ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court of Pakistan Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Wednesday observed that the judiciary can interfere in parliamentary procedure over constitutional violation.
Justice Bandial made the remarks during the suo moto hearing into the case relating to the ongoing constitutional crisis in the country that emerged after the ruling of the NA deputy speaker and the subsequent dissolution of the lower house on the advice of PM Imran Khan.
A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel heard the case.
On April 3, CJP Bandial had taken suo motu notice of the constitutional crisis in the country, clubbing multiple petitions filed by various parties and the presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63(A) of the Constitution with it.
At the outset of today’s hearing, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that the top court wanted to wrap up the suo motu case today.
The CJP remarked, “We want to wrap up the case today.” His remarks came when PML-N’s counsel Azam Nazeer Tarar tried to draw the apex court’s attention towards the issue of the Punjab Assembly’s session.
“A very important case is being heard,” CJP Bandial said, adding that they wanted to conclude the hearing on the case involving the action that took place in the National Assembly on April 3.
“Negative comments are being passed about the court,” he observed and noted: “It is said that the court is delaying the case.”
The CJP said that they will look into the Punjab Assembly matter later.
PTI’s counsel Babar Awan opened his arguments before the larger bench while referring to the minority judgement in the Justice Qazi Faez Isa case.
At this, CJP Bandial said that they cannot take unilateral action, adding that they will decide the case after listening to all the parties.
“I wanted to show the way that how it had happened,” said Awan while briefing the court about the NA proceedings on April 3.
“We can find ways, don't tell us stories,” remarked the CJP, adding that there were only allegations in the speaker’s ruling.
“Political parties are of the view that they were declared traitors under Article 5,” Awan told the court.
The CJP remarked, “They were not declared traitors, the action taken was declared treason under Article 5.”
The political parties wanted that the reference of the National Security Committee meeting mentioned in the speaker’s ruling should be ignored, argued Awan. He maintained that the speaker and the deputy speaker cannot stay silent over the “foreign conspiracy.”
The PTI’s lawyer said, “[NA] speaker and the deputy speaker are bound to fulfil their constitutional responsibility.”
At this, the CJP said that an accusation has been levelled in this case. He asked the lawyer to come to the facts as the deputy speaker had taken a step.
“No-confidence motion is a constitutional process. Does the speaker have the authority to sabotage a constitutional process?” asked the CJP.
Meanwhile, the PTI’s lawyer pleaded with the court for an in-camera hearing on the Lettergate.
At this, the attorney general said that a lawyer of a political party should not give arguments on foreign policy. Agreeing with the attorney general, the CJP said that the court does not want to get involved in foreign policy matters.
Babar Awan requested the top court to form a judicial commission to identify those who were involved in the attack on Pakistan’s sovereignty.
The PTI’s lawyer said that controversial facts should be investigated, adding the Memogate scandal proceedings were still pending.
Responding to the lawyer’s demand, Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked, “Does your client not know who is involved in it?” He asked if his client took such an extreme step without knowing about the details.
Barrister Ali Zafar, counsel of President Arif Alvi, argued that Article 69 of the Constitution identified a boundary between the judiciary and the legislature.
Terming Article 69 a firewall, the lawyer said that the judiciary cannot interfere in parliamentary affairs by crossing the firewall. “There will be a clash if the judiciary interferes in the parliament,” he said, adding that similarly, the parliament cannot interfere in the judiciary under sub judice rule.
The court will exceed its jurisdiction if it issues any direction in this case, maintained Ali Zafar.
“Can the judiciary not interference even if the parliament violates the Constitution,” asked the CJP.
The lawyer said that the parliament has two basic privileges; freedom of expression and it is itself a master and judge of its business.
He maintained that the speaker’s ruling could not be reversed, adding that the president's actions cannot be reviewed in court.
The only solution to the prevailing situation in the country is new elections, he argued.
Reacting to the issue of the Punjab Assembly, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that they cannot issue any order over the situation in haste.
“There is an ideal situation in Punjab to approach the people,” he observed. The CJP said that they will decide tomorrow whether to hear the matter of PA or send it to the Lahore High Court.
Meanwhile, the chief justice adjourned the case till 9:30 am on Thursday.
During Wednesday's hearing, the CJP said that the court would only determine the legitimacy of the deputy speaker’s ruling and wanted to see if it could be reviewed and nullified.
Rejecting the suggestion of the counsel for the PML-N on an in-camera briefing by heads of intelligence agencies on the alleged foreign conspiracy against the government, the chief justice had said the court did not want to interfere with the state’s affairs and its foreign policy.
CJP Bandial had said it had not been the judicial practice to interfere with the state’s foreign policy, adding it would be easy for the court to look into the matter in the legal and constitutional perspective. "The constitutional right could not be denied under the rules."
The CJP had said the process to form an interim setup had stalled and the court wanted to decide the case at the earliest. At the moment the focus of the court is on the ruling of the deputy speaker to determine if it could examine the decision of the custodian of the parliament, he had remarked.
The CJP had said the court would decide the matter in the light of law and the Constitution. At this, Justice Ijazul Ahsen had said the court could not decide the case in a hurry as important constitutional points were under review.
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial had also sought minutes of the crucial session of the National Assembly which was held on March 31 to debate the no-confidence motion against PM Imran Khan.
He ordered Naeem Bokhari, NA Speaker Asad Qaiser’s counsel, to present the NA session’s minutes before the top court.
Party leadership failed to provide clear guidance during the protest, says Yousafzai
"Yesterday, there were deaths on both sides; constitutional bench should take suo motu notice ," says KP AAG
"There is no deal, no concession. We saw cowardice here," says federal information minsiter
Punjab capital ranks second globally for worst air quality, with AQI reading of 299
Sources say KP CM, former first lady spent night at Circuit House in Mansehra along with Omar Ayub
PTI says it would announce future course of action in light of guidance from party founder Imran Khan
