner also sought suspension of the privatisation process until the establishment of a Privatisation Appellate Tribunal.
Justice Jawad Hassan, in a detailed 37-page judgement, observed that the commission had publicly advertised its intent to privatise PIA in national and international newspapers, including Dawn, Daily Jang, Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, and China Daily. Ernst & Young Consulting LLC, Dubai, was appointed as financial adviser to conduct an independent valuation of PIA’s local and international assets in accordance with the law.
The court ruled that the privatisation process met all legal requirements. It noted the petitioner failed to provide credible evidence of illegality, and emphasised that judicial review cannot be used to obstruct economic policy unless there is a clear violation of law or fundamental rights.
On the broader question of judicial intervention in economic matters, Justice Hassan cited Supreme Court precedents, stressing the need for restraint in privatisation and foreign investment issues. He warned that frivolous petitions could disrupt economic reforms and harm investor confidence.
The judgement also recorded that the PIA bidding process had been cancelled, making the petition technically moot. However, the court clarified that even if the process had continued, it remained legally sound and transparent. The request to access valuation records was declined, citing confidentiality rules under the Privatisation Commission (Confidentiality and Secrecy of Documents) Regulations, 2003.
Concluding the judgement, the court reaffirmed that privatisation falls within the federal government’s constitutional mandate under Article 173, aimed at reducing fiscal burdens of loss-making state-owned enterprises, and cautioned against misuse of public interest litigation to hinder economic policy.
