Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial on Thursday noted that National Assembly (NA) Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri’s rulling is apparently a violation of Article 95.
The remark came during the hearing of National Assembly proceedings case, as the apex court as resumed deliberation over the case for the fifth consecutive day today. The apex court may rule on the “unconstitutional” act by National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri to block the vote of no-confidence against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The apex court’s five-member larger bench — headed by Justice Bandial and comprising Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel — is hearing the case.
At the outset of the hearing, Barrister Ali Zafar, representing President Arif Alvi, came to the rostrum and assured the court of completing his arguments within 10 minutes.
Meanwhile, Punjab Advocate General Azam Nazeer Tarar resumed his arguments saying: “A dictator once said that the Constitution is a book of 10-12 pages, I can tear it at any time.”
“A very alarming situation took place in Punjab last night as PML-N leader Hamza Shahbaz was made Chief Minister at Kunji Hotel,” Tarar said.
Tarar informed the court that Hamza, who is the former Punjab governor, will take oath as the chief minister at Bagh-e-Jinnah, Lahore today.
“Don’t make speeches, we do not want to get into Punjab’s affairs,” CJP Bandial rebuked Tarar.
The judge said that the Lahore High Court would look into this provincial affair.
Parties should settle matter on their own: CJP
“The parties of the case should settle the matter on their own through mutual consultation,” CJP Bandial remarked.
Giving his arguments, Barrister Zafar said that proceedings of both Houses of Parliament have separate privileges.
CJP Bandial asked if the NA proceedings did not have an effect on the situation outside of Parliament in this case.
“The court can intervene if any act has an affect outside Parliament,” the CJP remarked.
Meanwhile, Justice Alam inquired if any unconstitutional act in Parliament has constitutional immunity.
Whereas, Justice Mandokhel asked if there isn’t any solution if an unconstitutional act takes place in Parliament.
At this, Barrister Zafar replied that Parliament has to solve the issue and the solution is to go to the people [election].
Referring to a past judgement, Zafar said that a member in the House of Commons wasn’t allowed to take oath as the court declared that it cannot interfere.
At this, CJP Bandial asked what should be done if there is injustice in Parliament.
“Is the formation of federal government an internal affair of Parliament?” he asked.
In his response, Barrister Zafar said that the election of a prime minister or a no-confidence motion “is an internal affair of Parliament.”
“The NA is constituted to elect its speaker and prime minister. However, the court can review the formation of federal government and dissolution of assembly” he added.
At this CJP Bandial said that it would have been determined who will be the premier had the vote of no confidence against PM Imran Khan held.
Meanwhile, Justice Mandokhel noted that Parliament is responsible for legislation.
“What would happen if Parliament doesn’t legislate?” he asked.
To this, Barrister Zafar said that the old laws would stay in place if legislation is not done.
Zafar calls for decision favouring new election
Democracy and election cannot be put asunder, Barrister Zafar said, adding that voters are the most empowered.
Referring to the end of the Mohammad Khan Junejo-led government, Zafar said that the court had declared it anti-Constitutional.
“The court declared that the people will decide as the matter is going towards election,” Zafar said, requesting the apex court to rule that the decision be left to the people of Pakistani even if an illegal act has been done.
Justice Alam noted that the court has the case of no-confidence in front of it, directing Zafar to address the speaker’s ruling that came after the resolution of no-confidence was tabled.
At this, Zafar said that dissolution of the Assembly was announced in the current case as well.
No constitutional crisis in Pakistan: CJP
Meanwhile, CJP Bandial asked Zafar to share what the constitutional crisis is.
“Where is the constitutional crisis if everything is happening as per the Constitution? There is no constitutional crisis in Pakistan,” the top judge remarked.
He noted that the speaker’s ruling is apparently a violation of Article 95.
“Can anyone call a new election by giving a ruling if they are failing? Billions of rupees are spent on elections,” CJP Bandial remarked.
AGP Khalid Javed to present arguments
AGP Khalid Javed Khan, the counsels representing PM Imran Khan and the NA speaker will give arguments in today’s hearing.
Attorney General Khalid Javed Khan will argue whether the SC can intervene in the internal affairs of the NA.
The AGP had earlier said on a private TV show that the NA speaker’s ruling enjoys immunity under Article 69 only if there is a procedural irregularity, but the court has the jurisdiction to intervene in parliamentary affairs if there is unconstitutionality.
“The speaker’s role is not unlimited,” he had said.
When asked if the NA speaker can give an extra-constitutional ruling on whatever he wants, he said that there are certain things that are part of the basic constitutional structure of Pakistan and those cannot be changed even through a constitutional amendment.
“As long as the NA’s internal affairs and speaker’s rulings are on a much lower pedestal […], the apex court cannot intervene if Parliament unanimously wants to amend anything,” he said, adding that this is not so in case of violation of fundamental rights.
During Wednesday’s hearing, the counsel representing PTI and President Arif Alvi presented their defence.
Babar Awan presented arguments over the constitutionality of Suri’s ruling, while Arif Alvi’s lawyer Ali Zafar deliberated over the boundary between the judiciary and the legislature under Article 69 of the Constitution.
“The SC wants to wrap up the case today,” Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial had said, as the apex court resumed hearing the case on Wednesday.
“We first want to wrap up the case on what happened in the NA on April 3.”
SC takes suo motu notice
The CJP had taken suo motu notice of the constitutional crisis that was triggered after Suri disallowed voting on the motion on April 3, deeming it “unconstitutional” — a move that the Opposition said was a blatant violation of the Constitution.
The judge maintained in a written judgment issued during Sunday’s hearing that his fellow judges had approached him and had expressed concern over the situation.
“Any orders and actions that Prime Minister Imran Khan and President Arif Alvi regarding the dissolution of the National Assembly shall be subject to the order of this court,” CJP Bandial had said taking the notice on Sunday.
Earlier, the SC restrained state institutions from taking any extra-constitutional steps and directed them to act strictly in accordance with the Constitution, besides asking all political forces of the country to remain peaceful.
Opposition’s petition
The joint Opposition has also prepared a petition to cancel the ruling of the deputy speakers under which the National Assembly session was adjourned for an indefinite period as Suri cancelled the voting on the no-confidence motion, terming it “unconstitutional”.
According to the petition prepared by the joint Opposition, the speaker should be directed to convene the session today as “the deputy speaker cannot adjourn the session as it is unconstitutional.”
Furthermore, the Opposition has filed a petition against President Arif Alvi, PM Imran Khan, Speaker NA Asad Qaiser and Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri for violating the Constitution.
SCBA’s petition
Meanwhile, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has also filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the constitutional crisis.
The constitutional petition filed by SCBA states that a voting of no-confidence motion was a must, and the speaker cannot cancel the voting by a ruling.
It was further noted that the deputy speaker’s ruling contradicts Article 95(2). It further said that according to Article 58(1) the premier cannot even “advise dissolution of the assembly,” once the no-confidence motion is filed against him/her.
Sources privy to the matter said that a special bench of the top court will hear the case.