The ruling of the National Assembly deputy speaker on April 3 to dismiss a no-confidence motion against the then prime minister Imran Khan was controversial from the word go. Now the Supreme Court of Pakistan has issued its detailed judgment explaining the reasons behind its verdict to set aside that ruling. Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial has made it clear that dismissing the no-confidence motion prima facie breached the deputy speaker’s constitutional duty. The court maintains that the ruling failed to qualify for protection of the internal proceedings of parliament under Article 69(1) as it was “not the outcome of a vote in the National Assembly, instead it was a unilateral decision” by the deputy speaker. That ruling by Qasim Suri triggered a chain of events that could allow the then PM to avoid the no-trust vote in violations of the assembly rules. The court has also clarified that it did not see the text of the cypher as it was only ‘partially disclosed’. The court maintains that any inquiry into facts by a commission is possible, if the federal government or an act of parliament can constitute it.
Justice Mazhar Miankhel was even more scathing in his additional note that the exercise of authority was a sacred trust which was violated by the president, the former PM, former speaker, former deputy speaker and former law minister. He has suggested that whether these violations attract Article 6 of the constitution (high treason) is for parliamentarians to ponder if the doors for such unconstitutional acts should remain open or if they wish to take “suitable measures to stop such like mess in future.” In response, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah has announced that the federal government is working on action against Imran Khan under Article 6. He has also demanded that Alvi resign as president while PML-N Senator Afnanullah Khan has submitted a resolution in the Senate seeking Article 6 proceedings against the five people mentioned by Justice Miankhel. Proceeding against PTI members under Article 6 is a slippery slope; per legal experts, not every violation of the constitution is treason. There could be some other punishment for violation of the constitution but invocation of Article 6 is a precedent better left untouched.
The detailed judgment has expectedly been criticized by the PTI, with former law minister Fawad Chaudhry alleging that generals and judges make decisions behind closed doors and that the country is now ready for a revolution – whether through a vote or like Sri Lanka. The insistence of the PTI leadership on repeatedly putting under question the Supreme Court verdict is not a good omen for democracy, nor does it strengthen judicial and parliamentary processes in any way. The PTI had maintained that the short order ‘was full of errors’; now it says the detailed verdict is ‘full of contradictions’. By doing this the party is casting doubts on the judicial acumen of the court itself. If the PTI fails to accept this verdict, it will have even more damaging consequences for democracy in the country. The foreign conspiracy mantra should have been laid to rest after the National Security Committee’s statements, once during the PTI tenure and once during the incumbent’s. The DG ISPR had also made it clear that there was no evidence of any conspiracy whatsoever. The PTI has lost a constitutional case in the top court and has taken the route of lashing out at the judiciary instead of focusing on some introspection and political rethink.