ISLAMABAD:Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesdaysaid the apex court would only determine the legality of NationalAssembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri’s ruling on a no-confidence motionagainst Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The court did not want to investigate the policy matters as it onlyaimed to ascertain the constitutionality of the deputy speaker’sruling , he added.
The CJP was heading the five-member larger SC bench, which heard thesuo moto notice case on the current situation in the country followingthe dismissal of a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister ImranKhan by the NA deputy speaker and the subsequent dissolution of the NAby President Arif Alvi.
The bench comprised Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar,Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
During the course of proceedings, Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan, counselfor the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz proposed that the apex courtcould seek an in-camera briefing about the foreign conspiracy from theintelligence agency chief.
Upon this, the chief justice said the court was focusing only on thedeputy speaker’s ruling and it was its priority to decide on thatparticular issue. It wanted to see whether it could review the ruling.
The court did not interfere in the state matters and foreign affairs,he added, and advised all parties to focus only on that point.
Justice Ijaz said the court at present was concerned with theconstitutional matters only. The chief justice said the bench waslooking at the law and Constitution.
The PML-N’s counsel said the court could judicially review an illegaland unconstitutional move.
Justice Munib Akhtar said the NA and provincial assembly speakers weremasters of their respective houses. The distribution of powers wasalso enshrined in the Constitution, he added.
Makhdoom Ali Khan said the no-confidence motion was submitted to theNA with the signatures of 152 members of National Assembly, while (onMarch 28) 161 had voted in favour of tabling it. After that, the NAproceedings were adjourned till March 31, he added.
He said the deputy speaker did not give the opposition a chance tospeak during the session held on April 3 and gave the floor to theformer information minister.
Justice Munib Akhtar said the process of the no-confidence motion wasunderlined in the Rules of Procedure, not in the Constitution.
The counsel argued that the rules were formed on the basis of theConstitution. The no-confidence motion could not be dismissed by thespeaker once it was tabled in the National Assembly.
The chief justice asked whether a debate was held on the no-confidence motion.
Justice Mandokhail said the real question was whether the deputyspeaker’s ruling was legal or illegal. The real issue was to examinethe constitutional status of the ruling.
Read Top Stories
He asked whether illegal factors in the no-confidence motion could beinvestigated.The counsel replied that the apex court had the right to do so.
Justice Munib Akhtar asked how could the court give an opinion on theconstitutional rights of the speaker over minor flaws.
He asked the counsel whether he wanted to open a new door forlitigations. If it happened, applications against provincialassemblies would start pouring in the high courts, he added.
Justice Mandokhel asked if the deputy speaker could use powers withouttaking permission from the speaker.
Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that it was unconstitutional forthe deputy speaker to exercise his powers without the permission ofthe speaker. The deputy speaker, while reading aloud the ruling, hadtaken the name of the speaker too, he added.
He alleged that the deputy speaker’s ruling fell under the definitionof a mala fide decision.
Advocate Raza Rabbani said the court had to examine the extent of theimmunity of parliamentary proceedings. According to Article 95 of theConstitution, the no-confidence motion could not be dismissed withoutvoting on it.
He said the NA session held on March 21 was adjourned after offeringprayers for a deceased lawmaker and this had not happened in the past.The assemblies could not be dissolved during the no-confidenceprocess.
He urged that the minutes of the National Security Committee and thethreat letter should also be presented.
The lawyers representing the Pakistan Peoples Party (Nayyar Bukhari)and the Awami National Party presented their arguments wherein theyendorsed the arguments made by Makhdoom Ali Khan.
The petitioners completed their arguments in the case whereas PTI’slawyer Babar Awan said he would argue before the court on Wednesday.Barrister Ali Zafar would represent President Arif Alvi in the case.Imtiaz Qureshi said he would represent PM Imran Khan.
Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Jawed Khan informed the bench hewould deliver his arguments on Thursday after the conclusion of thelawyers’ arguments. He said he wanted to brief the court in detail asthe case pertained to the national security.
Justice Ijaz said though the time was running out, the court could notdecide the case in haste.
Subsequently, the court adjourned the hearing till Wednesday.
