ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has been asked to review, recall, and set aside its order declaring Deputy Speaker National Assembly (NA) Qasim Suri’s ruling to reject motion on no-confidence against Prime Minister Imran Khan unconstitutional.
Asad Umar, general secretary Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Saturday prepared a review petition against the Supreme Court order dated 07-04-22 through their lawyers, Babar Awan and Azhar Siddique, but it could not be filed in the Supreme Court due to paucity of time.
A five-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Thursday, set aside the deputy speaker’s ruling in a unanimous 5-0 verdict and restored the NA, which had been dissolved by the president on the advice of the prime minister.
The petitioner prayed before the court to review its order on suo moto that the impugned order in the absence of detailed reasons is not a judicial determination in the context of Article 184(3) read with Article 189 of the Constitution.
The apex court vide impugned order per force direct discharge of constitutional obligations, by office holders of constitutional posts under the constitutional obligations that enjoy constitutional protection and indemnities as per inter alia Article 69 read with Article 248 of the Constitution.
The Court despite, its open court announcement/ directions, has erred by not rendering any decision in the Presidential reference filed under Article 186 of the Constitution, which was being heard along with the captioned cases and is of paramount importance.
In the absence of the determination in the stated Presidential reference the impugned order has prejudiced the proceedings of the Presidential reference and has blemished the entire proceedings directed to be held on 09-04-22 without any determination therein.
The Court vide impugned order has given a timetable to proceed in the National Assembly, which amounts to interfering in the affairs of the National Assembly barred by Article 69 of the Constitution. The Court gave directions to the Speaker to act in a manner decided/dictated by the bench, thus, violative of the Constitution.
The Court has erred to appreciate the provisions of the Article 66, 67, and 69 read with Article 248 of the Constitution, which bars the apex court to interfere in the proceedings of the Parliament and/ or hold inter alia the president, the prime minister, the speaker, as well as, the deputy speaker of the National Assembly, to be subordinate and answerable to the jurisdiction of the bench despite, the unequivocal bar of jurisdiction contained in the mentioned articles.
No-confidence motion dismissal: Supreme Court again adjourns hearing
The apex court has erred to appreciate the mandate of the Constitution, which ensures that the Parliament, as well as, the members/ officers thereof, the President as well as Prime Minister are not answerable in exercise of their discretionary powers and functions before any Court nor their discharge of the constitutional obligations can be called into question before any court under the Constitution. The entire jurisdiction exercised by the Bench is in violation of Article 175 of the Constitution.
The Court has erred to appreciate that within the proceedings of the House the Parliament is sovereign, independent and not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other Court.
The impugned order is in complete violation of the law laid down through all the prior judgments on the subject as referred during the hearing of the case.
The deputy speaker’s ruling was meant for the enforcement of Article 5; hence, the impugned order needs to be reviewed by the Court, the petition reads.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.