Mere allegations in speaker’s ruling: Supreme Court

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umer Ata Bandial said on Wednesday it seemed that no-trust motion was liable to succeed on the day of voting when it was scuttled by the deputy speaker

He said there were mere allegations in the speaker’s ruling and the court could not announce a one-sided verdict. He regretted that the decision could not be announced on Wednesday, saying verdict will be at the earliest.

A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel was hearing a suo moto case on the ruling of the National Assembly deputy speaker on the no-confidence motion against the prime minister.

During the course of hearing when Babar Awan, counsel for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf was arguing, Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial remarked that Article 69 was a constitutional provision but at the same time something unprecedented had happened in the National Assembly on April 3 when the resolution of no-confidence motion against the prime minister, which was liable to succeed and having the backing of the Constitution, was scuttled by the ruling of the deputy speaker.

The CJP in response to the concern shown by Azam Nazir Tarar, counsel for the PMLN, over the issue of election of chief executive of Punjab said that the issue would be taken up Thursday (today)

The chief justice said that it would be examined if it should be heard by them or referred to the Lahore High Court. He said that their focus was on wrapping up the matter of the ruling of the deputy speaker at the earliest.

“We have to rush to decide the matter, as comments are being made that the court is delaying the matter”, the CJP remarked Azam Nazir Tarar told the court that it was a matter of 14 crore people of Punjab, as the administration was bent upon using delaying tactics, adding they have filed a separate petition to the apex court for early remedy.

The CJP said that they didn’t want to interfere in the legislature, however, when the system failed to render its constitutional obligation, they had to exercise their powers to discharge constitutional obligations.

The chief justice while expressing concern over vandalism in the Punjab Assembly said that the members of the National Assembly had behaved decently after the ruling of the deputy speaker but whatever happened in the provincial assembly was improper.

“It is to be kept in mind that the judiciary interferes in the proceedings of the parliament when the Constitution is violated,” the CJP said. Babar Awan while arguing before the court submitted that the instant matter related to the steps taken by the deputy speaker of the National Assembly and allegation that the speaker while citing Article 5 of the Constitution had termed the members traitors.

He submitted that the political parties were of the view that they were dubbed as traitors under Article 5 of the Constitution The chief justice, however, said that they were not declared as traitors but the action taken under the said article.

Mr Awan said that nobody had brought up Article 63-A of the Constitution, adding that the opposition leader has demanded constitution of a commission on the alleged letter without reading the ruling of the National Security Committee.

He said that the opposition was vying for taking a relief from the court in its favour, adding that the speaker and the deputy speaker of the National Assembly cannot remain silent on foreign conspiracy and are supposed to fulfil their constitutional obligations.

A this the chief justice said that the Constitution was a living document hence they had to examine if the speaker of the National Assembly was authorised to proceed other than the agenda of the house.

What happened in Sindh House and hotels in Lahore could not be ignored, Mr Awan said, adding that all the citizens are required to remain loyal to the state. He submitted that the apex court in its judgments had held that all the citizens were required to be faithful to the state and anyone could be prosecuted for disobeying the Constitution.

“Whether the deputy speaker gave the ruling on some facts and on what grounds he gave the ruling on the day of voting and what material he had”, the CJP asked, further inquiring if the deputy speaker can give ruling by deviating from the agenda.

“You can defend the move of the speaker but for that you must have solid grounds,” the CJP told Babar Awan “If someone shows the minutes of the proceedings of the house, it could matter,” the CJP said, adding that the court follows facts and evidence

“Please don’t narrate stories and come up with facts and evidence”, the CJP told Mr Awan. Mr Awan submitted that a secret message was received on March 7 and a briefing was given on it in the cabinet. He said he could discuss it with the court in-camera.

At this Attorney-General Khalid Javed rose and submitted that the counsel for a political party should not argue on the issue of foreign policy. The chief justice said that the court could not indulge in foreign policy matters.

Mr Awan, however, contended that in the latter it was mentioned that if the no-confidence motion was not succeeded, it would not be good for the country. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokehl said that the counsel for the speaker and the deputy speaker should argue on the ruling.

The chief justice asked the counsel if the political parties were issued notices for attending the National Security Committee meeting. Mr Awan replied in the affirmative. He said that the leaders of the parties boycotted the meeting, adding that minutes of the meeting would be shared by Naeem Bukhari, counsel for the speaker and the deputy speaker.

He told the court that before the meeting the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) had demanded that the issue should be put before the parliament. He said that the ISPR DG while talking to a news channel had said that the army’s stance was the same as that of the National Security Committee.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that that no doubt every citizen was required to remain loyal to the state as enshrined in the Constitution. The judge questioned whether the party had taken any action against the defectors.

Mr Awan replied that under Article 63-A, the matter had been referred to the election commission. The chief justice said that the court would announce its verdict in accordance with the law and Constitution.

Mr Awan pleaded that a commission should be constituted to ascertain facts, adding that the proceedings of Memogate case are still pending with the court while a person is still at large. Justice Ijazul Ahsen said that the speaker could reject the resolution when leave was not granted.

“Once the leave is granted for the resolution of the no-confidence motion, it is rejected through voting only.”

“Where it is written that the no-confidence motion cannot be reversed and where it is mentioned that the speaker cannot give his ruling on no-trust move”, Mr Awan asked.

The chief justice, however, said that Article 63-A mentioned de-seating of a member for defection but “you say that there should be a severe punishment for defection.”

“The Supreme Court cannot give its verdict on defection while it can only give its decision on the declaration of the election commission,” he remarked. The CJP asked as to what remedy was available in the politics?

Mr Awan replied that the only remedy was to go to the public, adding that to deal with the deadlock, the court has taken notice with a direction that no one is allowed to take any extra-constitutional measure.

“We have floated the name for a caretaker prime minister but the opposition is bent upon using delaying tactics and abstaining from giving names as well”, Mr Awan said. “That’s why we are asking you all to conclude arguments so that the matter could not be delayed further,” Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said.

Meanwhile, Barrister Ali Zafar, counsel for President Arif Alvi, while commencing his arguments submitted that the court could not give its decision on the April 3 ruling of the deputy speaker.

“Article 69 of the Constitution is such a firewall where the apex court cannot intervene,” he submitted, adding that the article has drawn a line between the parliament and the court hence it could not be crossed over.

“If the parliament violates the Constitution what will happen?” Justice Mandokhel asked. Mr Zafar said that what was legal and illegal he would argue later on, adding that Article 66 and 68 provide protection to the parliament’s proceedings.

“Unfortunately, the petitioners have challenged the ruling of the speaker, adding that the court cannot examine the steps taken by the president on the advice of the prime minister”, Mr Zafar contended.

He said that the only remedy to the current situation was fresh elections, adding that if the ruling of the speaker is examined, every ruling of the speaker will be challenged in the court of law. He said that the ruling of the speaker could not be reversed

Justice Mandokhel asked if the house could overrule the speaker’s ruling. The counsel replied in the affirmative. Justice Munib Akhtar asked if the prime minister was removed, the court could intervene to which the counsel replied that the court could not examine any matter of the parliament.

“Neither the parliament can interfere with the courts nor can the courts intervene in the parliament’s proceedings”, Mr Zafar submitted Justice Mandokhel said nobody talked about Clause 2 of Article 5 which says that every citizen is bound to abide by the Constitution.

“If the speaker of the National Assembly is not the citizen of this country and after not ensuring implementation of Article 95 that relates to no-confidence motion, whether the speaker had not violated Article 5 of the Constitution?” Justice Mandokhel asked.

Mr Zafar simply replied that violation of the Constitution was a common occurrence. How the ruling of the speaker could be scuttled,” Justice Mandokhel asked.

Mr Zafar said that the house could overrule the ruling of the speaker but the court could not examine the decision of the parliament. Justice Ijazul Ahsen asked what would happen if the parliament failed to resolve the issue.

Mr Zafar said instead of the court the issue should be taken to the public. The court adjourned for Thursday.

Jang correspondent adds: Addressing Ali Zafar, the CJP remarked the counsel is contending that the speaker's ruling is protected even if defective.

The CJP said the wats of Hitler's dictatorship were cited whereby laws were passed, declaring opponents as traitors. The CJP remarked that the voting was due on the no-trust resolution, but what happened is unprecedented. Salahuddin's Hitler example was inappropriate for it was Hitler's party that was in power.