ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court said will deliver a judgment which will be in the interest of the nation and will be binding on everyone.
A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, on Wednesday, heard the suo motu taken by the CJP on the deputy speaker’s ruling on the no-confidence vote.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said they will pass a judgment that will be in the interest of the nation and binding on everyone.
Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, appearing on behalf of President Dr Arif Alvi, argued that in view of the constitutional crisis, the best and the only solution lies with the ultimate sovereign i.e. which are the people of Pakistan. The only remedy available is election. He submitted that since the appeal has been made to the people of Pakistan and elections are to take place in 90 days then as per the established practice and prudence, the Courts do not and should not interfere at this stage and let the people decide.
The chief justice asked the counsel does he mean to say that the constitutional crisis can be resolved by going to elections? He said if the opposition has any grouse they should go to the people, adding but there is an element of trickery.
He said the dissolution of the Assemblies is an independent act undertaken by the president under Article 48(5) read with Article 58. At the time, no resolution of no confidence was pending against the prime minister and, hence, the dissolution cannot be questioned under Article 48(4).
Qureshi says ready to share minutes of NSC meeting with SC
Ali Zafar said that the petitioners have challenged the ruling of the deputy speaker National Assembly and asked the apex court to examine the validity of the ruling. He said the possible direction to the Speaker to hold the no-confidence vote, in his opinion, will encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Parliament.
Justice Bandial questioned though it is not allowed [examine the parliament proceeding], but then there is constitutional violation, adding in Article 95 the procedure has been prescribed. He said that the limit is crossed when the constitutional provision is violated. The privileges are under the Rules, but there are obligation under the Constitution, if the obligation is violated then the court can look at it.
Ali Zafar argued the concept of trichotomy of powers/separation of powers between legislature, judiciary, and executive is well-enshrined in our Constitution under which each organ has its specific role.
He contended that the Parliament has certain privileges under the procedures – the fundamental and the foremost privileges being that the Parliament is the sole and exclusive judge and master of its own proceedings and business and no decisions or rulings made while conducting parliamentary proceedings/business are justiciable. It is also a part of Parliamentary privileges that no officer, including the deputy speaker, is subject to jurisdiction of Courts in respect of Parliamentary privileges/proceedings.
Ali Zafar cited the judgments of Pakistani Courts, the crux of them is that any decisions taken during and within the parliamentary proceedings/business of Parliament are not justiciable. It is only if a proceeding is outside the scope of proceedings in parliament that the court can examine.
He stated that the vote of confidence is clearly a matter of proceedings in the National Assembly and any ruling passed by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker in respect thereof or during the same are not justiciable.
Justice Bandial remarked that Article 69 is okay but something unprecedented has happened. The resolution for no-confidence vote was likely to be succeeded, which has the backing of the constitutional provision but at the last minute it was scuttled. If today, it is permitted, then what SHCBA President has cited the example of Hitler Nazis party remain in power.
The chief justice questioned whether the Speaker has power to give Ruling on point of order which was not included in the agenda item of that day of Parliamentary proceeding. He said the Deputy Speaker, Qasim Suri, without giving the reasons rejected the resolution. Whether the Speaker can ignore the mandate of Article 95 of the Constitution.
Earlier, Babar Awan, representing chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, informed that three Pakistani diplomats in Washington, including Head of Mission, Deputy Head of the Embassy and Defence Attaché, met with the USA Assistant Secretary. They conveyed the US concern against Pakistan to Foreign Office in Islamabad. The cipher was sent to Foreign Office on March 07, 2022. The cipher was deciphered in FO to know that conspiracy was hatched against Prime Minister Imran Khan to topple his government.
When Babar Awan was giving detail, the attorney general came to the podium and said that the issue related to the PM or the State; therefore, it should not come from the counsel of the party. The counsel then asked the court to constitute an inquiry commission as the PM wanted thorough probe on the letter. Upon that Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said when the prime minister is unaware who is involved in the conspiracy then how he made important decisions.
The chief justice rejected the perception that the apex court is delaying the judgment on suo motu.
He said: “Unfortunately, yesterday adverse comments were made that the court is delaying the case.” “We have to hear all the parties and without hearing the other side can’t pass ex parte judgment,” the CJP added.
The case was adjourned until today (Thursday).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.