Decision after hearing all parties: Supreme Court

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would decide the case after hearing all the parties. The apex court said it had respect for all the political parties but it would not consider political statements. The court said it would also determine whether the deputy speaker had the powers of ruling or not.

Hearing arguments, Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umer Ata Bandial said that the National Assembly speaker oversaw the proceedings of the house; however, it would be examined as to what was the ambit of Article 69 of the Constitution.

He said asked how the speaker could give a ruling on whether the motion was legal or illegal. “Does the speaker have no authority to reject the no-confidence motion?” he asked. “If the speaker cannot reject no-confidence motioned citing Article 5 of the Constitution,” the CJP asked.

Rejecting the plea of Farooq H Naek, counsel for the Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarian, for constitution of the full court and ruling on the matter on Monday, the chief justice said: “The ruling cannot come out of thin air” and adjourned the case for Tuesday (today). Justice Ahsen remarked: “An instant judgment will have repercussions.”

The chief justice, however, asked the counsel to justify on what constitutional grounds the full court was necessary. In response, Farooq H Naek submitted that he had full confidence in the present bench.

The CJP asked the counsel to justify the ruling of the deputy speaker was unconstitutional and on what stage the speaker determined the legal status of no-confidence. This question has to be answered by the counsel for all the political parties on the matter at hand which is very important”, the CJP said.

Mr Naek cited various judgments and submitted the court could examine what was mala fide and illegal on the part of the speaker, adding by giving the ruling on the no-confidence motion the deputy speaker has made Article 95 anfractuous.

Justice Munib Akhtar said under the Article 69, the ruling of the speaker of the house was fully protected. “In my opinion the deputy speaker has acted beyond his jurisdiction,” the judge remarked.

Justice Munib Akhtar asked what would happen if the speaker did not allow a no-trust motion in case equal numbers of members in the house were in favour and opposition. The judge said the speaker under Rule 28 could give a ruling in the house or on the file at his office.

“In my opinion the deputy speaker was not authorised to give such a ruling.” Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said debate had not been mentioned in Article 95, adding it only talks about voting on a no-confidence motion and majority of the members.

During the course of hearing, Babar Awan appearing on behalf of the PTI submitted that instant suo moto proceedings be held on the Presidential Reference filed in the apex court seeking interpretation of Article 63-A.

The chief justice, however, termed the stance of Babar Awan a political statement, adding the court will have to look into the happening in the assembly and it will examine its legal aspect Mr Naek while giving the facts of the matter submitted that the opposition parties had submitted an application for requisition of the session for voting on a no-confidence motion, adding as per rules the speaker is required to summon the session within 14 days but he summoned the session for March 25.

The chief justice asked the speaker did not open the House for a debate on the no-confidence motion to which the counsel replied in the negative and said March 31 was fixed for a debate but the session was adjourned for April 3

He submitted that after raising a point of order by Fawad Chaudhry regarding the alleged letter, the speaker could have opened the forum for a debate on it, however, he said that the speaker did know that it was an illegal step hence he abstained from presiding over the session and instead the deputy speaker chaired.

Mr Naek, however, submitted that the rules in this regard were silent, adding the deputy speaker just presides over the session. He said as per rules a notification is supposed to be issued for the deputy speaker or a caretaker to preside over the session

He said the no-confidence motion was rejected in just three minutes, adding both the speaker and the deputy speaker are empowered to reject the move.

The counsel said when the proceedings of the parliament were mala fide and unconstitutional these could be challenged in the court of law The chief justice said that Mr Naek had argued for two hours while the other counsel were yet to argue. They could decide the matter after hearing all the respondents, the CJP said.

During the hearing, Advocate Naeem Bukhari told the court that he would represent the speaker and the deputy speaker of the National Assembly.