The ordinances were presented as measures to address urgent administrative needs and public interest, but opposition lawmakers and legal experts argued that such reliance undermined the role of the legislature.
According to details obtained by the Express Tribune, the government’s ordinances covered a wide range of areas, including providing immediate relief to citizens, reviving cultural activities, implementing traffic reforms, increasing traffic violation fines, expanding Safe City challans, protecting property ownership rights, permitting the Basant festival, and preventing accidents. The issuance of these executive measures indicated the government’s preference for swift legal action over the standard legislative process, often bypassing parliamentary debate in the process.
Among the notable ordinances were the Punjab Regularization of Service (Repeal) Ordinance, Punjab Motor Vehicle (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance, Basant Ordinance, Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Ordinance, Suthra Punjab Ordinance, and Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance. Each ordinance addressed distinct regulatory or administrative issues within the province, reflecting the government’s focus on rapid implementation rather than comprehensive legislative scrutiny.
A spokesperson for the Punjab government defended the move, arguing that the ordinances were necessary to ensure immediate reforms and rapid resolution of public issues. The government claimed the measures helped revive cultural traditions and boost tourism and the provincial economy, particularly through initiatives such as the Basant festival and property-related reforms. According to officials, the ordinances were intended to address gaps that could not wait for the lengthy parliamentary process.
Opposition lawmakers, however, criticised the practice, claiming it limited parliamentary debate and undermined the Assembly’s authority. They argued that bypassing the legislature allowed the government to push through laws without adequate scrutiny and public input. Some ordinances have faced judicial review, highlighting concerns about constitutional balance and the separation of powers. Opposition figures described the government’s approach as an “ordinance factory,” suggesting it was acting on a mandate that they consider illegitimate.
During the same period, the Punjab Assembly presented 225 draft bills, of which 190 were passed, including all 110 government-sponsored bills. Legislative activity increased in the second year compared to the first, with a record number of bills approved. Despite this, critics were of the opinion that the government’s heavy reliance on ordinances casted doubt on the effectiveness and independence of the parliamentary process, raising questions about the proper functioning of governance.
Legal expert and civil society leader Abdullah Malik warned that the government’s reliance on ordinances was concerning and set a dangerous precedent. “Lawmakers should focus on improving public welfare, ensuring justice, and amending outdated laws through proper legislative debate — the essence of governance. Issuing ordinances while the Assembly is in session undermines both transparency and public confidence,” said Malik, adding that some ordinances, including the property ownership measure, were stayed by the courts due to insufficient deliberation.
Malik further believed that ordinances, while expedient, often lacked clarity about their implementation and reduced public awareness of the laws. “They also weaken existing legislation and diminish the role of Parliament, which incurs significant public expenditure. Ordinances are intended to be used only when Parliament is not in session; issuing them while the Assembly is functioning is constitutionally questionable and amounts to disrespecting the institution,” noted Malik, who strongly condemned all such ordinances issued by the government, calling for a return to transparent and accountable lawmaking.