In the hearing of the case related to the rolling of the Deputy Speaker in the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial has said that t...
In the hearing of the case related to the rolling of the Deputy Speaker in the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial has said that the court is being accused of not making a decision, how can one give a unilateral decision? At the same time, he asked PTI lawyer Babar Awan where are the minutes of the National Security Committee meeting.
 |
| Larger bench of the Supreme Court is hearing the case; file photo: AFP |
A five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Omar Ata Bandial today held the fourth consecutive hearing on the suo motu notice and petitions of various parties.
At the beginning of the hearing, PML-N lawyer Azam Nazir Tarar said that the situation in Lahore is tense. There will be no selection.
Read also: The formation of caretaker government is stalled due to the case, want to deal quickly, Chief Justice
The Chief Justice said that a very important case is being heard today, an attempt is being made to settle the case, the court is being accused of not making a decision, try to resolve the issue politically, how can one give a unilateral decision. Are there
During the hearing, PTI lawyer Babar Awan argued that the decision of the British court quoted in the case does not apply in the case, can the constitution of Pakistan be compared with the constitution of India, Australia and England. ?
Let us know. Speaker Rolling on Nexus basis, Chief Justice
He said that what happened in Sindh House and Awari Hotel Lahore can be ignored? I will also give a note of Qur'an and Sunnah and Mufti Taqi Usmani on the role of members of the Assembly. No one said a word on Article 63A, they claim that the parliamentarians are trying to save democracy.
He said that the PML-N president had demanded the formation of the commission through a press conference. Also release
In an interview with PTI lawyer, the Chief Justice asked whether the Speaker has the power to deviate from the Order of the Day, whether the Speaker has the power to destroy the constitutional provision of no-confidence, whether the Speaker has constitutional requirements. Can be set aside.
He said that we will not go for rumors and accusations, don't tell us long stories, don't tell us the routes, we will find the routes ourselves, tell us on what basis the speaker gave the rolling.
Read more: Can't decide in the air, all political parties are respected, Chief Justice
Babar Awan told the court that there are three parts of the case, the first part is before the no-confidence motion, the second part is related to the rolling of the speaker about which Naeem Bukhari will give arguments and the third part is after the rolling. The arguments will be related to MNC.
Justice Omar Ata Bandial was asked what MNC is, to which Babar Awan replied that MNC stands for Motion of No Confidence, the Chief Justice said that it could also mean a multinational corporation.
The Chief Justice remarks caused laughter in the courtroom.
The Chief Justice said that tell us why the Speaker gave the rolling motion, give us arguments on the point whether the Speaker has the power to destroy the constitutional provision of no-confidence.
The Chief Justice further said that we have to see whether the Speaker has the power to deviate from the agenda in the House and move on to any other issue, there is a constitutional way to sideline it, can it ?
The Chief Justice said that the courts run according to the law, an allegation has been made in this case, the Deputy Speaker has taken a step, come to the facts, before making a decision want to know what is the conspiracy on the basis of which Rolling. was given.
Babar Awan said that the meeting is held and its cipher arrives in Pakistan on March 7. The meeting was attended by three diplomats including the Deputy Head of Mission, Defense Attach.
Read also: Prime Minister, all orders of the President will be subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court
The court inquired whether the word decipher was used in the information codes or in a sealed envelope. On this Babar Awan said that I do it in such a way that our Foreign Office looks at it.
Babar Awan said that a meeting is called in which Foreign Secretary is not available, all citizens must be loyal to the state, Article 4 gives the same rights to foreign citizens as Pakistanis, any in the world. Foreigners have not been given such rights in the country. The case pending in the court is not about fundamental rights.
Where are the minutes of the National Security Council meeting, Chief Justice?
The court further asked whether the Speaker could go beyond Article 95 with a rolling motion which is not on the agenda, must defend the Speaker's rolling but on concrete material, where are the minutes of the National Security Council meeting?
Justice Omar Ata Bandial said that the Deputy Speaker has come to a conclusion in the rolling, on what material the Deputy Speaker exercised his authority, speak the facts before the court.
Babar Awan said that the letter comes after the meeting of Head of Mission, Deputy Head of Mission, Defense Attach ،. We received the report on March 7.
The Chief Justice said that when the meeting of the Head of Mission took place, you do not have the date of the meeting, the rolling is based on allegations instead of facts.
Babar Awan said that the letter said that the other country was not happy with our Prime Minister. The letter said that if the no-confidence motion failed, what would be the consequences.
The Attorney General objected to the arguments of the PTI lawyer and said that it would be appropriate for the lawyer of any political party not to talk about foreign policy.
Read more: Courts should not make these decisions: Fawad Chaudhry
The Chief Justice further said that the point of the Attorney General is also correct, we also do not want to get involved in foreign policy matters.
Babar Awan said that four things came to light in the letter, the official could not give more details under the Secret Act. Was
The Chief Justice inquired when the meeting of the Federal Cabinet was held. Babar Awan said that he will know the date of the cabinet meeting. The Foreign Ministry briefs the cabinet meeting by making a note from the cipher. I have prepared a brief which I can show in the camera hearing.
The Chief Justice said that at present he was not asking for the letter and at the same time rejected the request of Babar Awan for these camera briefings and said that at present there is nothing to hear these cameras.
Babar Awan, while presenting the conversation of the Pakistan Army spokesman on private TV in the court, said that the Pakistan Army spokesman said that he agreed with the announcement of the National Security Committee meeting.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that let the Speaker lawyer do these things, no doubt every citizen should be loyal to the state, what action was taken against those who were accused?
Babar Awan said that the government has not taken any action against them, PTI has decided to take action against its members, Pakistan is first, the Prime Minister and the cabinet acted carefully, I am also taking precautions. ۔
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that political parties should also think for themselves, you should focus on arguments and not de-track.
Lawyer PTI said that there is a deadlock in the formation of caretaker government, so Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that is why they are asking you to give arguments quickly, we have taken an oath to protect the constitution, we will give the decision that It will be in the interest of the nation.
This case is an interference in the privilege of Parliament, Barrister Ali Zafar
When the arguments of PTI lawyer Babar Awan were completed, then the lawyer of the President Barrister Ali Zafar started his arguments.
Barrister Ali Zafar said that the case under discussion is about interpretation of Articles 95 and 69. Six principles have been laid down for interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution. The provisions of the Constitution should be understood according to its true spirit instead of words
He said that the court proceedings could not be brought under discussion in the Parliament and thus the courts could not interfere in the privileges of the Parliament. Unfortunately, the petitioners wanted the case to be heard as an appeal against the rolling of the Deputy Speaker.
The president lawyer said that the case was in fact an interference in the prerogatives of the parliament. The Supreme Court could examine the law made by the parliament but could not intervene. Can't even be challenged.
Read also: The President wrote a letter to the Election Commission to hold elections in 90 days
The Chief Justice said that he was saying that a new Speaker should come and re-vote should be held. Can the Speaker also dissolve the entire Parliament?
Ali Zafar said that the speaker can do this, rolling cannot be returned.
The President objected to the admissibility of the petitions filed under Article 184/3.
Barrister Ali Zafar said that if a case is pending in the court then the parliament does not comment on it, the court also does not interfere in the proceedings of the parliament, in this case the speaker has also been made a party.
He said that any direction from the court would exceed its jurisdiction, to approach the court against the rolling of the deputy speaker is interference in the parliament, the instructions given to the speaker must actually be given to the parliament which is unconstitutional.
The Chief Justice pointed out that if Parliament violates the Constitution, can there be no interference even then?
Barrister Ali Zafar further said that I will give arguments later on whether it is unconstitutional or not. Justice Maqbool Baqir on his retirement spoke about balance in institutions. Only mutual respect can create balance in institutions.
He further said that if the House is not satisfied with the Speaker then it can distrust him. If the Speaker's rolling is reviewed then every decision of the Speaker will come in the court. The court does not have the power to review the Speaker's rolling.
The Supreme Court can intervene where there is a constitutional violation, Chief Justice
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan asked if the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve the Assembly could be reviewed.
Barrister Ali Zafar said that if the advice to dissolve the assembly is as a result of rolling then it cannot be reviewed.
Parliament should be given a chance to solve its own problems.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked whether the election of the Prime Minister is part of the parliamentary proceedings. Barrister Ali Zafar said that the election of the Prime Minister under Article 91 is part of the parliamentary process.
Barrister Ali Zafar said the court could only consider the no-confidence motion if it was not a parliamentary proceeding.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that if the votes are less and the Speaker announces the victory of the no-confidence motion, what will happen?
The president's lawyer added that these may be parliamentary issues but the court cannot be a monitor on parliament.
The Chief Justice said that your point is interesting that even if the rolling of the speaker is wrong, he has the right to do so. What's wrong with going public?
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that how the rights of anyone are being affected by going to the polls?
Read more: 'Drafting of letter' done in Foreign Office, Maryam Nawaz
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that Article 5 speaks of loyalty to the state, sub-article 2 of Article 5 speaks of observance of the Constitution, observance of the Constitution is obligatory on all.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that the decision of the British Parliament was reversed by the British Supreme Court.
Barrister Ali Zafar Khan said that the Supreme Court determines the prerogatives of the Parliament, this case is a violation of Article 95 of the Constitution, where there is a violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court can intervene, we respect the sanctity of Parliament.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan asked whether the violation of the constitution also has parliamentary protection.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that the constitution has given procedure for no-confidence motion and action against deviant members. There are rules for other matters. Can the Prime Minister be removed even though there is no majority in the parliament?
Barrister Ali Zafar said that things can be thought differently.
According to your argument, the majority of the entire Parliament is on one side and the power of the Speaker is on the other side.
The Chief Justice said that first of all we have to look at our judicial precedents, if there is ambiguity then we will move towards international precedents, if the Speaker has maliciously saved a political party then it is wrong.
Barrister Ali Zafar, counsel for the President of Pakistan, said that the President was bound by the recommendation of the Prime Minister and it was not necessary to give reasons for recommending dissolution of the Assembly.
Read also: President Arif Alvi dissolves the National Assembly on the proposal of the Prime Minister
Justice Jamal Khan said that the no-confidence motion and the procedure for taking action against deviant members was in the constitution.
What happened if allowed to happen could have very negative effects, Chief Justice
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel questioned whether the Prime Minister could remain the Prime Minister even after losing the majority, whether the President could ask the Prime Minister the reasons for dissolving the Assembly.
Barrister Ali Zafar said that the President is bound by the recommendation of the Prime Minister, it is not necessary to give reasons in recommending the dissolution of the Assembly.
The Chief Justice said 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.
The Chief Justice said that Barrister Salahuddin had given a wrong example of Hitler yesterday. In Hitler's time, the German Parliament and the government were maintained through rolling. In the present case, an appeal has been made to the people in which there is nothing wrong.
The attorney general said that the dictator never announces elections.
The Chief Justice remarked that apparently the no-confidence motion was going to be successful.
Read also: No-confidence motion against PM unconstitutional, resolution rejected
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.
The attorney general said he would give arguments tomorrow.
The Chief Justice said that if there are any reservations then why they are afraid to go public. The Speaker has constitutional protection but there is no precedent for what happened in the past. If this was allowed to happen then the whole example of Hitler's attitude towards his opponents was given.
The Chief Justice said that what is happening in Punjab is an ideal situation to approach the people, tomorrow we will hear the case of Punjab but solve our own problem, we want to complete the arguments of lawyers today, so the hearing is long. We are waiting to hear from the Attorney General, now we will also listen to Naeem Bukhari.
Naeem Bukhari said that I am fasting today, if I have permission, I want to give arguments tomorrow, I will not take much time for arguments.
The Attorney General also said that I will give arguments tomorrow, most of my arguments will be on legal points.
Barrister Ali Zafar said that the parliament should be allowed to solve its own problems.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that what would happen if the issues could not be resolved by the parliament itself?
Barrister Ali Zafar said that the court should leave the matter to the people instead of interfering. In the NRO case, the Prime Minister was directed to write a letter to the Swiss authorities. The court ruled that the speaker's job was to enforce the decision, adding that the speaker job was not parliamentary proceedings but could be challenged.
Barrister Ali Zafar said that the court can review the eligibility of any member of the assembly, the court has to explain the extent of interference in the proceedings of parliament.
Lawyer Secretary Punjab Assembly said that there was a lot of disruption in the assembly so the meeting was adjourned till April 16. The Deputy Speaker has been missing since this morning and he is not being contacted. The notification of this evening's meeting is fake.
The Chief Justice said that if the system was not cooperating then the Iron Officials could exercise their discretion.
Azam Nazir Tarar said that the government does not have a majority so elections are not being allowed.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked whether they can interfere in the order of Deputy Speaker.
Lawyer Secretary Punjab Assembly said that the notification of Deputy Speaker is fake.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan asked why the Lahore High Court was not approached.
The Chief Justice said that no order can be issued regarding the Punjab Assembly in haste. There are ideal conditions in Punjab to approach the people. The conduct of the members of the National Assembly is very high. Will we hear or the High Court.
The Chief Justice said that every effort has been made to ensure that the day-to-day work is not affected.
Read also: No-confidence motion against PM presented in National Assembly
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the case till 9.30 am tomorrow.
What happened before that?
Raza Rabbani of PPP and Makhdoom Ali Khan of PML-N had completed their arguments in the hearing held on April 5.
Earlier in the April 4 hearing, the apex court had rejected the PPP's request for a full court bench to hear the case.
Earlier in the first hearing, the apex court had 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 conditional on the final decision of the apex court.
It may be recalled that in the National Assembly session chaired by Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri on April 3, Fawad Chaudhry had termed the no-confidence motion tabled by the opposition as an attempt to change the government in Pakistan from abroad.
Justifying Fawad Chaudhry objection, the Deputy Speaker had dismissed the no-confidence motion under Article 5 of the Constitution as unconstitutional, after which the proceedings of the House were adjourned indefinitely.
Immediately after this development, Prime Minister Imran Khan announced to send a proposal to President Arif Alvi to dissolve the Assembly, which was approved by the President, and within hours of this approval, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Speaker. I took suo motu notice of the uncertain constitutional and political situation arising in the country.
No comments
Thanks