LAHORE: A Lahore High Court twojudge bench on Wednesday set aside a single bench order and upheld the appointment of Lt-Gen Muhammad Munir Afsar as chairman of the National Database and Registration Authority (Nadra).

The bench comprising Justice Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal and Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad observed that the single bench did a `judicial overreach` by striking down the appointment of the Nadra chairman.

The single bench comprising Justice Asim Hafeez had on Sept 6, 2024 allowed a petition by a woman activist, Ashba Kamran, and scrapped the appointment of LtGen Afsar initially made by the caretakersetuponOct2,2023andconsequently retained by the elected govern-ment through a new notification issued on March 28, 2024.

In its judgement, the two-judge bench observed that both the caretaker and incumbent elected government, drawing strength from the relevant law, undertook all actions, from the insertion of Rule 7-A in the Nadra Rules 2020 to the issuance of the appointment notification of the respondent.

It said the federal government, being the competent authority, has the power to make rules as well as to make appointment of Nadra chairman.

`As such, the appointment of Chairman NADRA is not an appointment against the statutory provisions/ rules. Thus, writ of quo warranto cannot be issued in such circumstances,` the bench maintained.

The two-judge bench noted that the petitioner before the single bench challenged the appointment of the Nadra chief.Subsequently, on establishment of the elected government, the federal government confirmed the insertion of Rule 7(A) of Rules 2020 and appointment of the Nadra chairman.

The bench said the petitioner/woman did not challenge the subsequent notifications both in her writ petition and as such the petition had become infructuous.

`Whereas the learned single judge in chamber while exercising suo motu power set aside Rule 7A of Rules, 2020 and held appointment of Chairman, NADRA as without lawful authority, which exercise of power by the learned single judge in chamber is a clear example ofjudicialoverreach and deserves to be reversed,` the division bench ruled.

The two-judge allowed an intra-court appeal of the federal government and set aside the single bench`s decision.

The bench had already suspended thesingle bench`s decision on Sept 10, 2024.

The single bench had ruled that a nonadvertised and competitive deficient appointment was contrary to the mandate of Article 18 of the Constitution.

The judge had rejected a defence taken by the federal government that leakage of `sensitive` data and `national interest` led to the direct appointment of a serving army officer.

The judge had observed that mere leakage of data was no ground to abandon qualification-based and meritorious appointments.

Justice Hafeez had also brushed aside an argument of the government that on two different occasions officer(s) in service were appointed as Nadra chairmen.

The judge ruled that an illegality committed previously would not validate the appointment under reference, not authorised by and in terms of the statute.