By: Yassar Talib
The recent passage of the National Commission for Minorities Rights Bill 2025 by both houses of the Parliament was a landmark moment for the religious minorities of Pakistan. The bill proposes the establishment of an independent statutory body aimed at safeguarding minority rights, ensuring representation, and addressing grievances with the seriousness they deserve. However, despite parliamentary consensus and increasing demands from minority communities, the bill remains in limbo—awaiting the President’s signature.
This delay has reignited a crucial constitutional debate: Can silence from the President’s office override legislative will?
A Pattern of Presidential Silence
The Constitution of Pakistan, under Article 75(1), allows the President to either assent to a bill, return it with observations, or allow it to lapse into law after a stipulated period. If the President fails to respond within ten days, Article 75(2)(b) interprets this as deemed assent—meaning the bill becomes law without explicit approval.
This constitutional mechanism came into the spotlight in 2023 during the tenure of the PDM government. Two critical bills—the Official Secrets (Amendment) Bill 2023 and the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Bill 2023—became law after President Dr. Arif Alvi claimed he “did not sign them intentionally”, alleging bureaucratic mismanagement of his office.
“As God is my witness, I did not sign [these bills]… I asked my staff to return the bills unsigned,”President Arif Alvi
Despite his public statement, both bills stood enacted—not by pen, but by constitutional silence. This incident became a powerful precedent. According to Reuters, this interpretation is legally valid unless challenged by a judicial review.
Now, the National Commission for Minorities Rights Bill 2025 appears to be following the same path. Minority rights activists, legal experts, and civil society have raised serious concerns over the delay. The bill, as per parliamentary records, has cleared both houses and has been forwarded to the Presidency. Yet, as of mid-July 2025, no official notification has been issued regarding the President’s assent.
This delay not only violates the spirit of democracy but also deepens the sense of alienation among minority communities who have long awaited constitutional safeguards through an empowered commission.
The need for a statutory and autonomous minorities commission was also endorsed in the Supreme Court’s landmark 2014 judgment by Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani (SMC 1/2014), which directed the state to form such a body under law. For years, minorities have functioned under an advisory body with no legal authority—a toothless structure in the face of increasing forced conversions, hate crimes, and systemic exclusion.
“This is not merely a demand of minority groups but a constitutional necessity,”
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Annual Report 2024
The current bill includes provisions for investigation, annual reports, recommendations, and monitoring of constitutional rights violations. The absence of presidential assent, if prolonged, would not only be a delay in procedure but a denial of justice.
Federal ministers such as Azam Nazeer Tarar and Khawaja Asif have passionately spoken on the floor of the National Assembly in support of the bill. However, passionate speeches alone do not constitute policy.
“We owe it to our minority citizens to give them equal protection and legal recourse. This bill must be passed into law,”
Khawaja Asif, National Assembly speech, July 2025
Now is the moment to act—either by presidential assent or by allowing the constitutional deadline to pass, which would enact the bill automatically, as per the precedent of 2023.
The Minorities Commission Bill is not just a piece of legislation—it is a measure of Pakistan’s commitment to pluralism, equality, and constitutional responsibility. Delay in its enactment undermines minority confidence in the state’s promises. If silence by the President can constitute approval, then the time for that silence to expire is now.
Let Pakistan’s Constitution speak, where leadership seems unwilling to do so.