Barrister Ali Zafar, representing President Dr Arif Alvi in the case,raised objection on the maintainability of the petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. He quoted Article 69 of the Constitution and saidthe top court could not interfere in the proceedings of the NationalAssembly as the stated article imposed a boundary between the Supreme Courtand the Parliament.
The court cannot interfere in the proceedings of the Parliament as it wouldbe equal to giving directions to the speaker which would beunconstitutional, Barrister Zafar said. Approaching the court on the rulingof the speaker was equivalent to the interference in the proceedings of theParliament and a court’s direction to the speaker would not come under theambit of the judiciary, he argued, adding the National Assembly speaker wasa respondent in the case.
Barrister Zafar added that the Parliament would not discuss a case whichwas sub-judice. Likewise, the court could not interfere in the proceedingsof the Parliament, he said.
At this CJP Bandial inquired whether the top court could not intervene, ifthe speaker was violating the Constitution in the Parliament.
Read Top Stories
Barrister Zafar said he would continue his arguments on constitutional andunconstitutional proceedings later.
