Current parliament deliberately kept incomplete: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Thursday observed that the current parliament was deliberately kept incomplete and the legislation passed by the parliament was becoming controversial.

This observation from the apex court came during the hearing of a petition filed by former prime minister and PTI Chairman Imran Khan, challenging the amendments made by the current government to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial, heard the petition. Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah were the other bench members.

“Owing to the political disputes, the PTI opted for leaving the parliament and then changed its mind and decided to return,” the CJP said, adding that although Imran Khan was not a part of parliament, parliament was there.

The chief justice observed that they didn’t want to interfere in legislation and always remain cautious in exercising the suo motu jurisdiction, and in the instant case they also did not exercise this option.

“But the instant proceedings are being taken up on the petition filed by the leader of a political party,” the CJP added.

The chief justice further observed that if the party did not question the biggest controversial amendments in the parliament, then it was its right to challenge them in the apex court.

“But we have never witnessed in the country’s history that a person approached the court after leaving the parliament,” Makhdom Ali Khan contended.

He submitted that politics was pushed into judiciary and judiciary was in politics.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah asked where a person who was in minority and his rights affected would go instead of court. “Whatever maybe necessary, people should decide,” the judge remarked.

Makhdom Ali Khan, however, contended that the court should not rule.

The chief justice, however, observed that the court never wanted to rule but the political vacuum was quite difficult for the public.

At the outset of the hearing, the chief justice recalled that the government of an honest prime minister was removed under Article 58(2)(B) of the Constitution which was a “draconian” law.

He observed that in 1993, the court had declared that the government had been dismissed in a wrong manner and hence elections should be held.

Makhdom Ali Khan, however, submitted that when Imran Khan left the government, the amendments were with the committee adding that the incumbent government after assuming power approved the amendments left by the PTI government.

He further submitted that during the reign of PTI in 2021, five ordinances were promulgated adding that Imran Khan challenged the amendments in the apex court only after losing his government.

The court observed that the country was experiencing political instability and crisis and the only solution to all the problems was a fresh public mandate.

Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial rejected the stance of the federal government’s counsel Makhdom Ali Khan that the petitioner [Imran Khan] had no right of claim to challenge the amendments made to the NAB law in the apex court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

He contended that the court must be cautious while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. He said the court could only exercise its jurisdiction in public importance related issues.

“If the court strikes down the legislation by exercising Article 184(3) of the Constitution, then the standard will be no more,” Makhdom Ali Khan said, adding that the court was to examine the standard of cases while keeping in view the enforcement of fundamental rights.

The counsel questioned whether any person could challenge a piece of legislation on the basis of assumptions.

“But the facts of the present case are quite different,” the chief justice told the counsel adding that the leader of the country’s biggest political party had challenged the NAB amendments.

The chief justice observed that in the present case, the petitioner’s right to the claim did not matter.

“The petitioner Imran Khan is not an ordinary person but the leader of the country’s biggest political party and he remained the prime minister as well,” the chief justice remarked.

He further observed that even after leaving the government, Imran Khan had vast support of the public.

Referring to the general elections, the chief justice recalled that the chief election commissioner had told the court that the Election Commission would be ready to hold the general elections by November 2022.

The chief justice said eight months had passed since the incumbent government came into power.

He observed that the country was experiencing political instability and crisis and hence the only solution to all the problems lay in a fresh mandate of the public.

“At present, the problems facing the country could only be solved through the decision of the people and a fresh mandate,” the CJP remarked.

The court adjourned the hearing till Friday (today).