The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the validity of the decision of the Deputy Speaker and the automatic case filed by the President on the cancellation of the NA on the advice of the Prime Minister.
The verdict is expected at 7.30pm. In anticipation of the verdict, security was tightened on the Supreme Court premises, with riot police stationed outside the Supreme Court with television footage.
A five-member bench comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazar Alam Miankhel, Justice Muneeb Akhtar and Justice Mandokhel, headed by CJP Bandial, heard the case.
Make it clear that the decision of the Deputy Speaker is wrong: CJP
During an earlier hearing, CJP Bandial said it was clear that National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Khan Suri’s April 3 decision rejecting the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan was wrong.
“The real question is what will happen next,” he said, adding that now the PML-N’s lawyer and Pakistan’s Attorney General (AGP) Khalid Javed Khan will guide the court on how to proceed.
He said the court would issue its verdict today in the interest of the country.
Speaker does not justify decision: AGP
The AGP argued that the no-confidence motion against Imran Khan was “rejected” on March 28 and that permission was granted to move the motion. According to him, the majority needs to show support when introducing the motion.
The AGP said the move failed because 161 members of the opposition were in favor of passing the resolution on March 28.
Justice Akhtar replied that the Prime Minister would have resigned if the 172 members (majority) had passed the resolution according to this logic. To this, the AGP said that the Constitution gave the Prime Minister three to seven days to win back the angry legislators before the final vote on the resolution.
However, the CJP maintained that the requirement of 172 members was not at the level of leave sanctioned. “They are needed during voting.”
He said that if the resolution was passed by the Speaker on March 28, “it would be the end of the subject,” adding that the Speaker’s counsel could not review his decision.
If so, the AGP said the matter ended on April 3 with the same Speaker ruling rejecting the resolution.
Justice Bandiyal, however, said he would ask the AGP on the main issue of dissolving the National Assembly.
Khan said the assembly was dissolved only after action was taken on the no-confidence motion.
It remains to be seen how much time gap there will be between the dissolution of the Assembly and the decision of the Speaker. Here, Justice Mandokhel said the court will not make a decision based on the circumstances and the results.
The judge said the court would have to issue a judgment in view of the constitution. “That way … any speaker who comes tomorrow will do as he pleases.
At this point the AGP said the speaker was not justifying the decision. “My concern so far is the new election.”
Earlier, Agp Khan, who last heard his arguments, began by telling the court that he could not give details of a recent National Security Committee meeting in open court. He insisted that court orders could be issued without questioning anyone’s obedience.
He argued that the Prime Minister was a “major shareholder” and therefore had the power to repeal the NA. ‘There is no need for the Prime Minister to give reasons for dissolving the Assembly,’ the AGP said.
He said the assembly would be adjourned if the president did not take a decision on the advice of the prime minister within 48 hours.
The MLA argued that voting on a no-confidence motion was not a fundamental right.
Khan said the right to vote is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the Assembly. He also said that if the NA president suspends a member, he cannot go to court against it.
Are you trying to say that voting on a no-confidence motion is subject to rules? ” The CJP questioned.
The AGP states that there is no “firewall” that provides a complete exemption for parliamentary activities. “The court will decide the extent to which parliamentary activities can be reviewed. The AGP said the court could intervene if the speaker declares a person with minority votes as prime minister.
Justice Akhtar commented that the Speaker was the caretaker of the House. He said that the Speaker was not there for his personal satisfaction. He said that the Speaker could not just express his opinion but also ignore the members.
The AGP responded by saying that political parties play a key role in the system of parliamentary government. However, it said the assembly had a time limit and not its members. “One has the power to dissolve the Assembly.”
‘Ruling is not signed by the Deputy Speaker’
During the hearing, Justice Mandokhel said that despite Suri announcing the verdict on April 3 rejecting the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan, it was signed by Speaker Asad Khaizer.
Naeem Bukhari, a lawyer for Suri and Kaiser, made the remarks after hearing his arguments.
Responding to the judge’s statement, Bukhari said that the documents given to him may not be “original”.
Justice Mandokhel pointed out that it was not clear whether the Deputy Speaker was present during the minutes of the parliamentary committee meeting submitted to the Bukhari court.
Justice Mandokhel continued, asking whether the Foreign Minister had attended the meeting of the Parliamentary Committee, whose signature was not included.