The Supreme Court (SC) adjourned on Wednesday its hearing regarding National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri's ruling on the no-confidence resolution against Prime Minister Imran Khan, Aaj News reported.
A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, heard the suo motu taken by the CJP on the deputy speaker’s ruling on the no-confidence vote.
The legal team of the opposition parties had completed their arguments on Tuesday. Today, lawyers of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), the president of Pakistan, and the speaker argued their case.
During the hearing, the SC asked the PTI government's lawyer, Babar Awan, about the minutes of the recent meeting of the National Security Committee. The said the meeting had discussed a letter allegedly showing evidence of a foreign conspiracy to oust the government.
The SC also asked the PTI counsel about the basis on which NA deputy speaker exercised his authority, it was reported.
Earlier, once the hearing began, the CJP had said that the court was hearing a very important case, adding that it would try to wrap up the case today.
In his turn on Tuesday, Makhdoom Ali, representing Shehbaz Sharif, had argued that the speaker National Assembly after the no-confidence resolution move against him could not give Ruling on the no-confidence resolution.
‘Threat letter’: SC urged to summon intelligence chiefs
The counsel said that on April 3 it was shown on all the TV channels that the deputy speaker read out the prepared ruling and at the end of it read out the speaker’s name.
He argued under Article 95 of the Constitution when two stages were passed then the logical step was the voting on the no-confidence resolution. He said the conduct of the prime minister becomes irrelevant once the procedure under Article 95 starts, adding the prime minister may be the purest human being or a noble man but leave granted for voting then that has to be concluded. He said the Rule (37) only can be implemented for the requirement of the Article 95 of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, Raza Rabbani, representing Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP), had requested the SC to restore status quo ante as it was on 3rd April, 2022 before the start of the sitting of the National Assembly.
He in his written argument had stated that the malafide in law, stems from the deputy speaker applying clause (1), Article 5, Constitution, 1973 without an application of mind and or a judicial finding before him. In violation of sub-rule (7), rule (12), the Rules, the speaker prorogued the session of the National Assembly.