Breaking News: Rolling of Deputy Speaker declared unconstitutional, National Assembly restored

The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the decision of Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri to reject the no-confidence motion against Prime Minis...

The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the decision of Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri to reject the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan and the decision of the President to dissolve the National Assembly.

 

A five-member larger bench of the apex court heard the suo motu notice and related petitions in the case - Photo: MAK NEWS-21

Delivering the verdict, the Chief Justice said, "It is a unanimous decision of all the judges. We consulted with each other. The Deputy Speaker April 3 rolling was unconstitutional while the Prime Minister could not advise the President to dissolve the Assembly."

The Supreme Court, while reinstating the National Assembly, directed the Speaker to convene a sitting of the lower house on Saturday, April 9, at 10:30 am and to hold a vote on the no-confidence motion.

The Chief Justice ordered that no member of the National Assembly would be barred from voting on the day of voting. Will

 

 The Supreme Court also quashed the orders of the caretaker government of the President, adding that the present order would not affect the proceedings under Article 63.

 

Key decision points:

•     The decision in the Speaker Rolling Case was unanimously announced by five nil.
•     Rolling of the Deputy Speaker and dissolution of the Assembly by the President is unconstitutional
•     The National Assembly has been restored and it has been directed to convene on April 9.
•     Order not to adjourn the assembly session without voting
•     If the no-confidence motion is passed, the National Assembly will elect a new  Prime Minister.
•     If the no-confidence motion fails, the government will continue to run its affairs.
•     Order not to prevent any member of National Assembly from voting.
•     All orders of the caretaker government were quashed.
•     Order to reinstate Prime Minister Imran Khan and his cabinet.

It takes 6 to 7 months for delimitation, Chief Election Commissioner said

Before announcing the verdict, the Chief Justice summoned Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja to the rostrum and inquired about the conduct of the election, to which the Chief Election Commissioner said that we should be ready to hold elections in 90 days. The time is ripe for elections but we have to set boundaries, so we need 6 to 7 months.

The Chief Justice further inquired whether you have to demarcate the entire country or any one area.

The Chief Election Commissioner replied that the whole country would be demarcated while demarcation would be possible in 6 to 7 months.

He said that for transparent elections it is necessary to have constituencies, after the integration of FATA all constituencies of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa will change, 12 seats of FATA have been lost and merged into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The Chief Justice directed the Election Commission to take all necessary steps to fulfill its responsibility.

Following the Supreme Court decision, the Prime Minister resumed his duties, including in the Federal Cabinet.

Prior to the verdict, security measures were tightened outside the Supreme Court and additional police personnel were called in, while several leaders of PTI and opposition parties, including Fawad Chaudhry, Faisal Javed, Shahbaz Sharif and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, went to court to hear the verdict. Great arrival.

A scuffle ensued between the lawyers and police officers as they entered the courtroom.

Before the verdict was announced, the Chief Election Commissioner, Secretary Election Commission along with the legal team had reached the Supreme Court on summons.

Details of today hearing

Earlier, a five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Omar Ata Bandial heard the suo motu notice and petitions of various parties for the fifth consecutive day today.

The larger bench consisted of Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Mian Khel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.

At the beginning of the hearing, the situation in Punjab was mentioned. Advocate General Punjab Ahmed Owais came to the rostrum and told the court that at night in a private hotel all the members of the Provincial Assembly made Hamza Shahbaz the Chief Minister. They will take oath in Jinnah Garden.

Read also: Prime Minister, all orders of the President will be subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court

We will not give any order regarding Punjab, take the matter to the High Court, Chief Justice

Advocate General said that Hamza Shahbaz has also called a meeting of bureaucrats today, the constitution is a very trivial matter for them.

On this, Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial said that he would not issue any order regarding Punjab, take the matter of Punjab to the High Court, did not want to divert attention from the case of National Assembly.

Justice Mazhar Alam Mian Khel said that the doors of the Punjab Assembly were sealed yesterday. Can the Assembly be sealed like this?

Later, the Chief Justice removed PML-N lawyer Azam Nazir Tarar and Advocate General Punjab from the rostrum.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that the Prime Minister is not the representative of the whole nation? Barrister Ali Zafar, counsel for the President, said that the Prime Minister is undoubtedly the representative of the people.

Justice Mazhar Alam Khel said that if the constitution is violated in the parliament, will it be protected? Isn't the court the guardian of the constitution?

Barrister Ali Zafar: Court cannot review PM election and no-confidence motion

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that if anyone is affected by the proceedings of Parliament then how will there be justice? If there is no justice, then the court will remain silent?

Barrister Ali Zafar said that the protection of the constitution can only be in accordance with the constitution, the formation of the government and the dissolution of the assembly can be reviewed by the court.

The Chief Justice said that if the no-confidence motion had been voted, it would have been known who would be the Prime Minister.

Barrister Ali Zafar said that the court cannot review both the election of the Prime Minister and the no-confidence motion. If the parliament fails then the matter goes to the people.

The Chief Justice said that if the abuse is from the entire House instead of one member, what will happen?

Barrister Ali Zafar said that if there is a difference of opinion among the judges, can the parliament intervene? Just as parliament cannot intervene, so can the judiciary.

Read more: Supreme Court questions Babar Awan about minutes of National Security Committee meeting

The Chief Justice said that the process of formation of the federal government is an internal matter of Parliament.

On this, Barrister Ali Zafar said that the election of the Prime Minister and the issue of no-confidence motion is the prerogative of the Parliament.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that the decision which you have referred to, Ali Zafar Sahib, is related to the oath.

Ali Zafar, counsel for the President, while referring to the verdict in the Junejo case, said that the government of Muhammad Khan Junejo was overthrown. ۔

Justice Mazhar Alam said that the matter before us is a matter of no-confidence. Rolling came after no-confidence.

The Chief Justice said, "Why don't you explain what the constitutional crisis is?" If everything is going according to the constitution then where is the constitutional crisis? The prime minister is continuing his work according to the constitution, the process of appointment of caretaker prime minister is also going on, where is the crisis in all this? Everything is happening according to the constitution, there could be a crisis elsewhere in the country.

Barrister Ali Zafar said that my request is that there is no constitutional crisis in the country.

Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial said that apparently there was a violation of Article 95. If anyone else has a majority then the government should announce the election. Yes, it is in the national interest.

He remarked that it would have been very wrong for the Speaker and the Prime Minister to extend the tenure of the Prime Minister. In the present situation, the National Assembly was dissolved on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Barrister Ali Zafar said that the elections were announced by dissolving the assembly here too. The announcement of elections shows that the government's move was not malicious.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that if the majority of the assembly does not want dissolution, can the Prime Minister recommend to the President?

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that despite the deviant members, the PTI is the majority party, what will happen if the majority party is out of the system?
The court asked the parliament to clean up its own mess

Barrister Ali Zafar said that as the lawyer of the President, he could not give a political opinion and at the same time his arguments were completed.

Imtiaz Siddiqui, counsel for PM Imran Khan, while initiating the arguments, said that the court has not interfered in the proceedings of Parliament in the past as well. Ask the parliament to clean up its own mess.

The Chief Justice remarked that by calling for elections, the country is left helpless for 90 days. The Prime Minister is acting on the instructions of the President.

Read also: The formation of caretaker government is stalled due to the case, want to deal quickly, Chief Justice

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that if a coalition government is formed then is it possible to put the largest party against the wall.

Imtiaz Siddiqui said that the opposition had not objected to the presidency of the Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Speaker decided what he thought was best.

Imtiaz Siddiqui added that the Supreme Court could not interfere in the proceedings of Parliament under Article 69.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that the decisions cited included observations and were not bound by the observations made in the court decisions.

Imtiaz Siddiqui said that the Deputy Speaker relied on the National Security Committee, the Security Committee can not be affected.

The Chief Justice inquired when the minutes of the National Security Committee were placed before the Deputy Speaker. On which Imtiaz Siddiqui said that he did not know about the issue of Deputy Speaker, the Chief Justice said that do not talk about what you do not know.

Taking advantage of the situation, the Prime Minister dissolved the Assembly, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan

The Chief Justice said that according to you, the Deputy Speaker had the material on the day of voting on which rolling was given. The Prime Minister violated the limits of Article 58. What will be the consequences? The Deputy Speaker had no problem with the voting on March 28. Rolling came on the day of voting. Why did the Speaker not reject the no-confidence motion on March 28?

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that if the Assembly had not been dissolved, the House could have ended the rolling of the Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister took advantage of the situation and dissolved the Assembly.

The lawyer of the prime minister said that if the constitution had been harmed then the deputy speaker could have suspended the membership of deviant members. The prime minister did not show any malice. Ruled for many years.

The Chief Justice said that you are saying that the Prime Minister made the plan on his own. Why did the Speaker not give the roll call on March 28?

Imtiaz Siddiqui said that there was no plan to reject the no-confidence motion, we dissolved our own government.
In the past, the Supreme Court had avoided interference, Naeem Bukhari

After the completion of Imtiaz Siddiqui's arguments, Naeem Bukhari, who was following the Speaker, said that the question was that the point of order cannot be taken in the no-confidence motion. Will the point of order be discussed anytime? The point of order can be taken at any time, including the no-confidence motion.

Read more: Can decide in the air, all political parties are respected, Chief Justice

The Chief Justice said that the point of order was removed by the law minister. Do you have the text of the law minister's point of order?

Justice Mazhar Alam inquired whether any material was presented to the Speaker.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked whether the rolling was constitutional or unconstitutional. If rolling was unconstitutional, could the Supreme Court review it?

Naeem Bukhari said that what method was wrong during rolling? In the past, the Supreme Court had avoided interference. If Speaker Fawad Chaudhry's point of order had been rejected, could the Supreme Court have been approached.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked whether it was unconstitutional for the Speaker not to hold a no-confidence vote.

Naeem Bukhari said that if the speaker had rejected the point of order, would the court have intervened even then? At the point of order, the Speaker may reject the motion of no confidence. This has never happened before, but the Speaker has the power.

He further said that in the past when the assembly was dissolved, the election process was not stopped even though it was declared wrong.

Naeem Bukhari said that as soon as the proceedings of the assembly started, Fawad Chaudhry demanded a point of order. If voting on a no-confidence motion had started, a point of order could not have been taken.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan asked what is the difference between the word motion and movement? On which Naeem Bukhari said that the words Motion and Tehreek are used in the same term.

Read also: Courts should not make these decisions, Fawad Chaudhry

At the same time, Naeem Bukhari, counsel for the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, presented the minutes of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security in the court.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that where the power to reject the Speaker's motion is written in the law, we want to understand the definition of point of order.

The Chief Justice said that the question was whether a new point of order could be raised when a no-confidence motion was raised.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked whether the point of order raised was included in the agenda.

Naeem Bukhari told the court that the point of order could be discussed at any time.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that voting on no-confidence motion is a constitutional requirement. Can the constitutional right to vote be made ineffective by rules?

Referring to the Question Hour in the National Assembly on March 28, Naeem Bukhari said that all the opposition members had asked the voters not to ask questions but to hold a vote.

He further said that the parliamentary committee on national security was briefed on the letter and the committee was told that if the no-confidence motion failed then the results would not be good.

The Chief Justice said that according to the records, 11 people had participated in the parliamentary committee on national security. The names of those briefing the parliamentary committee were not included in the meeting minutes.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that who gave the briefing to the parliamentary committee?

Justice Mazhar Alam said that the proceedings of the parliament were very difficult for 2 or 3 minutes.

The Chief Justice said that shouldn't the opposition have been given a chance at the point of order?

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that the rolling was given by the Deputy Speaker while the signatures on the rolling belong to the Speaker. Where are the signatures of the Deputy Speaker?

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that the minutes of the parliamentary committee meeting did not indicate the presence of the Deputy Speaker, whether the Deputy Speaker was present in the meeting.

Naeem Bukhari said that the document presented is probably not original.

Read more: The President wrote a letter to the Election Commission to hold elections in 90 days

Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked whether the Foreign Minister was present in the parliamentary committee meeting. The signature of the Foreign Minister is not visible in the minutes of the meeting. Shouldn't the Foreign Minister have been present in the meeting?

The court said that the foreign minister should have been present in the parliamentary committee meeting, and the name of national security adviser Moeed Yousuf did not appear in the meeting minutes. The Chief Justice said that there were 57 members present in the National Security Meeting of the Parliamentary Committee.

Presenting Fawad Chaudhry point of order in the court, Naeem Bukhari said that point of order is not discussed.

Minutes of National Security Committee meeting cannot be given in open court: Attorney General

Initiating his arguments, Attorney General Khalid Javed Khan said that he would not be able to give the details of the National Security Committee meeting in open court, the court can decide without questioning anyone's loyalty.

He said that the Prime Minister is the biggest stakeholder so he also has the power to dissolve the Assembly, it is not necessary to give reasons to the Prime Minister to dissolve the Assembly.

He further said that if the President does not take a decision on the recommendation then the Assembly will be dissolved automatically after 48 hours. If he is suspended, he cannot come to court for reinstatement.

The Chief Justice said that you want to say that the no-confidence motion is subject to voting rules?

The attorney general said that all proceedings, including the no-confidence motion, were in accordance with the rules.
The extent to which parliamentary proceedings can be reviewed will be decided by the court, the attorney general said

The attorney general added that he did not consider the parliamentary proceedings to be a complete exception as there is a wall of fire. The court will decide the extent to which the parliamentary proceedings can be reviewed.

He said the court could intervene if the speaker announced that the low-voter would become the prime minister.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that the Speaker is the caretaker of the House. The Speaker does not sit only for his personal satisfaction.

Also read: Awaiting Judgment Decision But Only Solution Is Fresh Mandate, Shah Mehmood Qureshi

The Attorney General said that political parties have an important role to play in the parliamentary system of government.

He said that the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan had ended on March 28. The no-confidence motion has to be approved by the House.

The Chief Justice said that the right of no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister has been given by the Constitution.

The Attorney General said that it is not necessary to have 20% ie 68 members for approval of the motion, what will happen if 68 members approve the motion and reject more than that?

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that if 172 members approve the motion, then the Prime Minister will resign.

The attorney general said that 86 members were required to fill the quorum in the assembly and a majority must be proved at the time of approval of the motion.

The Chief Justice said that there is a need to state a basis for the no-confidence motion.

The Attorney General said that it was not necessary to give any basis for the motion of no-confidence motion, all 172 people would come forward when the motion was moved. Can celebrate members.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that 20% of the members should have had a discussion when they moved the motion. The Prime Minister knows everything.

The Chief Justice said that if Fawad Chaudhry had objected on March 28, could the motion have been rejected before it was moved?

On which the Attorney General said that the motion could have been rejected even when it was presented, the motion of no confidence was not allowed to be presented legally.

Read more: Deputy Speaker's Rolling, open letter from civil society leaders to Chief Justice

Justice Mazhar Alam said that the Speaker declared that the motion was passed, how can you challenge it?

The Attorney General said that if the Speaker could not be challenged, then the case was over.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that where the Constitution of Pakistan has mentioned elections, how can this constitutional authority be abolished?

The attorney general said the question was to what extent the judiciary had the power to examine the proceedings of parliament.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that the Speaker is the protector of Parliament, does the Speaker have the power to go against the constitutional requirements.

The attorney general said there were 169 members when the no-confidence motion was passed.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that if your point is taken into account then 172 members of Parliament were present. In that sense, the Prime Minister has resigned.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar further said that suppose 68 members are required to move a no-confidence motion, the members are 67, the speaker counts 68, then voting on a no-confidence motion against the prime minister, the prime minister is dismissed. What will happen to me

"My main case is that the no-confidence motion was not approved," the attorney general said.

Justice Omar Ata Bandial said that there should be 172 members for voting, 172 members are not required at the Leo Grant stage, under Article 55, decisions in the House are taken by majority.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that if 172 members were required at the time of Leo Grant then it was over.

We need a strong government, it will be a very difficult task for the Leader of the Opposition, Chief Justice

The Chief Justice said that dissolution of the Assembly is the real issue, you want to hear about it, we have to see how much time difference there is between dissolving the Assembly and rolling the Speaker.

The attorney general said the assembly was dissolved only after the no-confidence motion was dealt with.

Read also: Speaker detailed rolling, opposition accused of colluding with foreign powers

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that the court should not decide on the basis of circumstances and results, the court should decide on the basis of the constitution. No, the results will not go away.

The attorney general said he was not defending Rowling, but was advocating for new elections.

Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial said that we also have to look at the national interest, one thing is clear, rolling is wrong, we have to see what will happen next.

He further said that it is very clear that Rolling was given wrong, the question is what to do next, now the Attorney General and the lawyers of PML-N tell how to move forward, we have to look after the national interest. The verdict will be announced today.

Later, the hearing was adjourned for some time, during which the security of the Supreme Court was beefed up.

The attorney general said that the court had rejected the review of the dismissed employees and paved the way for their reinstatement.

He said that there are also opposition leaders, take suggestions from the opposition, the current mandate is for the 2018 assembly, how strong it will be if someone forms a government today.

Therefore, the court summoned the opposition leader to the rostrum.

The Chief Justice said that there is no money left for electricity and other facilities in Sri Lanka, today the rupee has depreciated, it has reached ڈالر 190, we need a strong government, it will be a very difficult task for the Leader of the Opposition.

Coming to the rostrum, Shahbaz Sharif said, "I will not speak legally as a common man. It is an honor for me to appear before the court. The no-confidence motion will be revived when the rolling is over."

"My only request is to restore the National Assembly. The constitution has been violated many times in our history. This has happened due to the fact that those who were blundered have not been ratified and punished," he said.

Shahbaz Sharif further said that the court should restore the parliament in the name of Allah and Pakistan, the parliament should be allowed to vote on no-confidence, as the Leader of the Opposition offered the Charter of Economy 190, Parliament should do its job.

Read more: No-confidence motion against PM unconstitutional, resolution rejected

Shahbaz Sharif said that PTI had also formed a government with its allies. In its first speech, it had talked about the Charter of Economy. I will go, I will not make political accusations, I still ask you to sign the Charter of Economy.

The Chief Justice said that the party which gets majority is in favor, they will not comment on politics.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that the opposition wanted to hold elections from the first day, on which Shahbaz Sharif said that the issue is to break the constitution. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that we will repair the constitution.

PML-N lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan told the court that it should not be said who will not leave whom, who will give a surprise, the Prime Minister had announced to give a surprise.

The Chief Justice said that he had always demanded new elections, why he did not agree today, he has clarified his decision on surprise.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that if the no-confidence motion is successful then what will be the duration of the assembly?

Shahbaz Sharif said that there is one and half year of Parliament left, we will work with our opposition to carry out electoral reforms so that transparent elections can take place, we will try to create relief for the common man who has been destroyed.

The Attorney General said that everyone wants the members of the Assembly to become the elected Prime Minister of the people, those who have overthrown Imran Khan will they forgive Shahbaz Sharif? If the opposition's demand for elections is being met, let it happen.

The PML-N lawyer said that the last words of the Attorney General were threatening, the stock market crashed, the dollar became expensive and the rupee depreciated.

Read also: I am sure that judges will protect the constitution of Pakistan in any case, Shahbaz Sharif

The Chief Justice said that these are all economic problems. Makhdoom Ali Khan said that who has created these economic problems? "I don't think we are here to answer questions," the chief justice said.

Makhdoom Ali Khan said that politics changes day by day, apart from deviant members, the opposition has 177 members.
Prove those who have accused him of treason, Chief Justice

At the request of the Chief Justice, Makhdoom Ali Khan told the court the party-wise details of the opposition members.

The Chief Justice said that he was hearing the case under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution and would protect the rights of the people.

Article 184 (3) of the Constitution

'Without affecting the provisions of Article 199, the Supreme Court, if it deems that there is a question of public importance in the exercise of any of the fundamental rights assigned by Chapter 1 of Part II, is subject to the said Article. I will have the authority to issue any order of the nature mentioned.

Makhdoom Ali Khan said that he had guessed that the government would eventually go to the polls, knowing that it was not possible to defend the Speaker's rolling.

Makhdoom Ali Khan said that Haji Saifullah case is a case of discrimination.

Chief Justice said that you seem to have come to this point prepared. Makhdoom Ali Khan said that I knew they would come here.

The Chief Justice said that 58 (2) (b) was removed from the Constitution in a democratic manner.

Read more: Committee formed for caretaker PM, Speaker seeks names

Makhdoom Ali Khan said that after this rolling, if the steps are confirmed, then a message will be sent to remove the plug so that the other cannot come.

The PML-N lawyer said that there is a PTI government in three assemblies. How will the elections be transparent with provincial governments?

The Chief Justice said that there are very serious allegations against the opposition, refrain from using harsh words, the court will not go on merit nor will it decide on the allegations.

Shahbaz Sharif said that how will the elections be fought with the charge of treason? We cannot confront the family with this accusation.

The Chief Justice said that those who have accused him of treason should prove it.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that if the rolling is over then how will the charge be maintained?

The Chief Justice said that the relationship between the political parties is so bad that it is not known whether they can go along or not. Mian Sahib, they are angry with you and do not shake hands.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said leave Mian Sahib, nothing was said to any of you.

Shahbaz Sharif said that bring evidence of conspiracy, accepting every sentence of the court, I will leave politics.

The Chief Justice said that there is a lot of criticism about us on social media, everyone is respected in politics, the court will not allow anyone to disrespect.

The Chief Justice said that there is a lot of criticism about us on social media. Political people should not defile the premises of the Supreme Court. Yes, I was told to ban media talk outside, I told the staff I would request politicians in the court room.

Raza Rabbani said that he did not want to make the new elections controversial. Due to lack of electoral reforms, both the last election and the Establishment became controversial.

Later, the Supreme Court reserved its decision and announced that it would be announced at 7.30 pm.

The Chief Justice said that the court proceedings are complete, now we will consider the matter, the verdict will be announced at 7.30 pm.

PML-N lawyer said that dissolving Zia-ul-Haq assembly and dissolving Imran Khan's assembly are both unconstitutional. Zia-ul-Haq used 58 to B while Imran Khan used 95 unconstitutional.

During the hearing, the court also summoned PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari to the rostrum. Bilawal Bhutto said that we want supremacy of the constitution.

Talking to Bilawal, the Chief Justice said, "Your three generations have sacrificed for the survival of democracy. We value you."

The Chief Justice asked where the United Opposition had made proposals for electoral reform. Submit suggestions for electoral reform.

198 Shahbaz Sharif said that the members were accused of treason.

The Chief Justice said that politicians can live under one roof, your heart is big, Imran Khan is angry with you, we want stability, peace and prosperity in the country, we are being criticized, social media is big on us. Made kind, there are fights and quarrels outside, this country is made for everyone, everyone should be right.

Statement of last 4 hearings:

During the hearing on April 6, the President had objected to the admissibility of the petitions filed under Article 184/3 and his lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar had said that the case was in fact an interference in the prerogatives of Parliament. Can test the law made by but cannot intervene.

Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial had remarked that Article 69 of the Constitution has its place but there is no precedent for what happened. If it is allowed to happen, it could have very negative effects.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that there is no one to ask, if someone betrayed then the head of the country blew up the whole assembly.

Read more: Supreme Court questions Babar Awan about minutes of National Security Committee meeting

Earlier in the hearing on April 5, PPP's Raza Rabbani and PML-N's Makhdoom Ali Khan had completed their arguments while the Chief Justice had said that they wanted to settle the case soon. Is blocked from ...

Earlier in the April 4 hearing, the apex court had rejected the PPP's request for a full court bench to hear the case.

In the first hearing of the case, the Supreme Court directed all political forces and state institutions to play their role in accordance with the constitutional limits and made all the orders of the Prime Minister and the President subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court.

No-confidence motion rejected

It may be recalled that the opposition had filed a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan on March 8, after which voting was expected on April 3 after a delay.

However, the National Assembly session chaired by Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri begins. Speaking during Question Hour, Law Minister Fawad Chaudhry raised serious objections to the resolution.

Fawad Chaudhry had termed the no-confidence motion tabled by the opposition as an attempt to change the government in Pakistan from abroad.

After which the Deputy Speaker dismissed the no-confidence motion as unconstitutional and adjourned the sitting indefinitely.

Assembly dissolution

Addressing the nation immediately after the adjournment of the lower house, Prime Minister Imran Khan announced to send a proposal to the President to dissolve the assemblies and directed the nation to prepare for new elections.

The Prime Minister had said that after the decision taken by the Speaker using his powers, he had sent a proposal to the President to dissolve the Assemblies. We should go to the people in a democratic manner and the people should decide who they want.

The President later approved a proposal by the Prime Minister to dissolve the National Assembly under Articles 58 (1) and 48 (1) of the Constitution.

Late last night, after dramatic changes in the situation, President Arif Ali issued a decree directing that after the dissolution of the National Assembly, the Cabinet and the removal of the Prime Minister, the caretaker Prime Minister should be appointed. Imran Khan will continue to work in this position.

Supreme Court suo motu notice

Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial had taken suo motu notice of the political situation that had arisen after the no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister was rejected by the opposition in the National Assembly by Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri.

Apart from the suo motu notice, petitions were also filed in the apex court by various parties on which a one-member larger bench was constituted for hearing.

In the preliminary hearing, the apex court had directed all political forces and state institutions to play their role in accordance with the constitutional limits and said that all orders of the prime minister and the president would be subject to the final decision of the apex court.

The Chief Justice said that no government body would act unconstitutionally, all political parties and government bodies would not benefit from this situation.