| Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
A larger bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Bandial and comprised of Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, resumed hearing on the case filed by the joint Opposition a day earlier, when the deputy speaker of the National Assembly barred parliamentarians from voting on the no-trust motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan, calling it “unconstitutional.” As a result, the CJP had taken notice of the matter on his own initiative.
In his arguments, PTI’s counsel, Babar Awan, stated that he wished to refer to a Supreme Court judgement dated March 21, 2022. “The Attorney General had informed the court that no Assembly member would be barred from being there.” In this aspect, the Supreme Court paid no attention to the PTI’s friends.
According to Babar Awan, the presidential reference should be heard with the current suo motu notice. “Record my request, Imran Khan has given me permission to say before the court that we are ready to have elections.” When Justice Bandial heard that, he cautioned him, “don’t talk about politics in front of the judges.”
In a written judgement, Justice Bandial stated that his colleagues approached him and expressed concern about the country’s constitutional problems.
During the hearing, Farooq H Naek, counsel for the PPP, pointed to Article 54(3), stating that the National Assembly session was meant to be summoned within 14 days of a motion being presented.
“The no-trust motion was filed on March 8, 2022, and the assembly session was summoned on March 25 rather than March 21.” “After Fateha, the NA deputy speaker adjourned the session until March 28,” Naek said.
He noted that the speaker did not cite any rationale for not holding the meeting until March 20 after the motion was submitted.
At this point, Justice Mandokhel protested, claiming that Naek’s case is related to the speaker’s actions during the NA session on Sunday.
“Tell [me] whether the speaker was correct or incorrect,” the judge questioned Naek.
“Assume there are 100 members in the assembly, and 50 are opposed to it and just 25 favour it. “Wouldn’t the motion be thrown out if the majority opposed it?” Justice Akhtar enquired.
According to Naek, if the majority believes the motion cannot be presented, it will not be offered. He did, however, emphasise that it is the House, not the speaker, who enables the motion to be introduced.
If the administration has a majority in the NA and votes against the motion, no motion will ever be moved, according to Justice Akhtar. “Does the speaker have the authority to prevent the motion from being moved?” “What if the speaker doesn’t allow motion?” he wondered.
‘No-trust move is null and void until leave is granted.’ Meanwhile, Justice Ahsan stated that the “no-confidence motion is not genuine unless the speaker grants leave.” In response to these remarks, Naek claimed that the speaker had allowed the resolution of the no-trust motion to be presented.
CJP Bandial enquired as to what it meant to grant leave and who had the authority to deliver the resolution – the speaker or the House. In response, Naek stated that the House enables the resolution to be presented instead of the speaker.
“Does the speaker have the jurisdiction to prohibit the presentation of the resolution, and what happens if the speaker refuses to allow it?” Justice Akhtar inquired. He went on to say that the speaker could reject the resolution during the Assembly’s sessions.
Meanwhile, CJP Bandial questioned how, since April 3 was not set aside for a debate on the no-confidence motion, “a date for direct vote could be determined without holding a debate on the no-trust motion?”
According to the norms of the National Assembly, a three-day debate on the matter is required before voting.
At this point, Naek informed the court that, despite PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-request, Zardari’s the speaker refused to allow debate on the motion. ‘Not permitting debate is a procedural flaw.’
“Not permitting debate is a procedural flaw,” Justice Ahsan said in response to Naek’s comment. Naek stated that there was not a procedural flaw. When the court inquired if it constituted constitutional tampering, Naek replied in the yes.
Naek contended that the speaker lacked the authority to declare the no-confidence resolution invalid.
During the discussion of Sunday’s session, the court asked which rule the speaker cited when calling the motion off. Naek informed the court that the speaker issued judgements in accordance with Rule 28.
Under the norm indicated by Naek, only the speaker can give and take back the ruling, according to Justice Akhtar. “The speaker can rule in the House or in his office,” the judge explained.
He went on to say that while the speaker delegated authority to the deputy speaker in writing, the latter could only preside over Assembly meetings. During the hearing, CJP Bandial asked Naek to argue why the deputy speaker’s decision is unconstitutional.
The Chief Justice questioned how the speaker could rule on whether the motion was valid or not. “Does the speaker lack the authority to reject the no-confidence motion?” he questioned.
“Even if the speaker invokes Article 5 of the Constitution, the no-confidence resolution cannot be rejected,” ruled the CJP.
The CJP then inquired as to the extent to which the speaker is afforded constitutional protection under Article 69. “We want to make a decision before you,” he explained.
Naek stated that the president has designated Imran Khan as caretaker prime minister till the creation of the new caretaker administration, to which the Chief Justice responded that a decision must be made prior to the formation of the caretaker government.
Naek asked the court to adjourn the case and reserve the judgement until today. However, the CJP stated that the court must also hear from additional respondents. Following that, the court delayed the hearing to 12 p.m. tomorrow.
