Actions by speaker prima facie in violation of judicious norms: Justice Miankhel

ISLAMABAD: Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel in the detailed judgment on the ruling of Deputy Speaker National Assembly has held that Article 69 of the Constitution does not place a complete bar on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

In his separate note, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel held that the actions by the Speaker, if based in violation of existing rules or the discretion so exercised by him affecting the smooth running of the functions of the House, is prima facie in violation of judicious norms, cannot be given a protecting blanket of Article 69 of the Constitution.

"Reference here can be made to the case of Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 774),” the judge noted.

The judge noted that the Attorney-General for Pakistan and the learned counsel for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, PTI, both argued that under Article 69 of the Constitution, this Court cannot inquire into any proceedings of Parliament.

Further, he argued, that the resolution of vote of no confidence was motivated by a Foreign State interested in the regime change in Pakistan; the PM, Speaker, Deputy Speaker and the Federal Minister, while relying upon a letter/communication allegedly received from a Foreign State, correctly exercised their respective constitutional powers.

Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to call in question any such constitutional action of the president, the PM, Speaker, Deputy Speaker,” Justice Miankhel referred to the arguments of Attorney General.

Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel noted that the action of the Speaker rejecting the resolution vide impugned ruling would neither fall within the meaning of term "any proceedings in the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)" used in Article 69, nor such action could be described as an exercise of power by the Speaker of the House regulating the procedure or the conduct of business in the Assembly.

Therefore, in my opinion, no question of immunity for such an action can arise under Article 69 of the Constitution,” Justice Miankhel held, adding that the impugned ruling as such was a nullity in the eye of law, worthy of no credence.

The judge further noted that adverting to the other aspect of the matter that on 03.04.2022, the session was presided over by the Deputy Speaker without any explanation why the Speaker did not preside over.

This act of both the Speaker as well as the Deputy Speaker is against the provisions of Article 53(3), which contemplates that, “when the office of Speaker is vacant, or the Speaker is absent or is unable to perform his functions due to any cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act as Speaker, and if, at that time, the Deputy Speaker is also absent or is unable to act as Speaker due to any cause, such member as may be determined by the rules of procedure of the Assembly shall preside at the meeting of the Assembly”.

Justice Miankhel further noted the record shows that the Deputy Speaker read out the impugned ruling in the name of the Speaker, as the same was also signed by the Speaker on the same day.

Meaning thereby, on the day when the Deputy Speaker presided over the session of the House and read out the impugned ruling, the office of the Speaker was neither “vacant” nor was the Speaker “absent” or “unable to perform his functions”, the judge held.

Justice Miankhel further noted that even no explanation in this regard was placed on record subsequently by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. "For the foregoing reason, I would say without any hesitation that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker had shown sheer disregard for the mandatory provisions of the Constitution,” Justice Miankhel held adding that the Deputy Speaker has had no authority to preside over the meeting of the Assembly and to pass impugned ruling on 03.04.2022, rejecting the resolution of vote of no confidence against the PM.

"The so-called ruling of Deputy Speaker is, therefore, without jurisdiction and coram non- judice,” Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel held adding that this very act of the Deputy Speaker is sufficient enough to reflect his biased and prejudiced mind, which in my view is against the norms and dignity of the chair of the Speaker. “This very act, alone, is sufficient to annul the so-called ruling which otherwise also has no legal sanctity,” Justice Miankhel held.