Supreme Court to assess if deputy speaker’s ruling can be nullified: CJP

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial said on Tuesday 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 Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PMLN) on an in-camera briefing by heads of Intelligence agencies on the alleged foreign conspiracy against the government, the chief justice said the court did not want to interfere with the state’s affairs and its foreign policy.

Resuming hearing of arguments from PMLN counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan on the dismissal of a no-confidence motion against the prime minister by the NA deputy speaker, the CJP 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. He said the constitutional right could not be denied under the rules.

The CJP 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 said.

The CJP said the court would decide the matter in the light of law and the Constitution. At this, Justice Ijazul Ahsen said the court could not decide the case in a hurry as important constitutional points were under review.

Mr Khan submitted if the proceeding of the parliament was in violation of the Constitution and law, the court could examine it.

As the court resumed proceedings, Advocate Afshan Ghazanfar appeared in personal capacity and pleaded that the court may summon former ambassador Abid Majeed to determine the alleged letter.

The CJP, however, told her that the court was not taking applications in personal capacities, adding if she is representing any political party, she can be heard Similarly, Advocate Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta also appeared and filed the same plea. The court, however, ordered him to leave the rostrum.

Counsel for Pakistan’s Peoples Party Raza Rabbani while commencing his arguments presented comprehensive formulations in pursuance of the court’s directions. He submitted that the statement of Election Commission of Pakistan had appeared in the press, stating it was not possible to hold elections in three months.

He said that it would be better if the court announced its decision after hearing all the parties. The CJP said the court also wanted to give its verdict at the earliest but after hearing all the parties.

Mr Rabbani submitted that the process to remove the prime minister was enshrined in the Constitution. He said once a no-confidence motion against the prime minister was tabled in the house, he could not dissolve the assembly. He said the prime minister could only stop the motion after tendering resignation.

He said the president could also ask the prime minister to take the vote of confidence from the house. He said for dismissal of the no-confidence motion either the premier had to resign or the opposition took back the resolution. He once the resolution was tabled, it had to be voted upon.

Mr Rabbani said the court could review the speaker’s ruling under Article 95(2) of the Constitution. He said the deputy speaker had interpreted Article 5 and applied it to the members of the opposition.

He pleaded the court to declare the ruling of the deputy speaker as unconstitutional, asking if the speaker can issue such a ruling without the court’s findings. Rabbani said the establishment had also rejected the claim of Prime Minister Imran Khan about “three options.”

He said the court may summon the ‘threatening letter’ and minutes of the National Security Committee meeting He pleaded the court to dismiss the speaker’s ruling and restore the National Assembly to its pre-April 3 status.

PMLN counsel Makhdom Ali Khan argued that Article 95 of the Constitution was very much clear on the voting process. He said the deputy speaker’s ruling was against the spirit of the Constitution and Article 69 did not protect such an unconstitutional act, adding it is also against Article 95, therefore, it can be reviewed.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked whether the court could review the ruling of the deputy speaker. Mr Khan responded in the affirmative, saying it is not only a procedural lapse but also unconstitutional.

He also questioned the nomination of ex-chief justice Gulzar Ahmed as caretaker prime minister at a time when the court was adjudicating the matter. He said allowing Imran Khan to continue as PM for an interim period was not in accordance with the Constitution either.

Justice Munib Akhtar asked whether the SC could issue a verdict on every illegal act committed within the parliament under the Constitution. “You are opening the doors of court for the parliament's proceedings after which the court will have the authority to interfere in its affairs over petty issues. There will be piles of cases if the apex court starts ruling out the NA proceedings or rulings,” he remarked.

During the hearing, Mansoor Usman , counsel for the Supreme Court Bar Association, told the court that the speaker had no role in the process of voting on the no-confidence motion, adding that the staff of the house as well as the secretary were responsible for counting of votes while the speaker only announced the decision.

The president of the Sindh High Court Bas Association also argued on the case. Attorney General Khalid Javed told the court that it was his last case being AG, adding that as the matter is of national importance, he will assist the court to the best of his professional capabilities

He said that he should be given an opportunity to argue tomorrow (Wednesday) after the conclusion of arguments of the other counsel. The court also summoned the orders passed by the deputy speaker of the National Assembly on March 31 and April 3 and adjourned the matter for Wednesday (today).