SC declares ruling of NA Deputy Speaker dismissing no-confidence motion against PM Imran Khan as null & void & unconstitutional
Restores the National Assembly
CJP Umar Ata Bandial says it was clear that ruling of deputy speaker to dismiss no-confidence motion submitted against PM was ‘wrong’
Court buries ideology of necessity
ISLAMABAD ( Web News )
Five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel has declared the ruling of Deputy Speaker National Assembly Qasim Khan Suri on 3rd April dismissing the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan as null and void and unconstitutional. The court while declaring dissolution of National Assembly by President Dr. Arif Alvi on PM Imran Khan’s advice as unconstitutional and ordered its restoration. The court has ordered Speaker National Assembly Asad Qaiser to summon the NA session on 9th April till 10:30 AM and conduct voting on no-confidence motion. The court in order said that no member of the National Assembly will be stopped from casting his vote. The court has ordered that the process on the matter of no-confidence should be completed as soon as possible. The court in its order said that Prime Minister Imran Khan had no authority to advise President Dr. Arif Alvi to dissolve assembly. The court has also declared all the steps taken by President Alvi after the dissolution of the assembly. The court has issued the verdict unanimously. The court buries ideology of necessity.
Earlier on Thursday, the Supreme Court of Pakistan reserved verdict on suo motu notice over political situation of the country arising after Deputy Speaker of National Assembly rejected no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan. Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, after consultation with fellow judges, observed that it was clear that the ruling of the deputy speaker to dismiss the no-confidence motion submitted against the prime minister was “wrong”.
A five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Umer Atta Bandial announced to deliver judgment at 7:30pm on Thursday.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked PML-N President Mian Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif to appear before court and remarked that USD has touched Rs190 and country needs a strong government. This will be a difficult takes for Shehbaz Sharif, he added.
Shehbaz Sharif said that our constitution was violated several times in the past not getting punished for those blunders has brought country to current circumstances. If Deputy Speaker’s ruling is nullified, NA and no-confidence motion will be restored, he added.
He also prayed the court to reinstate the National Assembly and allow voting on no-confidence motion.
Shahbaz Sharif he said that if the court acknowledges that the ruling of the deputy speaker was “erroneous”, then it should restore Parliament.
Shahbaz further highlighted that if the deputy speaker’s move was unconstitutional then decisions taken by PM Imran Khan with the help of President Dr. Arif Alvi are also “insignificant”, adding that the SC’s statement also hints at no assembly has being dissolved.
“The no-confidence motion against PM Imran Khan will automatically be restored once the apex court rules out the ruling of the deputy speaker,” he said.
Calling the ruling of the deputy speaker “unconstitutional and illegal”, the PML-N president said that voting was to be held on April 3 and “constituencies cannot be dissolved during the proceedings.”
He highlighted that several government allies and MNAs joined the Opposition, assuring the five-member bench that the joint Opposition will protect the Constitution of Pakistan.
CJP Bandial said that the proceedings of the court are being held under Article 184 (3) as this is a public interest case.
Shahbaz further added that political stability is inter-connected with the Constitution of Pakistan.
During the cross-questioning session, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked Shahbaz that the Opposition has been demanding fresh elections and now that they have the opportunity, why are they against it?
Replying to his question, Shahbaz said that the election has been “stolen” and laws of the Constitution have been “violated”; to which Justice Mandokhel said that all laws that have been violated will be restored.
During the course of hearing, the Attorney General of Pakistan Barrister Khalid Jawed Khan 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 Munib 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.
Punjab Advocate General Ahmed Awais Advocate brought the court’s attention to the mock Punjab Assembly session held by the opposition on Wednesday where PML-N’s Muhammad Hamza Shehbaz Sharif was declared the new chief minister of the province.
He said that former Punjab governor Chaudhry Muhammad Sarwar would administer the oath to Hamza at a ceremony at Bagh-i-Jinnah, adding that the PML-N leader had also called a meeting a bureaucrats for today. He contended that the Constitution was a “trivial matter” for the PML-N.
However, the CJP asserted that the apex court would not give any orders regarding the situation in Punjab and advised the counsel to take the matter to the high court.
Meanwhile, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel noted that the doors of the Punjab Assembly were sealed on Tuesday and wondered if this was allowed. However, the CJP reiterated that the court would not divert attention from the case at hand.
President Dr. Arif Alvi’s counsel, Senator Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, in his arguments, said that the Constitution must be protected in accordance with the rules it underlines. He said that in order to protect the Constitution, each and every article had to be kept in mind.
Justice Bandial then asked what would happen when an injustice was carried out against the entire assembly, not just one member.
“Can Parliament interfere if there s a conflict between judges,” Zafar offered as a counter argument. “The answer is no. The judiciary has to settle the matter. It can t interfere just like Parliament can t [interfere in judges matters].”
The CJP also asked whether the formation of the federal government was an “internal matter” of Parliament.
Syed Ali Zafar said that the no-confidence motion and the prime minister’s election fell within the ambit of Parliament. He said that the National Assembly is formed for the purpose of appointing a speaker and a prime minister.
Justice Miankhel said that the matter at present concerned the no-confidence motion. “A ruling came after the motion. Address this issue,” he told Zafar.
At one point, the CJP asked Zafar why he was not explaining whether or not there was a constitutional crisis in the country. “If everything is happening according to the Constitution, where is the crisis?” he asked.
Zafar replied that he also wished there was no constitutional crisis in the country.
Naeem Bokhari Advocate, the counsel representing National Assembly (NA) Speaker Asad Qaiser and Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri, presented the minutes of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security’s (PCNS) meeting in the SC.
During the hearing, CJP Umar Ata Bandial asked who the participants were of the PCNS meeting and who briefed them.
Responding to the query, Bokhari said that the national security adviser briefed the meeting.
Justice Mandokhel inquired if the foreign minister attended the meeting or not.
“It seems like the FM wasn’t present at the parliamentary committee’s meeting,” Bokhari said.
During the hearing, Bokhari discussed the question and answer session in the NA after the no-trust resolution against Prime Minister Imran Khan was presented, saying that all the Opposition parties’ members said that they don’t have any questions.
They only asked for voting after which the NA speaker adjourned the session due to a ruckus.
CJP Umar Ata Bandial said that it was clear that the April 3 ruling of National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Khan Suri 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 today.
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 Mandokhel 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.”
During Thursday’s hearing, Senator Ali Zafar, the president’s counsel, was asked by Justice Miankhel if the prime minister was the people’s representative. The lawyer replied in the affirmative.
Justice Miankhel then inquired if the premier would be protected if the Constitution was violated in parliament. “Is Parliament not the guardian of the Constitution?” he asked. He also questioned how justice would be awarded in case someone is affected due to parliamentary proceedings.
At this, Zafar replied that the Constitution must be protected in accordance with the rules it underlines. He said that in order to protect the Constitution, each and every article had to be kept in mind.
Justice Bandial then asked what would happen when an injustice was carried out against the entire assembly, not just one member.
“Can Parliament interfere if there’s a conflict between judges,” Zafar offered as a counter argument. “The answer is no. The judiciary has to settle the matter. It can’t interfere just like Parliament can’t [interfere in judges’ matters].”
The CJP also asked whether the formation of the federal government was an “internal matter” of Parliament.
Zafar said that the no-confidence motion and the prime minister’s election fell within the ambit of Parliament. He said that the National Assembly is formed for the purpose of appointing a speaker and a prime minister.
He also referred to former PM Mohammad Khan Junejo’s case, who was dismissed by ex-president Gen Ziaul Haq. “Junejo’s government was dissolved and the court declared it unconstitutional,” Zafar pointed out, adding that the court did not interfere in actions taken after the dissolution of the assembly.
However, Justice Miankhel said that the matter at present concerned the no-confidence motion. “A ruling came after the motion. Address this issue,” he told Zafar. CJP Bandial also said that the verdict he was referring to was related to the oath. “Here the matter is about the ruling, not the oath. We have to draw a line somewhere.”
However, Zafar argued that in this case too elections were announced after dissolving the assembly.
At one point, the CJP asked Zafar why he wasn’t explaining whether or not there was a constitutional crisis in the country. “If everything is happening according to the Constitution, where is the crisis?” he asked.
Zafar replied that he was also saying the same and there was no constitutional crisis in the country.
The CJP also observed that there seemed to be a violation of Article 95. He noted that holding elections cost the nation “billions of rupees”.
However, Zafar argued that the announcement of the election showed there was no malice behind the government’s move.
Justice Mandokhel questioned whether the prime minister could still advise the president to dissolve the assembly if a majority of the members were opposed to it.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan noted that the PTI still held the majority despite the recent defections. “But what if the majority party is ousted from the system?” he wondered.
Zafar replied that the president’s counsel couldn’t comment on political matters and ended his arguments.
The lawyer for interim Prime Minister Imran Khan, Imtiaz Siddiqui, began by pointing out that the judiciary had not interfered in parliamentary proceedings in the past.
“The matter at hand concerns NA proceedings. [But] NA proceedings lie beyond the judiciary’s jurisdiction,” he argued, urging the court to tell parliament to settle its own matters. He said that the opposition had not objected to the deputy speaker chairing the session.
“The deputy speaker made a decision according to what he thought was best,” Siddiqui contended, adding that the deputy speaker wasn’t accountable to the court for the ruling he gave. He reiterated that under Article 69, the apex court could not interfere in parliamentary proceedings.
Justice Akhtar noted that verdicts referenced concerned observations made by the courts. “The court is not bound by the observations given in the verdicts,” he said.
Here, Siddiqui stated that the deputy speaker had relied on the assessment of the National Security Committee (NSC), adding that no one could influence the top forum.
This led the CJP to ask when the minutes of NSC meeting were presented before the deputy speaker. Siddiqui said that he unaware about matters concerning the deputy speaker, which prompted the court to tell the lawyer to refrain from talking about things he was unaware of.
“According to you, the deputy speaker was in possession of material on the basis of which he delivered his ruling,” Justice Bandial observed, asking what would be the consequences of the premier violating Article 58.
He also observed that Suri had not objected to voting on March 28 but had passed the ruling on April 3. “Why did the deputy speaker not dismiss the no-trust motion on March 28?”
Justice Ahsan remarked that if the assembly was not dissolved, the house could have suspended the deputy speaker’s ruling. “The prime minister took advantage of the situation and dissolved the assembly,” he said.
However, Siddiqui argued that if the aim was to harm the Constitution, the deputy speaker could have suspended the membership of the dissident lawmakers. “The prime minister did not show any malice,” he contended.
“You’re saying that the prime minister made a plan,” the chief justice said, again asking why the ruling was not issued on March 28 instead.
Siddiqui replied that no plan was hatched to dismiss the no-trust motion. “We dissolved our government ourselves,” he said. He went on to quote the prime minister as saying that he would never have ended his government if there was any malice behind his actions.
He added that according to Imran, billions were spent on holdings elections and he was going to the nation against those who had ruled the country for many years.