NewsApril 08 , 2022
Supreme Court Restores National Assembly, Orders No-Confidence Vote on Saturday
Islamabad: The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside deputy speaker's ruling to dismiss the no-trust resolution against Prime Minister Imran and the subsequent dissolution of the NA by the president on the PM's advice, with all five judges unanimously voting 5-0 against it.
The court, in its short order, ruled that the deputy speaker's ruling was "contrary to the Constitution and the law and of no legal effect, and the same are hereby set aside".
The apex court ruled that President Dr Arif Alvi's decision to dissolve the National Assembly was also "contrary to the Constitution and the law and of no legal effect", noting that the prime minister could not have advised the president to dissolve the assembly as he continues to remain under the bar imposed under clause (1) of Article 58 of the Constitution.
"It is further declared that the [National] Assembly was in existence at all times, and continues to remain and be so," the short order read.
The court's verdict restored the prime minister and his cabinet in their position. "In consequence of the foregoing, it is declared that the prime minister and federal ministers, ministers of state, advisers, etc. stand restored to their respective offices."
Court orders NA session to be held on Saturday
The Supreme Court ordered that the session of the National Assembly be reconvened on Saturday no later than 10:30am, saying that the session cannot be prorogued without the conclusion of the no-trust motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
"The deputy speaker gave a ruling on April 3. Leave was granted on the no-confidence motion on March 28. The ruling of the speaker is declared unconstitutional," Justice Bandial declared.
The chief justice said the verdict was announced with a unanimous agreement of 5-0 after the judges consulted each other. "The current issues are done away with," he said.
The verdict said that the government could not interfere in the participation of any MNA in the assembly session.
Order to have no impact on Article 63 case proceedings
The court stated that the current order would not impact the proceedings under Article 63 of the Constitution.
"It is, however, clarified that nothing in this short order shall affect the operation of Article 63A of the Constitution and consequences thereof in relation to any member of the Assembly if he votes on the Resolution or (if such be the case) the election of a Prime Minister thereafter in such manner as is tantamount to his defection from the political party to which he belongs within the meaning of the said Article," the verdict reads.
'Victory for democracy': Opposition rejoices SC verdict
Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Shehbaz Sharif, while talking to the media after the verdict, said the court had "definitely fulfilled the people's expectations".
PPP leader Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said Supreme Court's verdict was a "victory for democracy and the Constitution".
"Pakistan's institutions and its Constitution have been safeguarded. God willing, the process of no confidence will now be completed, and we will conduct electoral reforms and head towards clean and transparent elections," he said.
Bilawal said where Pakistan's history was replete with "controversial decisions", the verdict given by the Supreme Court today would be written in "golden words".
Security beefed up at SC ahead of verdict
The verdict was to be announced at 7:30pm but it was subject to an hour's delay. In anticipation of the verdict, security was beefed up at the SC premises with television footage showing riot police deployed outside the apex court.
Ahead of the verdict, the Supreme Court summoned Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja, who arrived at the court with the watchdog's legal team.
A large number of lawyers, media personnel and politicians, including PML-N's Shehbaz Sharif and PPP's Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, were at the court ahead of the verdict.
Advocate Farooq H Naek, who represented the PPP in the case, was questioned by the media on what verdict he was expecting.
He said he expected the deputy speaker's ruling to be set aside. "The same way, [on the basis of] national importance, it seems that they (the judges) will suggest that election process has begun [so they should be allowed to continue]," Naek added.
A five-member bench headed by CJP Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail finished hearing the case earlier in the day.
Earlier, during the hearing, CJP Bandial said that it was clear that the April 3 ruling of National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Khan Suri, which dismissed the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan, was erroneous.
"The real question at hand is what happens next," he said, adding that now the PML-N counsel and the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan would guide the court on how to proceed.
"We have to look at national interest," he said, adding that the court would issue a verdict in the day.
Right before the bench reserved the verdict, opposition leader Shehbaz Sharif was given the rostrum.
At that point, CJP Bandial referred to the situation in Sri Lanka and said that the country didn't even have money for electricity and other basic facilities.
"Today, the value of rupee against the dollar has reached Rs190 [in Pakistan]. We need a strong government. This will be a very difficult task for the opposition leader," Justice Bandial said.
Shehbaz said he hoped that when the deputy speaker's ruling was suspended, the no-confidence motion would be revived, adding that if the speaker's ruling is declared nullified, the dissolution of assembly ends automatically.
"I have one request ... Restore the NA," Shehbaz said.
"In our history, the law has been broken several times. This situation was created because blunders [of the past] weren't identified and rectified. For the sake of God and Pakistan, the court should restore the parliament," he requested. "Let us vote for the no-confidence motion."
Shehbaz also presented the "Charter of Economics" in court. He said that in 2018, dollar was valued at Rs125. "Today, it has reached Rs190."
He added that the parliament should be allowed to do its work and the members be permitted to take their decisions.
Justice Mandokhail observed that the opposition wanted to conduct elections from day one, inquiring what the issue was now.
"The problem concerns breaking of the Constitution," Shehbaz pointed out. To this, Justice Mandokhail replied: "We will repair the Constitution."
Here, PML-N lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan said that the PM had announced he would give a surprise. "Such things shouldn't be said."
To this, the CJP replied: "We have clarified our decision on surprise."
The chief justice also noted that the opposition had always demanded new elections. "Why aren't you agreeing today?"
At this, Shehbaz said that the joint opposition would, together, make electoral amendments to ensure transparent elections. "The common man is miserable. We want to work for them and provide them relief."
Meanwhile, the AGP said that everyone wanted a premier elected by the people, not the assembly. "Would those who overthrew Imran Khan spare Shehbaz Sharif?" he asked.
AGP Khan went on to say that if the opposition's election demand was being fulfilled, they should let that happen.
"We know," CJP Bandial said to this.
The PML-N lawyer, however, alleged that the AGP's concluding remarks sounded like a threat.
"The stock market has crashed, dollar is expensive and rupee's value has fallen," Makhdoom Khan pointed out.
The court observed that these were all economic problems. "But who created them?" Makhdoom asked.
To this, the CJP said: "I don't think we are sitting here to give answers to questions."
The PML-N lawyer contended that politics was changing every day. "Apart from dissident MNAs, the opposition has 177 members."
Upon order of the CJP, the PML-N lawyer gave details of opposition members in the NA party-wise.
Makhdoom remarked that he had an idea the court would debate the issue of elections in the end. "I knew that it was not possible to defend the ruling of the speaker."
He added that the Haji Saifullah case was an example. "It is not possible that the speaker's ruling is suspended and the assembly's dissolution not retracted."
"It looks like you have come prepared on this point," the CJP remarked.
The AGP, while giving arguments, claimed that the no-confidence motion against Imran Khan was "dismissed" on March 28, when leave was granted to table the resolution. According to him, it was important to show the support of majority at the time of tabling the resolution.
Since the opposition had 161 members in favor of tabling the motion on March 28, the AGP said the move had failed then and there.
Justice Akhtar replied that according to this line of argument, if 172 members (majority) had approved the motion, the prime minister would have been ousted. To this, the AGP said the three to seven days mandated by the Constitution before a final vote on the resolution was to give the prime minister a chance to win back angry lawmakers.
However, the CJP, at this point, said that at the leave grant stage 172 members were not required. "They are required at the time of the voting."
He then added that if the speaker approved the resolution on March 28, then "it's the end of the topic," noting that the speaker's counsel said his ruling can't be reviewed.
If that's the case, the AGP said, then the case is over since on April 3, the same speaker passed the ruling to dismiss the motion.
But Justice Bandial said that he wanted to hear from the AGP on the main issue which was dissolution of the National Assembly.
"The assembly was dissolved only after the no-confidence motion was dealt with," Khan said.
We have to see, the CJP said, the time difference between dissolving the assembly and the ruling of the speaker. Here, Justice Mandokhail said that the court could not decide on the basis of circumstances and results.
"Court has to pass a verdict keeping the Constitution in view," the judge said. "This way ... any speaker who comes tomorrow will do as he pleases."
The AGP, at this point, said that he wasn't defending the speaker's ruling. "My concern for now are the new elections."
Earlier, AGP Khan — who was the last to give his arguments — began by informing the court that he would not be able to give details of the recent meeting of the National Security Committee in an open courtroom. He asserted that the court could issue an order without questioning anyone's loyalty.
He argued that prime minister was the "biggest stakeholder" and, therefore, had the power to dissolve the NA. "The prime minister does not need to give reasons for dissolving the assembly," the AGP contended.
He also pointed out that the assembly would stand dissolved if the president did not make a decision on the prime minister's advice within 48 hours.
He argued that voting on the no-confidence motion was not the fundamental right of a lawmaker.
"The right to vote is subject to the Constitution and assembly rules," Khan said. He also pointed out that if the NA speaker suspends a member, they cannot approach a court against it.
"Are you trying to say that voting on the no-confidence motion is subject to the rules," the CJP asked, to which the AGP replied that all proceedings, including the no-confidence motion, were carried out in accordance with the rules.
The AGP said that there was no "firewall" that gave complete immunity to parliamentary proceedings. "The court will decide the extent to which parliamentary proceedings can be reviewed," he said. The AGP pointed out that the court could intervene if the speaker declared a person with the minority number of votes to be the prime minister.
At this, Justice Akhtar remarked that the speaker was the caretaker of the house. "The speaker is not there for his personal satisfaction. The speaker can't just give his opinion and ignore the members," he observed.
The AGP replied by saying that political parties play an important role in a parliamentary system of government. However, he pointed out that it was the assembly that had a term limit, not its members. "One individual has the power to dissolve the assembly."
'Ruling did not have deputy speaker's signature'
During the hearing, Justice Mandokhail said that even though Suri announced the April 3 ruling which dismissed the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan, it was signed by Speaker Asad Qaiser.
He made the observation as Suri and Qaiser's lawyer, Naeem Bukhari, presented his arguments.
Responding to the judge's statement, Bukhari replied that perhaps the documents given to him might not be "original".
Justice Mandokhail also pointed out that the minutes of the parliamentary committee meeting, which were submitted to court by Bukhari, didn't prove if the deputy speaker was present.
Continuing, Justice Mandokhail asked whether the foreign minister was present during the parliamentary committee meeting, noting that his signature was not included in the record.
"Shouldn't the foreign minister have been present?" the judge asked, which prompted the lawyer to admit the minister should have been present.
At this, CJP Bandial pointed out that the name of the national security adviser at the time, Moeed Yusuf, was also not included in the record. … - Dawn
Courtesy https://www.dawn.com
Back to Pakistanlink Home
