EDITORIAL: The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued its detailed judgement, explicating reasons for its decision to set aside former National Assembly deputy speaker Qasim Suri’s April 3 controversial ruling for the dismissal of the no-confidence motion against the then prime minister Imran Khan.
Authored by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, the judgement effectively clarifies two most important points: first, whether or not the court was within its constitutional remit to question parliamentary proceedings; and second, if the deputy speaker overstepped his constitutionally assigned role when he proclaimed dismissal of the no-confidence motion against the prime minister.
As to the first issue, the detailed order explains that the April 3 ruling failed to qualify for protection of the internal proceedings of Parliament under Article 69 (1) as it was “not the outcome of a vote in the National Assembly, instead it was a unilateral decision.” This should remove any confusion in relation to the court intervention.
With regard to the central issue, the deputy speaker’s action that had confounded impartial observers as well as the PTI’s sympathisers, the detailed verdict properly elucidates as to why it had to be rendered infructuous.
The controversial action by the deputy speaker triggered a chain of events, notes the honourable Chief Justice, the most concerning aspect of which was that it allowed the then PM to claim the constitutionally repugnant outcome of avoiding the no-trust motion without a vote by the Assembly. This happened despite the fact that the opposition members who filed the no-trust notice were granted leave to move the motion against the then PM on March 28, “crystallising (sic) the constitutional right and obligation for there to be a vote under Article 95 (2) on the motion”.
And that this right/obligation could not be defeated or curtailed except by a vote on the floor of the Assembly, leading to the logical conclusion “since the deputy speaker’s ruling unilaterally refused the right of vote granted by the Constitution, no immunity under Article 69 (1) attached to it, and the same can be reviewed by the court.”
As for the diplomatic cipher, which formed the basis of deputy speaker’s contentious ruling, the detailed judgement says its text was not shown to the court, though its contents were partially disclosed. More importantly, it goes on to note the cabinet decision of April 2, acknowledging the need to establish the alleged collusion between the opposition and a foreign state. It also suggests a way forward saying “such an inquiry into facts can, in the first place, be carried out either by a specialised commission constituted by the federal government ... or by a specialised commission constituted by an act of parliament or an ordinance.”
Interestingly, the suggestion comes at a time President Arif Alvi’s letter to the honourable Chief Justice requesting him to form a judicial commission to investigate the “regime change conspiracy”, which Imran Khan claims was behind his ouster, awaits response.
Indeed, the two cases are entirely different. The court’s pronouncement in the present case, though, seems to indirectly answer the President’s letter. It may be recalled that in the 2012 Memogate case, acting on a joint petition filed by different political parties’ leaders, including PML-N’s Mian Nawaz Sharif, the Supreme Court had set up a judicial commission comprising a three-member bench headed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa to probe that scandal. Which merits the question why that precedent cannot be followed in the present instance? If need be.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.