Home Latest News Orders of P.M., President Subject to Decision of Supreme Court: CJP

Orders of P.M., President Subject to Decision of Supreme Court: CJP

by Staff Report

Farooq Naeem—AFP

Taking notice of dissolution of National Assembly, bench questions validity of deputy speaker dismissing no-confidence on basis of Article 5 of Constitution

Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial on Sunday took notice of the political scenario unfolding in the country following the dissolution of the National Assembly, saying that “any orders passed by the Prime Minister and the President shall be subject to the order of this court.”

Former deputy speaker Qasim Khan Suri on Sunday cited Article 5 of the Constitution—“loyalty to the state is the basis duty of every citizen”—to dismiss the opposition’s resolution of no-confidence against P.M. Imran Khan, claiming it was part of a “foreign conspiracy” against Pakistan. The opposition has maintained that this narrative is “fabricated” and has demanded a review of Suri’s “unconstitutional” ruling by the apex court.

Acting in undue haste, Khan advised President Arif Alvi to dissolve the National Assembly within minutes of Suri’s ruling. Alvi, similarly, issued a notification dissolving the Lower House within hours of the “advice,” with legal experts noting that he had acted in a partisan manner that was unbecoming of his office.

A three-member bench of the Supreme Court—comprising the CJP, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Ijazul Haq—took suo motu notice of the events in the National Assembly in a hastily summoned hearing that was attended by the Attorney General of Pakistan, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and representatives of all political parties.

“At the outset, notice is issued to the Attorney General for Pakistan … on the constitutionality of the decision of the Deputy Speaker today to dismiss the motion of no-confidence on the basis of Article 5 of the Constitution,” read the order issued by the court after Sunday’s hearing. It noted that there was no record of any findings proving the oppositions was in violation of Article 5, adding no hearing was granted to the affected party. “We would also like to examine whether such action is protected by the ouster contained in Article 69 of the Constitution,” it added. Article 69 pertains to courts being barred from inquiring into proceedings of Parliament.

Stressing that the law and order situation should be maintained, the court directed all political parties to exercise restraint and warned state functionaries against taking any extra-constitutional measures. “Any order passed by the prime minister and the president shall be subject to the order of this court,” it added. In this regard, it directed the secretary of defense and the secretary of the interior to report the steps being taken to ensure public order.

“Since these matters relate to an urgent issue, therefore, office is directed to fix the same tomorrow (Monday) at 1 p.m.,” it added.

The opposition, several judges of the Supreme Court and bar associations had called for the CJP to form a full bench in light of the importance of the case. However, the CJP has merely expanded the bench from three to five members, including Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail in the hearing that would resume today.

A petition filed by the joint opposition seeks the cancellation of the deputy speaker’s ruling, noting that the Constitution does not permit the proroguing of a session until the no-confidence resolution has been voted upon. It has also filed a petition against President Arif Alvi, Imran Khan, Asad Qaiser and Qasim Suri for violating the Constitution.

Separately, the Supreme Court Bar Association has also filed a petition stating that voting on the no-confidence motion was a constitutional requirement, and the speaker cannot cancel the voting by a ruling. It contends that the deputy speaker’s ruling contradicts Article 95(2), adding that under Article 58(1) a prime minister cannot “advise dissolution of the assembly” while a no-confidence resolution is pending against them.

The PTI, however, maintains that the speaker’s ruling is “final,” and cannot be challenged in any court of law. This is patently false, as the courts have—on several occasions—examined controversial rulings of speakers and either sought correction or reversal.

Related Articles

Leave a Comment